NationStates Jolt Archive

Public baptism sparks controversy

Wednesday, June 2, 2004 Posted: 8:31 AM EDT (1231 GMT)

Pastor Todd Pyle baptizes Mark Maynard in the Rappahannock River at Falmouth Beach in Virginia.

RICHMOND, Virginia (AP) -- The Rev. Todd Pyle thought it was the perfect spot to baptize 12 new members of his church. The river was calm and shallow, and there was a shaded area offshore for people to stand.

"It was a very serene place," he said. "It was special."

But officials at the Falmouth Waterfront Park, a public park just outside Fredericksburg, weren't pleased. They tried to break up the ceremony, claiming it might be offensive to nearby swimmers or other people using the park. Pyle was able to finish the baptism, but then he was asked to leave.

The incident has outraged free-speech advocates.

"These people are being discriminated against because of the content of their speech," said the Rev. Patrick Mahoney, who heads the Christian Defense Coalition. "It's one of the most egregious violations of the First Amendment I have ever seen."

Mahoney's group has threatened to file a lawsuit if the park refuses to allow future gatherings by religious groups, something for which the park admits it has no written policy.

Pyle said he chose to hold an outdoor baptism, still common in parts of the South, because his Cornerstone Baptist Church in Stafford lacks an indoor baptismal pool. He said few people seemed to notice the small congregation during the 30-minute ceremony May 23.

But park officials said religious groups seeking to perform a service in the park still need to apply for a permit or else gather under a shelter or inside.

"We don't want to tread on anybody's First Amendment or constitutional rights," said Brian Robinson, director of the Fredericksburg-Stafford Park Authority. "What we try to discourage is anything not formally permitted that just sort of occurs spontaneously."

John Whitehead, director of The Rutherford Institute, a Charlottesville, Virginia-based civil liberties organization, said that's a clear violation of the church members' constitutional rights.

"Could a church have a picnic in the park and sing hymns? Of course they could," he said. "Parks have been forums since time immemorial to do these types of things."

The American Civil Liberties Union of Virginia also said in a statement: "If the park rules allow people to wade and swim in the river, then they must allow baptisms in the river."

Robinson said the park's board has formed a special committee to examine its policy and to put it in writing. If the church applies for the proper permit, he said it's "certainly possible" they would be allowed to use the river for another baptism.

Meanwhile, Pyle said he will find another place to hold outdoor baptisms.

"We're disappointed," he said. "Every single person that was baptized thanked me afterward, saying [the river] made their experience more meaningful."

STOP CREATING THREADS! You're only making my job harder!


*puffs on, still streaking*

STOP CREATING THREADS! You're only making my job harder!


*puffs on, still streaking*
It's better if you walk through the thread and not run.
:D

But officials at the Falmouth Waterfront Park, a public park just outside Fredericksburg, weren't pleased. They tried to break up the ceremony, claiming it might be offensive to nearby swimmers or other people using the park.

I'm curious. Did they ask the swimmers if they were offended? Did any of them come up and complain? I bet they didn't.

That is, quite simply, an attack on the park system.

Parks are not churches, or churches parks.

Would it be o.k. for me to have a picnic in a church?

Or maybe do a few laps in a baptismal pool of some church that had one?

Seems like a sick publicity stunt by the church, hoping to raise funds.

The parks are for the public, the churches are for their members.

What's wrong with that?

I don't really see a problem with it, although the park has the right to move them along surely?

If they had simply called ahead , or contacted the County Parks and Rec office they would have had no trouble.

This was a publicity stunt pulled by this church to attack them based on their "violation" of the first amendment rights.

That is, quite simply, an attack on the park system.

Parks are not churches, or churches parks.

Would it be o.k. for me to have a picnic in a church?

Or maybe do a few laps in a baptismal pool of some church that had one?

Seems like a sick publicity stunt by the church, hoping to raise funds.

The parks are for the public, the churches are for their members.

What's wrong with that?

Parks are not churches?...It's a surprise to my people..we celebrate our faith and culture in parks during our pow-wows

That is, quite simply, an attack on the park system.

Parks are not churches, or churches parks.

Would it be o.k. for me to have a picnic in a church?

Or maybe do a few laps in a baptismal pool of some church that had one?

Seems like a sick publicity stunt by the church, hoping to raise funds.

The parks are for the public, the churches are for their members.

What's wrong with that?

Parks are not churches?...It's a surprise to my people..we celebrate our faith and culture in parks during our pow-wows

That is, quite simply, an attack on the park system.

Parks are not churches, or churches parks.

Would it be o.k. for me to have a picnic in a church?

Or maybe do a few laps in a baptismal pool of some church that had one?

Seems like a sick publicity stunt by the church, hoping to raise funds.

The parks are for the public, the churches are for their members.

What's wrong with that?

Parks are not churches?...It's a surprise to my people..we celebrate our faith and culture in parks during our pow-wows

Question for ya Salishe..

Do you usually contact the Parks and Rec office, or is it on a Reservation, and you dont have to?

That is, quite simply, an attack on the park system.

Parks are not churches, or churches parks.

Would it be o.k. for me to have a picnic in a church?

Or maybe do a few laps in a baptismal pool of some church that had one?

Seems like a sick publicity stunt by the church, hoping to raise funds.

The parks are for the public, the churches are for their members.

What's wrong with that?

Parks are not churches?...It's a surprise to my people..we celebrate our faith and culture in parks during our pow-wows

Question for ya Salishe..

Do you usually contact the Parks and Rec office, or is it on a Reservation, and you dont have to?

Well..it's kinda unusual..for example..my reservation..the Qualla Reservation straddles Tennessee/North Carolina which also happens to encompass Cherokee National Forest and it's accompanying park...Now, we do have to notify the Park Rangers if we are going to be doing any burning of ceremonial fires to ensure we follow fire safety rules, but otherwise no we do what we please because it's our lands...same thing with the Lakota in the Black Hills...or the Mohawk in NY..it's a symbiosis, the US Federal government guarantees in perpetuity the land as a national treasure but at the same time doesn't infringe on our culture..

No doubt the Christians assumed there'd be no complaints, and they were right, I've not seen one complaint regarding their practice...it's not like they were forcing people to convert now?

That is, quite simply, an attack on the park system.

Parks are not churches, or churches parks.

Would it be o.k. for me to have a picnic in a church?

Or maybe do a few laps in a baptismal pool of some church that had one?

Seems like a sick publicity stunt by the church, hoping to raise funds.

The parks are for the public, the churches are for their members.

What's wrong with that?

The difference being that parks are indeed for the public use and churches are private areas. All the public are welcome to use park facilities and, if the park in question allowed swimming, it is a clear attack on religion to claim they can not use it for baptismal ceremonies. If you went into a church, however, and set up a picnic then you are incorrectly using a private facility and can be asked to leave.

It's not a "sick publicity stunt." The Baptist movement has a long history of river baptismals and this is as clear an attack on religious freedom as when the state prosecutor of New York state tried to sue the Unitarian ministers for performing same sex weddings.

That is, quite simply, an attack on the park system.

Parks are not churches, or churches parks.

Would it be o.k. for me to have a picnic in a church?

Or maybe do a few laps in a baptismal pool of some church that had one?

Seems like a sick publicity stunt by the church, hoping to raise funds.

The parks are for the public, the churches are for their members.

What's wrong with that?

The difference being that parks are indeed for the public use and churches are private areas. All the public are welcome to use park facilities and, if the park in question allowed swimming, it is a clear attack on religion to claim they can not use it for baptismal ceremonies. If you went into a church, however, and set up a picnic then you are incorrectly using a private facility and can be asked to leave.

It's not a "sick publicity stunt." The Baptist movement has a long history of river baptismals and this is as clear an attack on religious freedom as when the state prosecutor of New York state tried to sue the Unitarian ministers for performing same sex weddings.

Berk is correct in his assertion regarding the Baptist Church...they typically "dunk" a person in their baptism, unlike the Catholic Church which "sprinkles" baptismal water...and as much of the Southeast is heavily crisscrossed by rivers, streams, and creeks, river baptism has occured for well over 2 centuries in the US.

That is, quite simply, an attack on the park system.

Parks are not churches, or churches parks.

Would it be o.k. for me to have a picnic in a church?

Or maybe do a few laps in a baptismal pool of some church that had one?

Seems like a sick publicity stunt by the church, hoping to raise funds.

The parks are for the public, the churches are for their members.

What's wrong with that?

The difference being that parks are indeed for the public use and churches are private areas. All the public are welcome to use park facilities and, if the park in question allowed swimming, it is a clear attack on religion to claim they can not use it for baptismal ceremonies. If you went into a church, however, and set up a picnic then you are incorrectly using a private facility and can be asked to leave.

It's not a "sick publicity stunt." The Baptist movement has a long history of river baptismals and this is as clear an attack on religious freedom as when the state prosecutor of New York state tried to sue the Unitarian ministers for performing same sex weddings.

Berk is correct in his assertion regarding the Baptist Church...they typically "dunk" a person in their baptism, unlike the Catholic Church which "sprinkles" baptismal water...and as much of the Southeast is heavily crisscrossed by rivers, streams, and creeks, river baptism has occured for well over 2 centuries in the US.

This is not a question of free speech...its a question of denying people their right to worship.

I think this is very wrong by the park...unless its a park funded out of the public purse....then I can see an issue but really this is what we call in the US case of Little Hitler Syndrome....

Unless a member of the public complained the holy rollers should have been allowed their ceremony....and even then they should have been allowed to finish their ceremony....which they were allowed to anyway....

So really this is a non story as the holy rollers completed their ceremony and the park made noises as they had no 'policy'....

Its a combo of attention whoring and bleating about a non issue.

um, they didn't apply for the requisite permit. the park was right to tell them to leave. their free speech doesn't mean they get to use public land however they chose, they still have to follow the same rules as everyone else.

you know, i really try to find opportunities to defend the free speech of religious groups, to prove that i do support free speech for everyone. however, everytime a case comes to my attention that claims to be just such a situation, it turns out that the religious folks were just plain out of line, or were clearly expecting special treatment. quite off-putting, if i do say so.

um, they didn't apply for the requisite permit. the park was right to tell them to leave. their free speech doesn't mean they get to use public land however they chose, they still have to follow the same rules as everyone else.

you know, i really try to find opportunities to defend the free speech of religious groups, to prove that i do support free speech for everyone. however, everytime a case comes to my attention that claims to be just such a situation, it turns out that the religious folks were just plain out of line, or were clearly expecting special treatment. quite off-putting, if i do say so.

Wait a sec..it's a public place...do you mean I can jump around in the water, dive, do a cannonball...bu a Baptist minister just can't say a prayer over a man's head as he gets dunked?

um, they didn't apply for the requisite permit. the park was right to tell them to leave. their free speech doesn't mean they get to use public land however they chose, they still have to follow the same rules as everyone else.

you know, i really try to find opportunities to defend the free speech of religious groups, to prove that i do support free speech for everyone. however, everytime a case comes to my attention that claims to be just such a situation, it turns out that the religious folks were just plain out of line, or were clearly expecting special treatment. quite off-putting, if i do say so.

Wait a sec..it's a public place...do you mean I can jump around in the water, dive, do a cannonball...bu a Baptist minister just can't say a prayer over a man's head as he gets dunked?

groups or organizations that wish to use public grounds for various functions must apply for permits to do so. i've had to do that for school groups, volunteer organizations, and birthday parties. true, some parks don't hold people to that rule, and some let you slide even if you have a large group taking up a lot of space (like large family picnics or something) but the fact remains that it IS a rule, and the park has the right to enforce it.

at least, that's how it works in the two cities i have lived in for extended periods of time.

edit: and just so people know, i think that in this case the park probably should have just let it slide, and they were being a bit tichy about the rules. but the free speech of the people in question was NOT stopped, since (from what i understand) the park was totally within the rules to object the way they did.

um, they didn't apply for the requisite permit. the park was right to tell them to leave. their free speech doesn't mean they get to use public land however they chose, they still have to follow the same rules as everyone else.

you know, i really try to find opportunities to defend the free speech of religious groups, to prove that i do support free speech for everyone. however, everytime a case comes to my attention that claims to be just such a situation, it turns out that the religious folks were just plain out of line, or were clearly expecting special treatment. quite off-putting, if i do say so.

Wait a sec..it's a public place...do you mean I can jump around in the water, dive, do a cannonball...bu a Baptist minister just can't say a prayer over a man's head as he gets dunked?

I gotta agree with you....

um, they didn't apply for the requisite permit. the park was right to tell them to leave. their free speech doesn't mean they get to use public land however they chose, they still have to follow the same rules as everyone else.

you know, i really try to find opportunities to defend the free speech of religious groups, to prove that i do support free speech for everyone. however, everytime a case comes to my attention that claims to be just such a situation, it turns out that the religious folks were just plain out of line, or were clearly expecting special treatment. quite off-putting, if i do say so.

What permit? There is no permit in Richmond, VA, to perform a river baptismal because the park is on public land and open to free use by all. That's as ridiculous as saying a family would have to get a permit to have a picnic. They might have to make a reservation if they wanted a shelter, but they're more than welcome to find a table or a patch of grass or even an unoccupied shelter.

The ACLU put it very succinctly, if the park allows swimming then there is no reason to ban river baptismals since, in essence, it's the same thing. No one was expecting special treatment, they were expecting equal treatment and had their civil rights abridged by an over zealous Parks and Rec department.

How is this extreme? It's not as if they were running around baptising strangers or people who disagreed with them. This is a clear case of abridgement of freedom of speech, freedom to congregate, freedom of religion and blatant discrimination.

Fluctuations-in-the-space-time-continium forbid that people actually SEE a Church ceramony.
I could see movin them off if they were trying to say, sacrifice a cow and hurling its organs at the random passer by, but what they were doing basicaly fell under 'swimming while being Babtist'...

This issue is all a lot of talk about nothing. The religious freedoms of everyone else in the park was in no way violated by that church's ceremony. If they were handing out tracts and trying to convert people, then that might be an issue. But nothing of the sort happened so the people who are up in arms about it should really get a life.

groups or organizations that wish to use public grounds for various functions must apply for permits to do so. i've had to do that for school groups, volunteer organizations, and birthday parties. true, some parks don't hold people to that rule, and some let you slide even if you have a large group taking up a lot of space (like large family picnics or something) but the fact remains that it IS a rule, and the park has the right to enforce it.

at least, that's how it works in the two cities i have lived in for extended periods of time.

edit: and just so people know, i think that in this case the park probably should have just let it slide, and they were being a bit tichy about the rules. but the free speech of the people in question was NOT stopped, since (from what i understand) the park was totally within the rules to object the way they did.

Show me the permit application they would have had to fill out. I've looked and it's not there. Even if it is, the fact that the parks department made the decision to eject THIS particular group and not, as you said, let it slide is highly questionable.

Show me the permit application they would have had to fill out. I've looked and it's not there. Even if it is, the fact that the parks department made the decision to eject THIS particular group and not, as you said, let it slide is highly questionable.

where have you looked? the best thing to do is to just pop into your city hall and tell them that you are interested in holding a private function in a public park, and they will point you in the right direction. if you're looking online then you probably won't find it, since only the biggest city halls have all their forms and stuff online. it's not hard, and they certainly have been nice to me whenever i've done it. the forms and procedure can be different in different towns, but it's always been pretty simple for me. if the church was simply too lazy to do that then i think it was generous of the park to even let them finish their ceremony before booting them.

i don't think the park's decision is questionable at all. i know i would be deeply offended if i saw a public park being used for such a ceremony (since it is an affront to my personal beliefs) and i know a lot of other people who would feel the same. the park thought (rightly) that many citizens would be bothered by what the minister was doing, and therefore asked him to leave...the times they let you slide are the times when nobody could reasonably claim to be bothered, like if you just have a slightly larger number of people on a picnic ground, doing the same thing everybody else is doing on the picnic ground.

just think of it this way: if a pagan group were conducting a ritual in the park, they would have been booted, too. private religious ceremonies belong in places of worship, not public parks, and if the minister really thought it would be okay then he should have gone through the propper channels. he didn't, and he got booted. i don't see what the problem is.

Show me the permit application they would have had to fill out. I've looked and it's not there. Even if it is, the fact that the parks department made the decision to eject THIS particular group and not, as you said, let it slide is highly questionable.

where have you looked? the best thing to do is to just pop into your city hall and tell them that you are interested in holding a private function in a public park, and they will point you in the right direction. if you're looking online then you probably won't find it, since only the biggest city halls have all their forms and stuff online. it's not hard, and they certainly have been nice to me whenever i've done it. the forms and procedure can be different in different towns, but it's always been pretty simple for me. if the church was simply too lazy to do that then i think it was generous of the park to even let them finish their ceremony before booting them.

i don't think the park's decision is questionable at all. i know i would be deeply offended if i saw a public park being used for such a ceremony (since it is an affront to my personal beliefs) and i know a lot of other people who would feel the same. the park thought (rightly) that many citizens would be bothered by what the minister was doing, and therefore asked him to leave...the times they let you slide are the times when nobody could reasonably claim to be bothered, like if you just have a slightly larger number of people on a picnic ground, doing the same thing everybody else is doing on the picnic ground.

just think of it this way: if a pagan group were conducting a ritual in the park, they would have been booted, too. private religious ceremonies belong in places of worship, not public parks, and if the minister really thought it would be okay then he should have gone through the propper channels. he didn't, and he got booted. i don't see what the problem is.

ummmm you know the wolrd might be a better place if people were able to be less offended and be more accepting...

*!!!!! ohmygod I cannot beleive I said that!!!!*

Show me the permit application they would have had to fill out. I've looked and it's not there. Even if it is, the fact that the parks department made the decision to eject THIS particular group and not, as you said, let it slide is highly questionable.

where have you looked? the best thing to do is to just pop into your city hall and tell them that you are interested in holding a private function in a public park, and they will point you in the right direction. if you're looking online then you probably won't find it, since only the biggest city halls have all their forms and stuff online. it's not hard, and they certainly have been nice to me whenever i've done it. the forms and procedure can be different in different towns, but it's always been pretty simple for me. if the church was simply too lazy to do that then i think it was generous of the park to even let them finish their ceremony before booting them.

i don't think the park's decision is questionable at all. i know i would be deeply offended if i saw a public park being used for such a ceremony (since it is an affront to my personal beliefs) and i know a lot of other people who would feel the same. the park thought (rightly) that many citizens would be bothered by what the minister was doing, and therefore asked him to leave...the times they let you slide are the times when nobody could reasonably claim to be bothered, like if you just have a slightly larger number of people on a picnic ground, doing the same thing everybody else is doing on the picnic ground.

just think of it this way: if a pagan group were conducting a ritual in the park, they would have been booted, too. private religious ceremonies belong in places of worship, not public parks, and if the minister really thought it would be okay then he should have gone through the propper channels. he didn't, and he got booted. i don't see what the problem is.

I looked on the Richmond City Hall website. I couldn't find a permit. Perhaps I missed it. Here's the link: [url]http://www.ci.richmond.va.us/index.asp[/ul]

The point is, this was an over-zelous prosecution of people exercising their rights for free assembly and use of public property. There was no reason for them to try and break up the ceremony when a much better way of handling the situation would have been to have had a word with the minister afterwards and say that the next time they will need a permit and this is the number of the permit they'll need. The parks department itself has as good as admitted they don't have a policy in place because they are only now convening to write something down.

I don't like fat people, while we're banning certain kinds of people from public parks, let's ban fat people too.

I don't care either way. Yes they can practice religion in a park, yes they can kick you off if you don't ask first.

Sorry if this is a double post, nothing seems to be getting through

So...are we going to kick of any Muslim who tries to do his evening prayer anywhere but his local Mosque or home?

That is, quite simply, an attack on the park system.

Parks are not churches, or churches parks.

Would it be o.k. for me to have a picnic in a church?

Or maybe do a few laps in a baptismal pool of some church that had one?

Seems like a sick publicity stunt by the church, hoping to raise funds.

The parks are for the public, the churches are for their members.

What's wrong with that?

Parks have been used for baptisms for hundreds of years with no permits required. It's the beginning of the end for religious liberty. All hail the militant secular state.

If they had simply called ahead , or contacted the County Parks and Rec office they would have had no trouble.

This was a publicity stunt pulled by this church to attack them based on their "violation" of the first amendment rights.

You had better call ahead before you swim or wade then. This is no less a public activity than your recreation.

um, they didn't apply for the requisite permit. the park was right to tell them to leave. their free speech doesn't mean they get to use public land however they chose, they still have to follow the same rules as everyone else.

you know, i really try to find opportunities to defend the free speech of religious groups, to prove that i do support free speech for everyone. however, everytime a case comes to my attention that claims to be just such a situation, it turns out that the religious folks were just plain out of line, or were clearly expecting special treatment. quite off-putting, if i do say so.

Yes they DO have the right to use public land in such a safe non-threatening way, "however they choose". It is a public use. To deny it is tyo restrict liberty. You are promoting totalitarianism lout of your hatred for people of faith.

Where's Raysia? I want him to see that the ACLU isn't anti-Christian. Sad to say, I read about this yesterday on another site, and that's the first thing I thought of--Raysia's constant attacking of the ACLU as anti-christian.

I need to get out more. :lol:

um, they didn't apply for the requisite permit. the park was right to tell them to leave. their free speech doesn't mean they get to use public land however they chose, they still have to follow the same rules as everyone else.

you know, i really try to find opportunities to defend the free speech of religious groups, to prove that i do support free speech for everyone. however, everytime a case comes to my attention that claims to be just such a situation, it turns out that the religious folks were just plain out of line, or were clearly expecting special treatment. quite off-putting, if i do say so.

Wait a sec..it's a public place...do you mean I can jump around in the water, dive, do a cannonball...bu a Baptist minister just can't say a prayer over a man's head as he gets dunked?

groups or organizations that wish to use public grounds for various functions must apply for permits to do so. i've had to do that for school groups, volunteer organizations, and birthday parties. true, some parks don't hold people to that rule, and some let you slide even if you have a large group taking up a lot of space (like large family picnics or something) but the fact remains that it IS a rule, and the park has the right to enforce it.

at least, that's how it works in the two cities i have lived in for extended periods of time.

edit: and just so people know, i think that in this case the park probably should have just let it slide, and they were being a bit tichy about the rules. but the free speech of the people in question was NOT stopped, since (from what i understand) the park was totally within the rules to object the way they did.

And I have led school and volunteer groups at beach outings and never heard of permits required nor have I seen written regulations requiring any.

Take your police state away and leave me alone.

I don't care either way. Yes they can practice religion in a park, yes they can kick you off if you don't ask first.

Sorry if this is a double post, nothing seems to be getting through

No they CANNOT kick you off if you don't ask first, and if they try, let me know and I'll sue their a$$ under Civil Rights section 1983 for civil damages.

I don't care either way. Yes they can practice religion in a park, yes they can kick you off if you don't ask first.

Sorry if this is a double post, nothing seems to be getting through

No they CANNOT kick you our if you don't ask first. If they try, let me know and I'll sue their a$$ for civil damages unnder Civil Rights section 1983.

Ok this is how it really works.
If you are a private group, you are normally required to get a permit to use a park for, say birthday parties. However in most cases this is voluntary.
The parks are public property and no one can deny any group the use of them unless the use would threaten the safety of other useing the park or the environment. The permit requirement is not even enforced in most communities because they are often set up rich elitists.
Now I have been on both sides. And even when permits are enforced, religious groups are always given exemptions. The same with political groups cause their activities are specially protected by the first amendment. This is also supported by several US Supreme Court rulings.
Also, as noted earlier, in order to ban baptisms, you have to ban all swimming. In order to ban religious groups having potlucks or prayer meetings in the park, you have to ban all other activities also. This case was clearly a violation of the rights:
to free speech
to religious freedom
and a denial of the right to equal protection under the law.
This group would have a very strong case for suing the park department for violation of civil and political rights.

This is just Political Correctness in overdrive.

There is no reason why they could not use the park. Especially if they kept to themselves.

At most if there were rules about permits, then they could be "lectured" about getting them. Most ministers would see a permit as a non-issue.

However, I see there is no permit rule so somebody was being overly concerned about a non-issue.

I am surprised the conservatives aren't expressing shock that the ACLU is defending a Relgious arguement. :wink:

That is, quite simply, an attack on the park system.

Parks are not churches, or churches parks.

Would it be o.k. for me to have a picnic in a church?

Or maybe do a few laps in a baptismal pool of some church that had one?

Seems like a sick publicity stunt by the church, hoping to raise funds.

The parks are for the public, the churches are for their members.

What's wrong with that?

Parks are public places (Churchs private) in which any gathering of people may do anything they wish so long as it is not strictly prohibited by the park authority. The church-goers wishing to be baptised in the river in the park were as much within their rights as anyone else in the park. The article does not make it entirely clear what the motivation of the park authority in removing the Pastor and his congregation because the explanation seems simply to be an attempt to create a reason when the conflict arose. Assuming the park authority is innocent of any religious intolerance or any attempt to intentionally restrict the freedom of speech and assembly in a public place of the Church then this incident should serve merely as a clarification for the future. If there was malice intended in removing the Church from the park, then it becomes a fairly simple case of discrimination on religious grounds, or an unreasonable removal (since people can be removed from public parks if they are truly being disruptive).