Should babies be baptised, without their consent ?

reply to post by Rock Ape


No one should be submerged underwater against their will.

The thing I never understood about babies being baptized is the implication that the baby has some sort of sin it must be baptized for. I understand that some view it more or less as a dedication to the lord, rather than something they do to cleanse themselves of sin, but I wouldn't want my parents dedicating me to their religion or their God before I can even speak, walk, or even think really.

I really have a problem with this thread as well as some of the post in it. I just can not believe how cold hearted some of you are.
You feel that is not fair for the baby to be baptised, without consent, because there is no sense to it, in your opinion, but you are fine with the baby's life being ended with out his/her consent. Do you really see nothing wrong with this train of thought?
It is perfectly fine for parents to baptise their children without consent because they are doing it out of love and concern for their children. It does not hurt the child and in the world they will be growing up in, with people like you, it certainly could not hurt.
Quadrivium

reply to post by snusfanatic


oh so right about it not being poison! this makes my head hurt thinking about though. I start thinking about well what if i dont then will he/she be made at me for doing or not doing this? I think, in my opinion that your right though. It should be dont by someone that has a good moral understanding of the Faith not the religion.

reply to post by GeisterFahrer


Ah finally something that can be discussed!!

I am in no way offended I just know when someone is attempting to "get a rise"

I do not find religion offensive and that is a common misconception to religious types that because I don't believe or need faith in something then I must find it objectionable. On the contrary I am highly interested in religion and the psychology of how people can base lifestyles on a book or what a person of faith is preaching to them.

With regards to the SIL's children if you had read the post I actually stated that said children were not in any way religious and were made to attend Sunday School, the reason that I disagree with this is that they are only being taught (and I use that term loosely) Christianity. This is akin to indoctrination and a very very biased way of teaching and you are correct I would never do that to my children. I would send them to a multicultural non religious school where they can learn in Religious Education classes the bigger picture.

This thread has nothing to do with abortion hence the reason it is in the Conspiracies in Religion forum if you want to debate abortion try here: Pro Life or Pro Choice

(However to answer your incredibly generalised statement with another one: It is always the religious types that think abortion is baby murder)

Originally posted by Truth_Hz
reply to post by GeisterFahrer

 

Ah finally something that can be discussed!!

I am in no way offended I just know when someone is attempting to "get a rise"

I do not find religion offensive and that is a common misconception to religious types that because I don't believe or need faith in something then I must find it objectionable. On the contrary I am highly interested in religion and the psychology of how people can base lifestyles on a book or what a person of faith is preaching to them.

With regards to the SIL's children if you had read the post I actually stated that said children were not in any way religious and were made to attend Sunday School, the reason that I disagree with this is that they are only being taught (and I use that term loosely) Christianity. This is akin to indoctrination and a very very biased way of teaching and you are correct I would never do that to my children. I would send them to a multicultural non religious school where they can learn in Religious Education classes the bigger picture.

This thread has nothing to do with abortion hence the reason it is in the Conspiracies in Religion forum if you want to debate abortion try here: Pro Life or Pro Choice

(However to answer your incredibly generalised statement with another one: It is always the religious types that think abortion is baby murder)

If it is NOT the taking of a human life what is it then?

A frog? maybe a duck? Oh ... I know! Its a dinosaur!

I do appreciate how you say abortion has nothing to do with this religious thread then add what I emboldened in red ....

reply to post by GeisterFahrer


I think you may have taken that completely out of context.

I was merely highlighting your outrageous generalisation that you think that all none religious types advocate abortion, and as I said that is for a completely different thread..

I was simply pointing out that your bias shows

Saying as how you noted that religious types are the ones claiming abortion is murder shows how you already view the abortion debate.

It also strongly implies how you view abortion.

Back on topic - is it "ok" to baptize a baby? This thread has brought about a discussion on the rights of the parents vs. those of the chid. Do you see a parallel?

It "appears" that those whom advocate that the child should be old enough to make that decision for themself "appear" to have no problem making a decision as to whether or not to end the child's life.

I just happened to see some irony in that.

reply to post by GeisterFahrer


Unfortunately you are incorrect, my views were in no way reflected in that statement it was merely there to highlight the generalisations that believers in a faith tend to assign to atheists.

Again I cannot argue for or against your "parallel" without getting into the rights of a living, breathing human being and the rights of a foetus in the womb (unfortunately there is a difference). As previously stated this is for another thread.

My point through all of this is it should be down to a conscious choice by the child when and if said child wishes to do so.

The problem with this matter is that if you baptize your child then your child will be officially listed as catholic. Many years later if your child turns to be agnostic or atheist or whatever he will still be listed as catholic and he'll have to go to the church you've baptized him in and start the legal paperwork in order for the church to stop considering him a part of it.

Since most people will not worry over things like that then the official listing of catholics around the world becomes obviously an unreliable number, giving them much more power than they actually have or should have.

Baptism is pure ritual silliness.

Circumcision is more of a permanent physical thing,and should not be done until the male child understands what exactly it is.

And they say it gets bigger without circumcision anyway,both sexes seem to like that.........

people say its just like having a bath, they are right but the difference is having a bath is not put on record and does not come with a certificate saying that you just had a bath.

being baptised means something more than just a bath and you are given a label "a member of christ" "the child of god" so it is forcing somebodies elses view upon somebody who has no say over it or even if they want to become a part of it.

it does not bother me either way really, but i do think there should be a choice, its down to the person who lives that life to decide. some people could very well feel violated if they end up seeing/believing religion is rubbish/made up.

Originally posted by lifeform11
being baptised means something more than just a bath and you are given a label "a member of christ" "the child of god" so it is forcing somebodies elses view upon somebody who has no say over it or even if they want to become a part of it.

Yes, and of course, those labels will mean absolutely nothing to the child, unless he decides to be a Christian when he grows up. So, what's the problem ?


To me, this whole debate is symptomatic of the overly-sensitive, easily offended, politically correct society that we live in, where a non-issue like this is actually debated, because of some people's precious sensibilities.

If parents choose to baptise that child, then the child may appreciate that if he grows up a Christian, and if he doesn't, then all that it'll mean to him, is that he had water splashed over his little bald pate, long before he could even remember. Big deal !

reply to post by Iamherefornow

Originally posted by Iamherefornow
I was not baptised as a baby and now I am not a member of a church but do believe in God. I am now 48 years old, you can not find anyone to baptise you later on in life if you are not a member of a church. I wish my mother would have just done it already when I was a baby.

And robbed you of your choice? You believe in your deity now, but is it the same deity as your parents? Is the form of devotion exactly the same?

And it's quite easy to get baptized at a later age. The only difference is you actually have to consent to it.

reply to post by Quadrivium

Originally posted by Quadrivium
You feel that is not fair for the baby to be baptised, without consent, because there is no sense to it, in your opinion, but you are fine with the baby's life being ended with out his/her consent. Do you really see nothing wrong with this train of thought?

Where did I say I support the ending of a child's life?

Also, that's a false comparison. The abortion issue and the baptism issue are two separate things. If you believe abortion is wrong it doesn't make it right to baptize a child.

The simple fact is that until you're able to understand the concepts of a religion you cannot be a member of it. Being forced into it before you can even say something as 'Pa-pa' is downright immoral.

It is perfectly fine for parents to baptise their children without consent because they are doing it out of love and concern for their children.

As they say: The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Intention is not a justification for action. The parents of those that believe in faith healing over modern medicine do what they do out of concern for their children, but it still hurts people in the long run.

It does not hurt the child

Unless they decide to actually make a conscious decision and either change religion or forsake religion. Then this simple act has long term consequences.

and in the world they will be growing up in, with people like you, it certainly could not hurt.

Ad hominem coming from a religious person against people that disagree with them? Why am I not surprised?

How does infant baptism help anyone with anything? All it does is force them into a religion that they didn't choose and that they're a part of by the chance of their birth.

reply to post by Rock Ape


Baptising a child is really more about the parents. It is the parents turning the child over to god and making a commitment to raise the child in a christian home. It is not saying that the child will be a christian or believe in god for the rest of their life, but stating that they (the parents) will submit to god in the manners of raising their child.

I know some people believe that baptisim is what grants a person admission into heaven however, this theology is dieing away as it should. According to the bible, people are saved through a relationship with Jesus Christ, not through the church.

All of that being said, if you were baptised and then chose not to believe in god, were you really affected? My answer is no. You don't even remeber it happening. You did not consent to getting vaccinated, or to any of the other humiliating pratices that children go through. What about the children who are circumcised, or that are filmed in the bathtub.

reply to post by Sherlock Holmes


i never said it was a big deal, i said it is certainly more than just having a bath, i believe in choice, what does it matter if you have water splashed on your head as a baby or as an 16 year old agreeing to it?

Originally posted by calstorm
Its not my belief to do so, but really what harm could come of it. You give your baby a bath.

BINGO!

I was baptized as a baby. Do I remember? No. Has it made a difference in my life? No. Do I resent my parents for doing it? No.

Did it make my family happy? Yes.

I suppose if you are a new parent and want to "keep in tradition," or just be superstitious its not a bad idea.

Im going to go ahead and say this is a non issue.

Religion doesnt embrace free choice, or consent for that matter.

They actively brainwash people into forcing their beliefs on their children and any other suckers they can find.

After reading the different posts, and giving it some thought, the answer is yes, babies should be baptised without their consent.
When 2 people decide to bring a child into the world, they form an unspoken contract with the new life, to provide for its upbringing, and its education. Teaching the child what is and is not acceptable in a community and in society at large. This includes ensuring that the child understands what is and is not morally right and wrong, from the perception of the parents. Some parents are very devout, and that should never be questioned, nor should they be denied the right to raise their child in the religious view that they so choose. Parents are the first teachers of any child, shaped by their views, actions and what all they do. This includes the programs that are viewed on TV, the music that is played, the things that a parent reads, and the habits of the parents, are often what the child sees, and hears, it is believed as normal.
But let us change a word in the question and it takes on a whole new meaning: Should babies be exposed to a culture before their consent? Religion could be considered a part of a culture, and would you deny a child the right to have access to its cultural idenity or history?
There is no right or wrong answer, but in this case, the ultimate authority has to be that of the parents, not the state.

I can only see one negative in baptism as in reality it doesn't mean anything. And that thing is: the baptised baby is being recorded as a Christian, which means that the Vatican can wave around with some papers and say that Christianity is the biggest religion when 4/5 of the people don't even go to church and at least 1/3 of the 4/5 people are atheists.

Originally posted by Rock Ape
Hi everyone,

I guess this is aimed at Christians. Should babies be baptised, without their consent ?

Rock Ape

Hi Rock Ape,


While I realize this question has launched a debate about religious freedom and self-determination, we can consider the issue more broadly, if you will forgive a reply with a rhetorical question:


"Should babies be born without their consent ?"


After all, who hasn't once told their parents 'I didn't ask to be born!' ?


To the displeasure of those more religiously minded, I might even venture further to say that whether or not you are propelled into this Earthly existence is an issue of higher magnitude than religious affiliation. And if we find it normal that babies aren't asked whether they want to be here or not, then why ask them their preference about a number of other less 'vital' issues ? That is, unless you consider that religion is more fundamental than life itself, or suffer from the illusion that being exposed to religious dogma is a broader measure of conditioning than scientific secular 'education'.


GS