|
In a message dated 5/25/2004 1:38:32 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Nor do I think it's plausible to say (at least I hope it's not plausible to say) that the city is "singling out" religious use of the river because of the religious viewpoint involved. Presumably, the city is prohibiting baptism because of its decidedly non-expressive elements, viz., that it involves one person submersing another (often an infant) in water, and the government is completely indifferent to any "viewpoint" that the conduct might incidentally express. Well, it wants to be noted that these are Baptists. The resort to infant baptism among them is beyond unlikely. Rejection of infant baptism is a distinctive of the sect going way back to the founders of the Mennonite sect, Menno Simons, and beyond that to the founders of Anabaptism (so called for their public practice of re-baptizing each other as adults).
More to the point in the text of the article, the quotation attributed to the park official makes two key points. First, swimming is discouraged. Second, no religious activities or services are allowed.
Swimming is not prohibited, it is discouraged. Other uses of the Rappahanock are discouraged, but not prohibited. It was the baptisms that the Park official prohibited. The Park official is, in essence, saying, we won't stop you from swimming, but everyone will know that we told you that you shouldn't; but we will directly and abruptly stop you from baptizing. What possible justification exists for that distinction?
Non-religious activities and events are permitted in the park and the park is promoted as a place for such activities and events. (Do a search on the internet for Falmouth Waterfront Park to confirm this fact.) It is the religious nature of the activity that brought it to the attention of the Park official and led to his statement that such activities are prohibited. We have successfully challenged such targetted restrictions on religious activities, even in locations that are not traditional public fora. See Bynum v. U.S. Capitol Police Bd., 93F.Supp.2d50 (DDC 2000).
Jim Henderson
Senior Counsel
ACLJ
|
_______________________________________________ To post, send message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
