Should YOU decide if you get baptised?

mike65

On foot of this thread here I thought it might be instructive to learn how boardsters feel about having been inducted into
a faith without having been consulted first.

Do you think such heavyweight matters should be left until one is able to understand what is been asked of you? I'll throw in confirmation and communion into this basket as well. Its all part of the same plot er...

Mike.

secret_squirrel

My parents decided not to do anything about my relgion until I was old enought to decide for myself.

Unfortunately the made me go to sunday school so I could make an informed choice

I chose no to religion

Just out of interest isnt the origin of baptism to make sure innocent babies souls go to heaven if they die in childhood? And by that argument isnt it outdated??? (from a statistical point of view of course - since child mortality rates are so small nowadays)

PhoenixRising

I'm sure this isn't just confined to Catholicism. Are the children of other religions consulted first ?

It's an interesting question, and if the answer is yes, and I'd consider myself to be in that camp, then there would be considerable implications for all organised religions. Maybe they're should be an 'opt-out clause' before children make their first communion or confirmation.

Johnny_the_fox

Originally posted by PhoenixRising
Maybe they're should be an 'opt-out clause' before children make their first communion or confirmation.

the 'out-out clause' is confirmation... its your choice to confirm if you want to stay a catholic...

PhoenixRising

Originally posted by Johnny_the_fox
the 'out-out clause' is confirmation... its your choice to confirm if you want to stay a catholic...

I meant something more formal and permanent, which would include the deletion of baptismal records.

seamus

Originally posted by secret_squirrel
Just out of interest isnt the origin of baptism to make sure innocent babies souls go to heaven if they die in childhood?

Yep. It goes back to believing that people who weren't baptised, but weren't evil, went to purgatory.

Personally, I would believe that it was a thinly veiled excuse to maintain power by scaring people. The Church used to quite unbelievably powerful. We'd be appalled today if the Church was allowed to do, or demanded to do, half of things it did 50 years ago.
Having a child baptised, essentially gave the Church a certain amount of power. Devoted parents would be more than happy to follow a priest's guidelines on the best way to educate their child, or how to guide the child morally. If a priest disagreed with a parent's decision, or even believed something bad was the best course of action for a child, people would side with the priest (ever seen The Magdalene Sisters?).The church was as close to a third parent as you could get.
As the church became less powerful, and outdated, people slowly have become less interested in subscribing. Certainly, I would think anyone born between 1960 and 1990 would be part of the transition group - those of whose parents felt morally and religiously obliged to baptise us, but we feel no such compulsion, and a massive chunk of us don't even subscribe to Catholicism any longer.

So, after all that, no I wouldn't baptise my children(if/when I have any). I would certainly encourage them to learn about religion and morality in general, but would never ever tell them to join one. Even my own parents now would agree that baptism was not necessary or desirable. It was just the old mindset.

the 'out-out clause' is confirmation... its your choice to confirm if you want to stay a catholic...

In theory yes, but it's something that a lot of kids just have done to them like baptism. At 12 years of age, you haven't the capacity to decide if this religion is for you, all you can see is a day off scholl and dollar signs from presents.

mr_angry

I would hesitantly say yes, I should decide what my official religion is. However, I would much rather that was an informed choice. The question is, how do you instill a sense of faith in your child, without indoctrinating them? In order for them to make a really informed choice, you have to let them know what faith really is. Its very difficult to demonstrate without forcing a religion upon your child.

KlodaX

someone once told me that I was catholic cause my name was on the register.
I said I didn't believe in God.
But the other person argued that it didn't matter... as long as my name was on the list ... God knew about me.

secret_squirrel

lol I would hope god would know about me whether I was on a list or not

more seriously Mr_angry comes up with a valid point - for me I came away with a faith but not a religion, which Im pretty happy with, but to be fair both my parents were fairly anti religion so I cant say that I wasnt 'indoctrinated' toward this..even tho I believe my parents let me make up my own mind.....

KlodaX

for me I came away with a faith but not a religion,

faith ( P ) Pronunciation Key (fth)
n.
Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See Synonyms at belief. See Synonyms at trust.
Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one's supporters.
often Faith Christianity. The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will.
The body of dogma of a religion: the Muslim faith.
A set of principles or beliefs.

The above is for my own benefit ....
so if you had not have had religion ... and it was truely God's will for you to belive... would you not have found faith in another way?

rde

Despite the occasional tale of someone searching for the right religion (which utterly bemuses me), most people believe in their own religion. Seems obvious, but it is important.

If you're a staunch Catholic, it's obvious to you (I would imagine) that the best thing for your kids is to be brought up Catholic. Same is true of any religion. No Buddhist is going to decide that his kids should be baptised; equally, a staunch atheist is going to explain to the kids something along the lines of 'people will believe anything if they're taught it young enough.'

So, despite being on of the aforementioned staunch atheists, I have to say 'no'. It's up to the parents to decide how to bring up their children, including whatever religious practises that entails. We're all capable of changing our minds when we're old enough (even before that, even if it's only to piss off the parents), and I doubt any child has been psychologically damaged by the act of baptism. Unless it was dropped in the font.

vorbis

proably being a traditionalist but I believe its down to the parents. Theres nothing stopping anyone leaving the church. If your parents were catholics and wanted to baptise you, why should'nt they? As I said your're perfectly entitled to leave the church if you feel like it.

KlodaX

I agree with rde ... yeah .. thats a good point.

*I like yer sig aswell btw*

Syth

I often here the argument "What if the parents want their children to be Catholic?" Well what if some parents want their children to be a doctor, and spend the whole childs childhood telling them they should be a doctor and only introduce them to medical subjects, and told them that anything except being a doctor was wrong? Or what if a family wanted their children to be straight and told them that homosexuals were evil, and being straight was the only way to go?

These are analogies to the 'parent's want their children to be catholic' point of view. Should the parents have the power or right to deciede these issues? If not then the children should not be forced into something so young. Leave it till they are about 20.

martarg

It has occurred to me that I could not vote on the poll because I don't agree with any of those answers... Simply stated, my opinion is "yes", but not because "mama and the Church know best", but because parents have a right to give their children the sort of education they consider best, whether it is as a Catholic, a Protestant, a Muslim, or a Manchester United fan. It is not a big deal if the child as an adult makes his own choice and decides to drop out, as usually happens, I don't think baptism in itself has caused irreparable damage to his life or his personality.... disagreeable experiences with the Church itself and/or any of its members are a different question.... and as someone mentioned before, if children are not educated in a particular religion, it is unlikely they will enter it off their own will as adults. So, I don't really see the necessity to wait for the child to grow up in order to baptise him. There are lots of decisions our parents make for us while we are growing up....

rde

These are analogies to the 'parent's want their children to be catholic' point of view

I don't think they are. Take the doctor, for example. The first ten years of the child's life won't be a factor in this (unless he ends up watching a lot of Discovery Channel), whereas these are probably the most important with regard to the sprog. And it's not a case of directing the child - to give him doctor-related presents, letting him watch ER, whatever - it's a case of telling him what the world is.

It's not like he's being told whether to like Coke or Pepsi; to the parent, it's telling him how the universe came about. How he has to live in order to be happy, in this life and the next. These aren't something any truly religious person could find optional; they're vital to the upbringing of the child. You may think they're wrong, and deluding the child. That doesn't matter. They'd feel exactly the same way about you, and you would be just as entitled to ignore their righteous indignation on the matter.

article6

Originally posted by martarg
It has occurred to me that I could not vote on the poll because I don't agree with any of those answers... Simply stated, my opinion is "yes", but not because "mama and the Church know best", but because parents have a right to give their children the sort of education they consider best, whether it is as a Catholic, a Protestant, a Muslim, or a Manchester United fan.

Same thing. The poll just uses a phrase which now has Orwellian overtones.

I voted for Big Brother Is Watching You, because of many of the reasons Martarg gave. The analogy is flawed - religion is a way of life, whereas medicine is a career/vocation. The less said about homophobia the better.

Syth

The analogy is flawed - religion is a way of life, whereas medicine is a career/vocation

Being of a certain religion influences your life, so does being a doctor (but in different ways), so in a way being a doctor is a way of life.

If a set of parents try to bring their child up as liking Coke or Pepsi, then they are encroaching on their children's life, if they try to get them to be a doctor, they are encroaching more, if they try to get their child to be a Catholic, they are encraoching even more. Parent's are going to have some impact on thier children's life. Most people would think that a parent who forces their children to a doctor are going too far, but forcing children to be Catholic is going even farther. So people who think parents forcing their children to be doctors are going too far should also think that parents forcing their children into Catholics (or any religion) are going too far.

It's not like he's being told whether to like Coke or Pepsi

No, he's being told not to like divorce, abortion. To like the Catholic Church, the pope, the local priest. He's being told lots of things. I'd rather a family told their child to like Coke/Pepsi as opposed to liking a certain religion. It's less intrusive.

parents have a right to give their children the sort of education they consider best

Does that apply to all kinds of education that some parents consider best? What about a family that thinks women are subservient to women, and teach their sons that it's OK to hit your wife, or a racist family who brings their children up to hate blacks/whites/english/jews/muslims/westerners/irish/prodestants/catholics/etc?

The real question is how much control parents should have over their children? What important life decisions should parents be able to make for their child(ren)?

rde

I'd rather a family told their child to like Coke/Pepsi as opposed to liking a certain religion

It's not a question of liking a religion; that's my whole point. If you're a Catholic, that doesn't mean you prefer Mass, but if the church is closed you'll nip round to the buddhist temple. If you're a Catholic, you believe that the commandments must be followed, and you believe - you know - that the children will be brought up a Catholic. The question doesn't even arise.

Let's look at what it is you're demanding. A four-year-old asks here Catholic mommy one of the great existential questions, I dunno, where do we go when we die, or something. How would you like mommy to respond? After all, Mommy knows that if we're good, we go to heaven. Should she also point out that it's also possible she'll be reincarnated as a walrus?

What about a family that thinks women are subservient to women

If children are being taught things that will cause them to break the law or suffer serious disabilities in normal social interaction, then there is certainly a case for intervention. But irrespective of your opinion of the church, we're extremely unlikely to see the day when being religious disqualifies you from being a parent.

What important life decisions should parents be able to make for their child(ren)?

Whether you like it or not, a lot of these decisions are going to have to be made during a sprog's upbringing; "you can wonder about that when your older" is simply not an adequate response. There are two options as to who would make those decisions; the parents or the state. And if you think the state should be making them, you're insane.

Yoda

Baptism per se is just a water-ritual. It isn't magic, and it isn't science. It doesn't change the baptized one bit, certainly not an infant with pre-linguistic cognitive abilities.

article6

Originally posted by Syth
Being of a certain religion influences your life, so does being a doctor (but in different ways), so in a way being a doctor is a way of life.

I accept that, I should have been more specific. The goal of medicine is the curing of illness and the good health of the patient; the goal of religion is generally salvation of the human race, certainly in the Catholic context, and also in many others.

In relation to your argument about wife-beating and hatred, assault is a crime and to condone this crime to children is child abuse, whereas I'm not sure about hatred. Disliking a group of people is not comparable to disliking an action (such as abortion), as long as you don't hate the people who do the action. And I believe an important phrase in Catholicism is "hate the sin, love the sinner". (Correct me if I'm wrong.)

Originally posted by Syth
forcing children to be Catholic is going even farther

Many children have a different religion to their parents, or none at all, even when they have been indoctrinated from birth.

The Brigadier

In the eyes of the catholic church, once you are baptised - there is no get out.

You can never become an ex-catholic. (short of excommunication)

You can be a lapsed catholic
You can be a non practicing catholic...

But once you are down...your not getting out...

It's like the mafia without the fringe benefits:D

Yoda

If you don't consider yourself to be a Catholic, who cares what the Church's authorities think about it?

I was baptised a Presbyterian when I was an infant, and was confirmed an Episcopalian (i.e. Anglican Catholic) when I was 17. But since my mid-20s at least, I am a Buddhist.

You are what you think you are.

chewy

this is the thing, i admit that i may have a bit of a chip on my shouder about it but i'd prefer to see the influenec of the catholic church diminisehed ass i don't think they deserve it

therefore if i went to my local preist could i asked to be ex-communicated....

when the slane parish priests said 90% of ireland was roman catholic, i thought i that can't be still right... but from a quick chekc of teh cso its seems right accoring to the 2002 census....

i still think that incorrect, alot of us still live at home i really can't remember if i filled in the census form myself or my dad did it. i don't think he entere me a RC but he could have, infact lots of well meaning parents could have entered you as rc and it wouldn't be a true reflection of how people feel in ireland

infact im not sure theres a choice between being a christian. (perhaps as someone who doesn't like organised religion but believes the christian god...)

or roman catholic






my brother made sure his daughter was baptised so she could get into the better catholic schools in britain

Yoda

There's always the Dharma, Chewy. Check it out. No strings attached. Just some thinking about how to deal with life as it is.

oscarBravo

As a direct reply to the topic:

Take the question for a moment from the perspective of the parents. Assuming they are devout Catholics, they are required to believe that baptism is a prerequisite for salvation. The possibility that the child could die unprepared for salvation is a risk that they should not be prepared to take.

Remember, the official Catholic position is that salvation is not a right, it's a privilege.

martarg

I think the question is pretty simple. One may not always like the way other people raise their children, but that is the way things are. You can take the chance to try and change the world through your own children when and if you have them ... The law is there to protect those children if "education" includes physical abuse on women, &c, &c. For the rest, it is a matter of personal freedom. If those children in their adult life decide not to be Catholics any more, they are also free to drop out. (Incidentally, I've just learnt that confirmation takes place at 12 in Ireland. In Spain we wait until 18, and that only after a two-year course. Too lazy to do that... :dunno: ) Now, if the Catholic Church has too much influence on areas they are not entitled to (and it is a good subject for discussion), to me it is a political rather than a religious issue, not much to do with baptism itself....

ixoy

Originally posted by chewy
i still think that incorrect, alot of us still live at home i really can't remember if i filled in the census form myself or my dad did it. i don't think he entere me a RC but he could have, infact lots of well meaning parents could have entered you as rc and it wouldn't be a true reflection of how people feel in ireland

infact im not sure theres a choice between being a christian. (perhaps as someone who doesn't like organised religion but believes the christian god...) or roman catholic

Well I mean we can't expect it to put down all belief systems, can we? For the record, these are the ones that were on the Census form [here ]:
1: Roman Catholic
2: Church of Ireland
3: Presbyterian
4: Methodist
5: Islam
6: Other, write in your RELIGION

Now the high majority of people have been placed into these religions, practicing or not they would still be seen as belonging to one of the churches (or no religion, which is also an option). I can understand your point, but from practical terms categorising the concept of "Christian", without belonging to an actual church, is problematic.

martarg

Well I mean we can't expect it to put down all belief systems, can we? For the record, these are the ones that were on the Census form [here ]:
1: Roman Catholic
2: Church of Ireland
3: Presbyterian
4: Methodist
5: Islam
6: Other, write in your RELIGION

That reminds me of official forms in the US, where you are expected to identify yourself as white, black, hispanic, &c, &c. Not everyone fits nicely in such narrow categories. In any case, I would imagine that the Irish census is not interested in your religious beliefs, but something closer to your ethnic background, so to speak. So perhaps if your family has traditionally been Catholic, you are considered as one, whatever your actual beliefs. Labels are an interesting issue....

Syth

Mommy knows that if we're good, we go to heaven

To the parent their religion is correct and right, and that's all there to it. But you (and the parent) must realise that there are other people and other faiths in the world. To be tolerent and accepting of other religions mean that you must see them as equal, but different, from your own. If one sees this, then one should realise that religious belief is relative, and that other people have different beliefs and different truths. One's children are people and are entitled to different religions. Talking to your children about religion and acting as if your religion is the only correct one, is like doing the same to other people. If one went around all day acting as if your religion was the only correct one, you'd be labeled as a bit of an idiot. Why not treat your children like other people? They have the freedom to religion.

Stark

To be honest, that's not going to happen with most Catholics. Catholics believe that other religions may be based on sound moral principles and that prophets such as Buddha etc. were worthy teachers, but that in the case of Christianity, God decided to actually announce his prescence - first to the Israelites, then in the form of Jesus Christ making Christianity the true religion. That's as close as you're going to get to tolerance while keeping within the teachings.

My father filled out the census form in our house and I'm sure he would have simply entered the whole family as "Roman catholics" even though I don't consider myself a catholic.

As for the Baptism thing, it's more for parents' piece of mind than anything I believe. In a time where infant death was quite common and the Church was teaching that unbaptised babies go to Limbo, it would have made sense for parents to get their children baptised as soon as possible. These days I think they should wait a little, like the way you wait before having your first holy wafer bread.

oscarBravo

Originally posted by Syth
Talking to your children about religion and acting as if your religion is the only correct one, is like doing the same to other people. If one went around all day acting as if your religion was the only correct one, you'd be labeled as a bit of an idiot.

I don't accept that. If you're not sure that your religion is more valid than another, why subscribe to that religion? The whole point of religious faith is a belief that the faith you subscribe to is the "right" one. [1]

Why not treat your children like other people? They have the freedom to religion.

That's a naive perspective. One of the explicit responsibilities of a Catholic parent is to make sure the children are raised in the faith. It's such a serious responsibility that a spare pair of parents are drafted in at baptism to make sure that it is fulfilled.

[1]From my limited understanding of Buddhism, I understand that this is not necessarily the case; it may also be untrue of other religions. I'm pretty sure it's valid for all Judaeo-Christian faiths though.

Syth

If you're not sure that your religion is more valid than another, why subscribe to that religion? The whole point of religious faith is a belief that the faith you subscribe to is the "right" one.

This raises the question "Can one both be tolerant of other religions and a strong believer in your own?". An interesating (and off-topic) subject.

One of the explicit responsibilities of a Catholic parent is to make sure the children are raised in the faith.

Does that mean that if a child turns away from Catholothism, then the parent has failed, and will be going to hell? Any church worth it's salt will have a similar rule. It ensures the next generation are members.

Also what about the child's freedom of religion? The laws of this land give every citizen freedom of religion. The rules of Catholothism say that a parent must ensure that the children are Catholic, but that doesn't mean that parents can use the whole 'It's what my religion tells me to do' argument to infringe on their childs (or anyones) rights. For example, if I was a believer in an extreme form of christianity that permitted a husband to beat his wife if he felt fit and if I was married, would that give me the right to beat my wife? No. Irish law supercedes religious rules. As it should.

oscarBravo

Originally posted by Syth
This raises the question "Can one both be tolerant of other religions and a strong believer in your own?". An interesating (and off-topic) subject.

Of course one can. As an analogy, suppose I'm a strong believer in vegetarianism: I don't care what you eat; I just know I'm not putting that meat crap in my mouth.

Does that mean that if a child turns away from Catholothism, then the parent has failed, and will be going to hell?

Not if they've made a sincere effort.

Any church worth it's salt will have a similar rule. It ensures the next generation are members.

Quite - but we're talking about the application of rules here, rather than the rationale for those rules.

Also what about the child's freedom of religion?

It's an interesting question. It seems to me that many of the rights we take for granted are conditional upon adulthood. For example, preventing a child from leaving the house ("grounding") is a common sanction for misbehaviour. Do that to an adult and it becomes false imprisonment.

Syth

As an analogy, suppose I'm a strong believer in vegetarianism: I don't care what you eat; I just know I'm not putting that meat crap in my mouth.

But some vegatariean think anyone who eats meat is a murderer, and think no-one should eat meat. The tolerence seems to depend on the person.

Not if they've made a sincere effort.

So children don't actually have to be baptised, the children can just be instructed in Catholothims and the parents have done their bit. There is no need for baptism as babies.

It's an interesting question. It seems to me that many of the rights we take for granted are conditional upon adulthood.

But children do have som rights. For example one cannot legally kill one's child, or sell your child into slavery.

Do children have the right to freedom of religion? Well Article 44-2-1 of the consititution states : "Freedom of conscience and the free profession and practice of religion are, subject to public order and morality, guaranteed to every citizen." , are children citizens? Either way I think children have freedom of religion, if not then who does? Do your parent legally have to right to decide your religion until your are 18? Ridiculus. If people have the right to freedom of religion, then they should have it for all their life. It's like haveing freedom of life (ie murdering you is a crime). It's pointless if you can legally kill anyone under 7 years old. Freedom of religion should come from when you are born.

If you think freedom of religion starts from birth then one cannot allow parents to make that choice. It amount to nno freedom of religion.

oscarBravo

Originally posted by Syth
But some vegatariean think anyone who eats meat is a murderer, and think no-one should eat meat. The tolerence seems to depend on the person.

Absolutely. The answer to your question remains "yes".

So children don't actually have to be baptised, the children can just be instructed in Catholothims and the parents have done their bit. There is no need for baptism as babies.

I'm not sure where you're getting this from. Catholic doctrine is that baptism is a prerequisite for salvation. Catholic parents have a duty to baptise their children, and to raise them in the faith.

But children do have som rights. For example one cannot legally kill one's child, or sell your child into slavery.

Baptising a child is hardly in the same league as murder or human trafficking.

If you think freedom of religion starts from birth then one cannot allow parents to make that choice. It amount to nno freedom of religion.

Parents are placed in the position of making all sorts of decisions for their children until such time as the children can be trusted to make such decisions for themselves. Religious freedom is meaningless until the mental capacity exists to make an informed choice.

oscarBravo

Replying to myself, tut tut.

Originally posted by oscarBravo
Parents are placed in the position of making all sorts of decisions for their children until such time as the children can be trusted to make such decisions for themselves. Religious freedom is meaningless until the mental capacity exists to make an informed choice.

From the Constitution, Article 40.1:

All citizens shall, as human persons, be held equal before the law.

This shall not be held to mean that the State shall not in its enactments have due regard to differences of capacity, physical and moral, and of social function.

Syth

Baptising a child is hardly in the same league as murder or human trafficking.

I was giving examples of rights all children have, irregardless of age, in responce to the quote : "many of the rights we take for granted are conditional upon adulthood"

So children don't actually have to be baptised, the children can just be instructed in Catholothims and the parents have done their bit. There is no need for baptism as babies.

I'm not sure where you're getting this from. Catholic doctrine is that baptism is a prerequisite for salvation. Catholic parents have a duty to baptise their children, and to raise them in the faith.

I wondered if a child who had turned away from Catholithism resulted in their parent's going to hell for not raising Catholic child, but you said the parents were ok so long as they made a sincere effort. Parent's could not baptise their babies and just make an effort to teach their children to be catholics later in life. That way the parents have done their duty to their god and there is less intolerence.

Religious freedom is meaningless until the mental capacity exists to make an informed choice.

So then why try to get children (who don't have the nessarcy mental faculties) to be members of that religion? If they don't have the mental abilities to correctly choose a religion then they aren't truly members of that religion, so they can't really be 'saved', can they?

loismustdie

your parents are giving and indication of how they want you to be raised when they have you baptised which i agree with and this stands until confirmation which i think should be 21 so people know what they are confirming. but aa lot of 21 year olds now have little interest in religion. at 21 they should decide as adults to accept or deny baptism

oscarBravo

Originally posted by Syth
I wondered if a child who had turned away from Catholithism resulted in their parent's going to hell for not raising Catholic child, but you said the parents were ok so long as they made a sincere effort.

I also didn't say that a sincere effort can exclude baptism. I explicitly said the opposite: "Catholic doctrine is that baptism is a prerequisite for salvation." If you read anything else into what I said, you're deliberately distorting my position.

Parent's could not baptise their babies and just make an effort to teach their children to be catholics later in life. That way the parents have done their duty to their god and there is less intolerence.

No, they haven't. Don't take my word for it - let's have another look at the Catechism:

1250 ... The Church and the parents would deny a child the priceless grace of becoming a child of God were they not to confer Baptism shortly after birth.

1257 The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation.

So then why try to get children (who don't have the nessarcy mental faculties) to be members of that religion? If they don't have the mental abilities to correctly choose a religion then they aren't truly members of that religion, so they can't really be 'saved', can they?

You're confusing the "rights" issue you brought up earlier with Catholic doctrine. Your point is that the child has the right to choose a religion. The Church's teaching is that the child should be baptised as soon as possible. A Catholic parent that chose not to baptise a child in case it was an infringement of the child's constitutional rights would be in direct conflict with Church teaching, merely for the sake of a right that the child has no way of being aware of.

Syth

If you read anything else into what I said, you're deliberately distorting my position.

Sorry.

A Catholic parent that chose not to baptise a child in case it was an infringement of the child's constitutional rights would be in direct conflict with Church teaching, merely for the sake of a right that the child has no way of being aware of.

So should we not (try to) change Catholic doctrine? It's been done before.

Also I'm sure that the child has no concept of medical treatments, so can we preform medical treatments on children?

Also do you think the right of freedom of religion should only apply once one hits a certain age, and if so what age do you think is appropriate?

oscarBravo

Originally posted by Syth
Sorry.

's cool!

So should we not (try to) change Catholic doctrine? It's been done before.

You can try, but it generally takes something on the order of a Vatican Council to effect those changes. The Church, as has been observed, is not noted for its democracy.

Also I'm sure that the child has no concept of medical treatments, so can we preform medical treatments on children?

Happens all the time. How often are children asked to sign consent forms for their own surgery? The parent accepts the responsibility of making decisions in the best interest of the child. What is perceived as "best interest" where religion is concerned is a personal choice.

Also do you think the right of freedom of religion should only apply once one hits a certain age, and if so what age do you think is appropriate?

I think freedom only becomes relevant when you're old enough to understand its implications.

The only way we'll be able to evaluate the real meaning of religious freedom will be for a minor to take a case against his/her parents for forcing him/her to participate in a religious ritual. Isn't it the role of the Supreme Court to interpret the Constitution?

Syth

The parent accepts the responsibility of making decisions in the best interest of the child.

But there are times when we know the parent didn't make a decision in the best interests of the child, for example in the case of female 'circumsision'. Also there are some religions which think blood transfusions are unethical, yet there are cases of courts ruling that the children be given blood transfusions to save their life, despite their parent's objection. The state recognises the right of all people to freedom of religion, so why can't we enforce that to the same degree.

old enough to understand its implications.

That is impossible to prove. Could you even prove to me that you are a thinking rational human being and not a complex robot? No. It's impossible. So how can we know if a child if able to understand the implications of saying they want to be in (or out of) a certain religion? If a child says they don't want to go to mass, then does that mean they are opting out of the religion? It's too much of a grey area.

Again the whole thing comes down to the issue of how much control parents should have. I think people should get to decide what religion is right for them, so you shouldn't force it on anyone. Do you not think people should deciede their own religion?

oscarBravo

Originally posted by Syth
But there are times when we know the parent didn't make a decision in the best interests of the child, for example in the case of female 'circumsision'. Also there are some religions which think blood transfusions are unethical, yet there are cases of courts ruling that the children be given blood transfusions to save their life, despite their parent's objection. The state recognises the right of all people to freedom of religion, so why can't we enforce that to the same degree.

The cases you cite involve a parent making a decision that affects the physical wellbeing of the child. Baptism doesn't fall into that category.

It seems to me you're taking an exclusively atheistic approach to the subject, which is not entirely practical in a country largely populated by Christians. Preventing parents from having their children baptised could easily be seen as encroaching on their freedom of religion.

That is impossible to prove. Could you even prove to me that you are a thinking rational human being and not a complex robot? No. It's impossible. So how can we know if a child if able to understand the implications of saying they want to be in (or out of) a certain religion? If a child says they don't want to go to mass, then does that mean they are opting out of the religion? It's too much of a grey area.

As with any grey area, it's tricky to try to impose a black and white solution to it. Preventing infant baptism strikes me as a pretty monochromatic approach.

Again the whole thing comes down to the issue of how much control parents should have. I think people should get to decide what religion is right for them, so you shouldn't force it on anyone. Do you not think people should deciede their own religion?

Absolutely, but I don't see a problem with a parent provisionally making that decision on a child's behalf in the meantime.

mosadit

I wasn't baptised and my parents always told me I was going to decide for myself whenever I felt ready. Of course it doesn't mean they didn't indoctrinated me but somehow it was more fair I think.
I remember my mum reading me the Vangel as it was a children story, giving me the different interpretations of events... what was historical and what was belived by somoene and I really appreciate this kind of transparence.

It seems so old fashion still giving a mark to people with the escuse of save them from the hell... whatever is up there can't have built a hell... it would be too jamed! And Paradise would be completely empty! Not even Saints since Psicology discovered that they were just psycotics with visions!:dunno:

Syth

Not even Saints since Psicology discovered that they were just psycotics with visions!

Well one intrepretation of this is that god(s) made the people's brains more seceptable to visions from god(s) by makeing them have seasures. Maybe that's the only way god(s) can talk to us mortals, through seasures. Or they could be crazy. It doesn't prove the existance (either way) of god(s).

Preventing parents from having their children baptised could easily be seen as encroaching on their freedom of religion.

That's a very weak point (think a wet napkin). Freedom of religion means freedom about yourself, it can't be used in relation to the religion of other people.

It seems to me you're taking an exclusively atheistic approach to the subject, which is not entirely practical in a country largely populated by Christians.

Well just cause everyone is doing it doesn't make it OK. In Muslim countries with $hit women's rights one could use a similar argument to deny rights to women. I supppose my atheistic approach to it is because I think the State should have no religion, like in the USA.

As with any grey area, it's tricky to try to impose a black and white solution to it. Preventing infant baptism strikes me as a pretty monochromatic approach.

True... but human rights should be pretty monocromatic, and you are supporting a (different) monocromatic point of view. At least with this way people have more freedom and more choices.

Absolutely, but I don't see a problem with a parent provisionally making that decision on a child's behalf in the meantime.

Interesting. Out of curiousity what other choices do you think parent's should be allowed to make provisionally? How about medical treatments (or the denial of)? Carrer? Sexuality? Gender (in case of intersex)?

article6

I supppose my atheistic approach to it is because I think the State should have no religion, like in the USA.

The State has no official religion - despite the optional morning prayers said in the Dáil, etc., clerics probably have as much power in the USA as they do here. Perhaps some laws reflect Christian influence, but as oscarBravo said, you can often get that in a democracy populated by mostly Christians.

True... but human rights should be pretty monocromatic, and you are supporting a (different) monocromatic point of view. At least with this way people have more freedom and more choices.

Is it necessarily a human right to prohibit the baptism of children, setting aside religious indoctrination on this point? Is it always possible for a child to make mature choices with its freedom?

Interesting. Out of curiousity what other choices do you think parent's should be allowed to make provisionally? How about medical treatments (or the denial of)? Carrer? Sexuality? Gender (in case of intersex)?

Provisionally, most choices should be fine. Not if the parents/guardians make them on a permanent basis, mind you - just provisionally. In the case of child neglect, that is a crime on the statutes, I believe. Most children don't have a career or sexuality, so they're irrelevant, since any such decision would affect the child only on adulthood, and would not be provisional. Gender is quite a moral grey area.