Park Authority Adopts Non-Discrimination Policy; Will Allow Baptisms and Other Religious Activities in Riverside Park

ACLU sought policy change after ministers were told not to use park for baptisms

Following two weeks of controversy and threats of lawsuits from civil liberties groups, the Stafford-Fredericksburg Park Authority last night adopted a policy allowing religious activities in its public parks.

The debate over religion in the Falmouth Riverside Park in Stafford County surfaced on Sunday, May 23, when park manager Brian Robinson told Rev. Todd Pyle of Cornerstone Baptist Church that baptisms and other religious activities were not allowed in the park. Pyle had just performed a series of baptisms in the Rappahannock River, which borders the park.

The ACLU of Virginia immediately informed Pyle that he had a constitutional right to conduct baptisms in the park and threatened to challenge in federal court the Park Authority’s ban on religious activities. The ACLU also discovered that the Park Authority did not have written rules governing use of the park.

Pyle decided not to contest the ban, but Rev. John H. Reid of the New Generation Evangelical Episcopal Church soon announced plans to defy park officials by performing a baptism in the park on Sunday, June 6. The ACLU again acted, offering assistance to Reid and informing park officials that they must allow the baptisms to proceed.

“We had a productive conversation with the park manager last week, who assured us that the he would not interfere with religious activities in the park and that he would be seeking written rules to that effect from the Park Authority,” said ACLU of Virginia executive director Kent Willis. “We followed that conversation with a letter to Park Authority members in which we advised them to adopt rules prohibiting park officials from blocking activities based on their religious content.”

“This kind of confusion over religious expression in public places is not uncommon,” added Willis. “Government officials often seem not to understand that private religious expression is protected in public forums. Afraid of violating separation of church and state by permitting religious activities, they end up obstructing freedom of religion.”

“The rules are really very simple,” added Willis. “Government officials merely need to make sure that religious activities have the same rights as any other activities in a public park. If swimming is allowed, then baptisms must be allowed. If groups can gather for sports or cultural activities, then groups can gather for religious ceremonies.”

A copy of the ACLU’s letter to the Fredericksburg-Stafford Park Authority follows.

Contact: Kent Willis, Executive Director, ACLU of Virginia, 804-644-8022  

ACLU of Virginia
Six North Sixth Street, Suite 400
Richmond, Virginia 23219

June 9, 2004

Fredericksburg-Stafford Park Authority
P.O. Box 433
Fredericksburg, Virginia 22404

Re: Written Rules for Use of Public Parks

Inconsistent statements made by public officials in recent weeks have created considerable confusion about the permissibility of religious ceremonies in Falmouth Waterside Park. If proper written rules regarding use of the park had been in place during this time, it is unlikely that the controversy over baptisms in the river would have developed so disproportionately.

I am therefore writing to recommend the adoption of clear and consistent rules for the use of the park that will guarantee equal access for all expressive activities, whether they be religious, cultural, political, athletic or simply social.

As you consider adopting written rules, however, the ACLU of Virginia asks that you resist the temptation to be any more restrictive than absolutely necessary. The freedom to engage in individual and group activities in parks is an essential part of our nation’s public forum tradition, and should not be curtailed because of missteps made by public officials.

Because the size and design of public parks vary widely, so do the rules governing their use. Nonetheless, there are general principles that should guide park officials as they produce rules for the use of any public park.

Freedom of Expression

The right to express different viewpoints is protected in public parks in the same way that it is protected on sidewalks and other public forums. Park officials should make it clear that there will be no restrictions on expressive activities, including political and religions activities, that do not otherwise conflict with park rules.

While everyone has a right to the peaceable use of public parks, government officials should not attempt to protect people from exposure to viewpoints they may find undesirable. A price we pay for freedom in this country is that we allow all views to be expressed in public forums, even those with which we may vehemently disagree.

The above does not apply to harassment or intimidation, and park officials should be free to apply existing state and local laws as appropriate to such situations.

Permits Should Be Required Only When Necessary

Park rules should start with the presumption that parks are open and available to the public for individual and group activities. Permits should be required only when patrons seek exclusive use of specific facilities or portions of the park, or the size of the group desiring to use the park for an organized activity threatens the health and safety of park patrons.

Based on a limited survey, most parks in Virginia do not have a specified numerical threshold triggering a permit requirement. In Richmond, for example, there does not appear to be numerical threshold, but a permit must be obtained for activities that include “amplified sound, sales of food, beverage or merchandise or any activity which is publicly advertised.” Fairfax County, on the other hand, requires a permit for all organized groups of more than 75.

Whatever the approach, the permit process must not unreasonably restrict access to the park by groups involved in organized activities, and the rules should leave little discretionary power to the public officials authorized to issue or deny permits.

Due Process Requirement

Rules for requesting a permit should include deadlines for submission of applications, obligatory time frames for the park officials to respond to applications, and the right to appeal the decision of park officials should the permit be denied.

There should also be an emergency clause that allows issuance of permits for demonstrations and other activities that are time sensitive and which could not have reasonably been anticipated in advance of the deadline for submission of applications.

I thank you for your attention. If the ACLU of Virginia can be of assistance to you on this matter, please feel free to contact me at the number above or acluva@acluva.org.

Sincerely,
Kent Willis
Executive Director