DO PARENTS HAVE A RIGHT TO HAVE CHILD BAPTISED?
Christians take their babies to the clergy to get them baptised. Water is sprinkled on them and magic words are said and this is supposed to remove a sin they never committed but which they are blamed for (original sin). God then adopts them as his children - he rejected them before. They are made members of his Church and given the power to believe and love God. The gate of Heaven is opened for them and they belong to God meaning they must obey him instead of pleasing themselves.
It may be common to baptise but is still VERY strange
Why is it strange to put your child into Christianity? It is strange if you
really want the best for your child.
It is strange to make a child a member of a religion you have not checked out
well.
It is strange to commit the child to committing to Jesus above all people.
Nobody really wants their child to love God not them or God most.
It is strange to commit the child to a faith that thrives on a kind of joy
that comes from desensitisation. The idea of somebody being at risk of
Hell or the crucifix or God making viruses that slaughter little babies should
cause a horrified reaction that is hard to get over. Desensitisation is a
form of abuse and brainwashing.
It is strange to commit the child to a faith that says the child should be
prepared to die for it - faith is historical claims (eg Jesus was evil-free) and
ethical claims – sex outside marriage is a sin.
It is strange to commit a child to a religion that hails and honours as top book
one that is riddled with God inspired and religious inspired violence. Jesus was
violent in the Temple and condemned anybody who says any Old Testament law
however small is wrong (Matthew 5).
It is strange to commit a child to the protection of a God for what of the child
if there is no God for she has to realise?
List of reasons why it's wrong to have a child baptised:
If you took the religion seriously, it makes serious claims and people have died for it, you would be happy to let the child wait and decide for herself or himself
A good God will understand if you choose to delay
You risk devoting the child to a God who is not real or evil for he supposedly makes diseases to torment and kill little children
You commit the child to believe the evil Bible is holy and God's word - the brutality is so normalised that you will search hard for a Christian who left the faith over it - that is child abuse. What passes for religious faith is really just habit and familiarity and normalisation of what should horrify us.
You commit the child to agree that women who have abortions are murderers who should know that the zygote has an equal right to life to them!
You commit the child to agree that God who does not respect many choices should respect the choice to go to Hell simply because you happen to have died without repenting sin
You may hope the religion will be a source of comfort for the child but religion is about historical and ethical claims - loyalty to that system of doctrine is what it means when it speaks about faith. Faith is not a placebo.
You are evangelising and involving others and thus causing them to be
evangelised.
Foreword:
Baptising your child is not a choice but a lack of information. Nobody,
certainly not the priest, makes sure you know why or why not you should make
this decision for the child. A child is not you or your property.
That is why any major choice made for the child should be informed thoroughly.
A religion of integrity and genuine faith would grant equality to the choice not
to join or to join. Even if there were a right to enrol your child into a
religion, most parents abuse that right by not caring about truth and evidence
and even what the religion teaches.
There is no such thing as a right to have your child baptised. But those who have the child baptised a Catholic have less right to get this done than somebody getting the child baptised a Protestant who will not impute the Catholic meaning to baptism. The reason is that with a Catholic baptism the child is put under laws that may affect her or him adversely later in life. Those consequences are usually never spelled out by priests which is very manipulative of them. The baptism degrades the child by making her or him the public property of a manmade religion.
When it is pointed out that baptism seems a cynical or manipulative way to get recruits people point to the parents and the culture they are part of some say. "You can’t really divorce your religious background. A person raised say Catholic will always have to live with aspects of Catholicism. It will affect how they feel and think to some extent." What kind of argument is that for infant baptism being acceptable and even desirable? You are a product of the religion and culture you are born into but that does not stop them allowing you to make your own choice! Mormons do not become Mormons until they are eight. Indeed how could they? And if you being a product of your culture happens in the long years after your first birthday how could that justify baptising you before any of it even starts? It bans it actually! And you are more than just a religious product of your culture. If you are gay that may mean everything to you while your Catholic formation means little. You are a product of loads of things not just religion.
NO RIGHT TO FORCE RELIGIOUS OBLIGATIONS ON A BABY
It is hideous to say that God's grace is needed to get you into Heaven and this
grace corrects the moral and spiritual defects in you and that receptivity to
grace is administered to babies in baptism. This is clearly forced conversion
where the child is anti-God by default and then forced to be receptive by
baptism. The implication is that the force is justifiable for the baby is so
bad.
Parents who don't know enough about Catholicism to make a truly informed
decision for it themselves have no right to try and make their child a member.
If parents really believe that the child has a right to choose membership in the
Church or reject it then why do they not choose a religion that encourages them
to leave if they don't feel it is for them?
Religion says that it is necessary to hate sin in yourself and others but tells
you to love the sinner. Hating sin is not very nice or happiness inducing. It is
personal ill-feeling in a hypothetical but real sense. It seems fake to direct
ill-feeling and rancour away from the sinner to the sin. It's artificial and
self-righteous. But religion might keep maintaining that it is a necessary evil
for the alternative is worse. But then religion should stop pretending to be so
safe and goody goody. It needs to tell us the risks of being religious. It
should certainly not be influencing and conditioning and imposing membership on
children and on the unwary.
Even if baptism could make you a Catholic, it cannot make you Catholic as in
believer. Nobody considers an Anglican a Roman Catholic for believing more
Catholic doctrine than a professed Catholic. Catholic summarises different
ways of being Catholic. It covers living as a Catholic, believing as a
Catholic, going through the rites a Catholic needs, confessing the Catholic
faith etc. Though people deserve respect for what they believe sincerely a
problem arises: is it really their belief or are they conditioned? An idea
is not truly accepted if you are programmed to accept it. Conditioning
means it is not your belief but somebody else's at best.
The Catholic Church today claims that it is the one true Church so it has the
right to make babies members of the Church and obligated to believe its
doctrines when it baptises them. But the religion is not clearly the one true
Church and the vast majority of students of religion find serious errors in the
Church's doctrine and science is against the faith. Thus the baptisms are
clearly forced conversion. Priests who cannot give a convincing case for
Catholicism being all true have no business baptising babies and thereby
degrading them.
The Church says that imposing the obligations of a Christian life on a baby is
fair because the benefits hugely outweigh the obligations. They mean that
baptism puts you right with God and protects your soul from sin. This is
nonsense for most Catholics believe what they are not allowed to believe and
ignore the moral directives of the Church. There is no evidence that baptism
does anything for anybody. Those who think it helps them to be good may just be
naturally good anyway. It may not be down to the ritual. Plus Mormons who are
supposedly invalidly baptised can live good lives. Baptism then insults pagans
and those who are not baptised and calls them miserable and evil and dangerous.
Parents, by having their babies baptised, are saying that the religion they are
entering the children in is good and therefore the children should be raised as
believers in whatever that religion teaches and raised to practice what it
practices. Yet most of these parents contradict this by only accepting religion
on their terms not its terms. They pick and choose what they want to adhere to
and what they want to discard. That is really saying that religion is man-made
and bad when followed properly. It is hard to see how if parents and godparents
consent to church membership for you when they make vows relating to that at
your baptism how their consent could be valid. It's intending to expose the child
to bad influence. The priests know that the consent is worthless but turn a
blind eye in the hope of having the child brainwashed into becoming a Catholic
or whatever at school and in the home. When there is no valid consent by the
representatives of the child how can anybody say that baptism isn't a violation
of the dignity and freedom and person of the child?
A baby cannot belong to any religion no matter how many godparents she or he has
that make the profession of faith in the Church or vows of commitment to the
Church for her or him. To say otherwise is absurd. The religious leaders make
these laws that they can because their chief goal in life is not to help others
find the spirituality that is right for them but for others to agree with their
beliefs. Parents have a duty to help their child find what works for her or him
not to limit a child to some religion.
People are afraid of what demands God might make of them. So they invent a God
for themselves. He is their mental idol for he is a God that suits them. To get
a baby baptised is simply to vow to rear it to become a hypocrite.
If baptism were not an attempt to force religious membership on a child, the
godparents would not be commissioned by the Church and the parents to choose
membership for the child by proxy. What could happen is that the child would be
baptised but the membership would be conditional on the child's response when he
or she gets old enough. The rite will only work if the child accepts it later.
For example, God should treat the child as baptised and a member of the Church
if the child dies and so let the child into Heaven. Then he should take the
baptism as valid. If the child does not die and he or she repudiates the baptism
then his or her baptism will account for nothing and need to be repeated. If he
or she accepts then the baptism is validated. The Church holds that if you
accept the sacrament of confirmation you only receive the powers of the rite and
the graces if you are antagonistic to God. You get the graces only when you
repent and turn to him. So it is only a rite until the person is suited. It should
be the same with baptism and it is not. However baptising the child is still an
act of religious intolerance. It implies that being a human person born into a
good family who will raise the child well is not enough. It is insulting.
If you get confirmation when you are asleep, the rite has to be repeated for you
were asleep. You can't get communion, you can't get confession, you can't get
ordained, you can't get any sacrament barring baptism unless you are awake. With
extreme unction, if you pass into a coma before you are anointed, the sacrament
will not work if you went into the coma set against the idea of being anointed.
So it depends on what your state of mind was before you passed into the coma. So
consent is still necessary for it. So you need to give consent to get a
sacrament and so it is a violation of your rights if you can't give it and are
given the sacrament. If it is a violation to give you a sacrament without your
conscious consent at the moment of the rite. Extreme unction is an exception for
it is a sacrament for the sick or dying and so one might not be conscious. But
it still requires your consent though, just that your conscious consent is
unnecessary if you can't give it. Baptism violates the rights of the baby. It
cares not a whit for consent. It cares even less when it can be given when the
baby is asleep. At least if the child was awake it would be closer to the power
to make consent.
Religion makes misrepresentations. A misrepresentation is something that is said
to persuade a person to make a contract which they wouldn't do if they were told
the truth - it is making a person mistakenly believe they should ratify the
contract. Even if the victim accepts the contract, the victim is not bound by
the contract if misrepresentations were made. Religion makes misrepresentations
to persuade people to go to it for baptism. Baptism contracts the recipient to
God, or more accurately the religion for people only worship what others say God
is like. The contract is made for the baby by godparents at baptism and adults
make their own contract. Misrepresentations are a legal matter. And especially
considering that baptism seeks to make the baby a member of the baptising Church
in the eyes of the law. The failure of the Church to provide any evidence that
baptism does any supernatural good shows that baptism is a very manipulative and
cheating contract.
When a natural disaster strikes, or when a civil conflict breaks out, the
Salvation Army is often among the first to respond and provide relief to the
victims. If you accept Catholic baptism you express and commit yourself to the
belief that if you are not baptised you are not Christian. It doesn't matter
then how much you pray and worship you are not a Christian. This is outrageous.
It is clear that no good person would consent to Catholic baptism if they knew
what they were doing. That alone makes it wrong to assume that you can baptise
babies into Catholicism without violating them.
PARENTAL RIGHT TO BAPTISE CHILD?
The Church claims that parents have the right to decide that a baby should be
baptised and that the baby should be raised as a believer. This is untrue. The
fact that parents have to decide things for their babies does not mean that this
amounts to having a right. If I am forced against my will to sack John unfairly
that does not mean I have the right to do it. Even though it would be worse if I
didn't sack him, I had no right to. Parents are forced to make decisions for the
baby because the baby can't make decisions. If parents need to make a decision
about having the baby baptised, that need is not a right but a necessary evil.
It is wrong to create necessary evils. Such evils are not necessary at all.
Before Christianity came along, it was recognised that babies did not need to be
initiated into religion. To make a need to decide if a baby needs baptism or not
and in what Church is simply a mockery of human rights and the dignity of the
baby.
To say parents have a right to have their babies baptised is too strong. It
implies approval of their interference with their child's soul. Their business
is to look after the child's physical needs. It is nobody's business what state
anybody's soul is in.
Why care about the parents rights in relation to the baptism of the baby? The
parents are not the ones being baptised. It is the baby that has to live with
the obligations and duties and alleged effects of the baptism. This implies that
the baby is what is important. The parents are not important at all. Thus we see
that the idea that babies should be baptised logically implies that parents
should be forced to have their children baptised if baptism is what the child
would want if it knew better. The Church certainly says that we would have to
assume that it would want it. We force parents to have their babies vaccinated.
If baptism is a more important vaccine, a vaccine for the soul, then it should
be enforced on the baby whether the parents consent or not. Because of the
revulsion this would create, the Church pretends to frown upon enforced
baptisms. The baptism of a baby is regarded as valid even when the parents do
not consent. The claim that parents have a right to have their babies baptised
is simply priests trying to manipulate society to keep it bringing babies for
baptism. The doctrine of baptism saving infants certainly implies that forced
conversion is lawful. Grandmothers are notorious for babysitting their
grandchildren who are not going to be baptised so that they can discreetly
baptise them. Also, they may bully the parents to have the children baptised.
The Church if it is honest will have to say that they have no choice and are
doing right. They will admit when pressed that the will of the parents is not as
important as the spiritual salvation of the baby. If conversion by force is
unlawful then many baptisms are unlawful and invalid.
Parental rights are overridden by decency in this case
Catholicism makes martyrs and heroes of those who die for it. A
religion that calls on people to die for its doctrines
is a murderer actually and
potentially if it is a manmade religion.
A religion that regards evil revelations from God as sacred and true - or
worse which justifies them or ignores them - is sharing in the evil.
Nobody should enter such a religion. That would be bad but to put a
child in it would be heinous. While
it is wrong to call all members of any religion, even a murderous one, murderers
for not all toe the line or have enough faith to obey, it is right to tell them
to leave the religion for they are too good to tarnish themselves by being
members. No religion or culture is
worth a single life.
Finally
The Church lies about parents' rights to have their babies initiated into
membership of the Church, because it wants to trick and whitewash parents to
co-operate with its endeavours to steal their children and shove Church
membership on them. It disguises its malice towards and disrespect for the baby
by acting as if it wants babies baptised out of respect for the parents.