Baptisms in rivers located in public parks?

[JMHACLJ at aol.com]

In a message dated 5/25/2004 1:25:54 PM Eastern Daylight Time, 
VOLOKH at law.ucla.edu writes:
I agree with Tom on point 2, but I wonder about point 1.  The public
baptism, as I understand it, was public precisely because it was
intended to convey a message to the public ("we're not ashamed of being
Christian").  The baptism is a group ceremony partly because it is
intended to convey a message to the congregation (perhaps "this is what
we believe in, and this person is joining us").  The conduct portion of
the ceremony -- being dunked in the water -- isn't being engaged in
because of any secular noncommunicative effects of the behavior.  People
aren't trying to cool off, or exercise their muscles, or enjoy the
feeling of water on their skin, or all the other reasons people go into
the water.
Several years ago we represented Emily and Timothy Hsu in their fairly 
successful challenge to denial of accommodations for their Christian Student 
Fellowship in the high school operated by the Roslyn Unified School District on Long 
Island.  See Hsu v. Roslyn Unified School District, 85 F.3d 839 (2nd Cir. 
1996).  The principal disputed issue was whether the club could require that 
eligibility for office in the Fellowship was limited to those person, who, by 
baptism or otherwise, have made a public proclamation of their faith in Jesus 
Christ.  (FYI, the Second Circuit "split the baby," holding that the profession 
requirement was a bona fide qualification for those offices that were possessed 
of spiritual dimensions and responsibilities, such as the President and 
Vice-President, who had worship and teaching duties, but not as to the secretary and 
the treasurer.)

Unlike many religious acts of devotion, baptism plainly has, in its 
traditional and widest held sense, an expressive component that is significant and 
substantial.  

Jim Henderson
Senior Counsel
ACLJ
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ucla.edu/pipermail/religionlaw/attachments/20040525/382f6a4b/attachment.html