Is Baptism* Child Abuse?

mehfesto2

Baptism, as it is for many Irish Catholics, occurs when the child is very young. Too young usually, for the child to be able to possess basic functions such as speech or even independent mobility. It is the parent's wish to baptise their child.

If we baptise a child, way before s/he is able to truly understand the meaning of the occasion and what it entials (e.g. that "once you're in, you can't get out", as my father says) are we commiting child abuse?

This child cannot protest about the situation. S/he does not understand the grandness of it all. S/He is not aware of other religions and cannot make an informed, rational judgement on what religion they want to me a member of - if they want to be one at all.

Should Baptism - and other such ceremonies in other religions be banned until the child is on an age where they can make such a massive decision themselves?

Turtwig

What's the purpose of renewing the baptismal vows then (usually done around easter,methinks);)

chozometroid

mehfesto2 wrote: »

Should Baptism - and other such ceremonies in other religions be banned until the child is on an age where they can make such a massive decision themselves?

I think so (referring to baptism), but only because baptism is meaningless if you don't know what you're doing when you go through with it. Being baptised without knowing anything about sin or Jesus Christ, has no value whatsoever. And yes, even once they know these things, it matters that the person is making the conscious decision to profess their faith in Christ, without being forced into it.

PDN

Children, once they get older, are entitled to decide for themselves whether they think their baptism had validity or not.

But talk of it being banned is to advocate the kind of repression of religious freedom that one would expect to find in North Korea.

As for calling it 'child abuse', let's leave that to Richard Dawkins' etc. Here in this forum that counts as trolling.

jhegarty

If you are an atheist then I presume you think the ceremony is nothing more than a wet head, and a party afterwords.

How could that possibly be child abuse ?

philologos

I don't believe it is child abuse and indeed I am thankful that I was baptised now in retrospect. I do think that teenage / adult baptism is a good idea though in comparison.

Little Acorn

I think child abuse is abit too strong a term.
I'd guess that alot of the parents who get their child baptised,are doing it with very good intentions.
Some may even believe that it would be a sin not too.
I know someone who's mum left him until the age of 12 to decide his own religion.
He still chose catholicism as most of his friends in his school were,and some members of his relations were.
I think if you grow up in a family where everyone is the same religion,there is a good chance you would choose to be that religion too,whether or not you were baptised or not as a baby.

If when older,you choose to be atheist/agnostic/other religion then fair enough.
Having a baptism won't normally stop anybody from being the religion they want to be.

I'm Catholic and was baptised as a baby,just incase anyone is wondering.

drkpower

jhegarty wrote: »

If you are an atheist then I presume you think the ceremony is nothing more than a wet head, and a party afterwords.

How could that possibly be child abuse ?

Precisely.
It is no more child abuse than giving the kid a cowboy suit and a toy gun.

chozometroid

chozometroid wrote: »

I think so (referring to baptism), but only because baptism is meaningless if you don't know what you're doing when you go through with it. Being baptised without knowing anything about sin or Jesus Christ, has no value whatsoever. And yes, even once they know these things, it matters that the person is making the conscious decision to profess their faith in Christ, without being forced into it.

Forgot to add some things...
I do not think it is child abuse. I think "banning" is extreme, but since I don't agree with the act of infant baptism, I would have no problem with it being eliminated. There is a danger in giving the power to ban baptisms, though. So, on second thought: no, it should not be banned.

postcynical

drkpower wrote: »

Precisely.
It is no more child abuse than giving the kid a cowboy suit and a toy gun.

Even more strongly. It's no more child abuse than choosing the child's mother tongue. The parents have chosen to baptise the child into the Christian community. This is the parents' gift to the child. If the child resents the gift when they are older...tough! It was well meaning.

If a parent withheld teaching their child a language until the child were old enough to choose one that really would be child abuse. There's nothing wrong with giving your child every chance to grow to know Christ. As for how effective paedobaptism is, the jury's out. Plenty of Irish people would claim it had no effect. Plenty of others pray that the effect is just slow in manifesting itself:pac: (:devil smiley)

Soul Winner

Although I'm not for infant baptism for my kids I would not advocate the banning of such practices for those who are. But I would like those who are to be informed that just because some kids have not been baptized that doesn't mean that they will not get into heaven. If parents want to get their babies baptized because they believe that is what God wants, then go for it. But as one who studies the scripture and who finds no scriptural support for infant baptism then I have as much of a right to not get my kids baptized as those who believe they should. I respect their choice so let them respect mine.

As for the other religious practices like circumcision and so forth. Again it is the same principle. God made it clear to the descendants of Abraham that they should circumcise their infants on the eight day. That is something that they believe God has commanded them to do, so to have it banned because we don't believe in it is to exercise religious intolerance, and once you start there then where will it stop?

Zombrex

mehfesto2 wrote: »

If we baptise a child, way before s/he is able to truly understand the meaning of the occasion and what it entials (e.g. that "once you're in, you can't get out", as my father says) are we commiting child abuse?

I'm not quite sure how you could be committing child abuse. To do that you have to actually abuse, mentally or physically, your child, ie cause them distress or harm

The child is too young to mentally understand what is happening to them so you can't be mentally abusing them, and a bit of water on the head is hardly physical abuse.

Am I missing something?

Zombrex

Soul Winner wrote: »

As for the other religious practices like circumcision and so forth. Again it is the same principle. God made it clear to the descendants of Abraham that they should circumcise their infants on the eight day. That is something that they believe God has commanded them to do, so to have it banned because we don't believe in it is to exercise religious intolerance, and once you start there then where will it stop?

You stop at the point where you are no longer harming your children surely?

Now don't get me wrong, male circumcision seems to be a harmless procedure if done correctly by someone with medical experience. I don't have a huge issue with it, I know parents who have done it for medical reasons.

But the logic above is flawed. If circumcision wasn't harmless of course society has a right to protect the child against the wishes of the parents. Simply because the parents believe God has told them to harm their child doesn't mean that they have a right to.

PDN

Wicknight wrote: »

You stop at the point where you are no longer harming your children surely?

Now don't get me wrong, male circumcision seems to be a harmless procedure if done correctly by someone with medical experience. I don't have a huge issue with it, I know parents who have done it for medical reasons.

But the logic above is flawed. If circumcision wasn't harmless of course society has a right to protect the child against the wishes of the parents. Simply because the parents believe God has told them to harm their child doesn't mean that they have a right to.

I agree with Wicknight on this :eek:. Male circumcision does appear to be harmless, and is carried out on the majority of children in the US for non-religious reasons.

But take a practice like female genital mutilation (often inaccurately referred to as 'female circumcision'). It is child abuse, and the fact that it is done for religious reasons should not excuse it and does not lessen its barbaric nature.

Soul Winner

To PDN and Wicknight: As a Christian I don't believe that circumcision for religious reasons is required anymore. But there are religions like the Jew's religion which believe it is. So if it is done in accordance with the best medical practices do you think that it is ok?

Let us say that I am a Jew and my wife has had a baby boy and we are more than an 8 days journey to the nearest hospital due to living in a very remote location which has limited access to proper transport and we have no car. Would it be better for me to wait until I get to the hospital even though it might take me past the 8 days required to have our son circumcised or should I just do it myself on the eight day in order to keep with the custom of my fathers which they believe was handed down by God Himself to Abraham?

If I found myself in that situation I would rather incur God's anger on me for not having it done on the 8th day than to dodge the wrath and risk a botch job.

What think ye guys?

Zombrex

Soul Winner wrote: »

So if it is done in accordance with the best medical practices do you think that it is ok?

I think it is ok if it doesn't harm the child.

Why the parents want to do it is largely up to them. Naturally I don't think religious reasons are any more special or important than any other reason.

PDN

Soul Winner wrote: »

To PDN and Wicknight: As a Christian I don't believe that circumcision for religious reasons is required anymore. But there are religions like the Jew's religion which believe it is. So if it is done in accordance with the best medical practices do you think that it is ok?

Let us say that I am a Jew and my wife has had a baby boy and we are more than an 8 days journey to the nearest hospital due to living in a very remote location which has limited access to proper transport and we have no car. Would it be better for me to wait until I get to the hospital even though it might take me past the 8 days required to have our son circumcised or should I just do it myself on the eight day in order to keep with the custom of my fathers which they believe was handed down by God Himself to Abraham?

If I found myself in that situation I would rather incur God's anger on me for not having it done on the 8th day than to dodge the wrath and risk a botch job.

What think ye guys?

As I said, I have no problem with people circumcising their baby boys for whatever reason. But obviously it should be done safely and by a licensed practitioner. If someone performs a DIY job on their baby, botches it, and kills him then I would hope that a manslaughter prosecution be launched.

mehfesto2

jhegarty wrote: »

If you are an atheist then I presume you think the ceremony is nothing more than a wet head, and a party afterwords.

How could that possibly be child abuse ?

It's not so much the act as opposed to the beliefs behind it.

If you sit a child down at lease once a week for an hour and praise, say, Capitalism and highlight all the good it does and never the bad and then expect that child at a later age to be able to rationally discuss something like Communism without any form of prejudice, you'd be laughed at. If you convince a child A is right and B is wrong from an early age, the child will know no different.

To indoctrinate a child, or force beliefs on it, when it did not ask for it, be it religious or anything otherwise, is wrong. A child is innocent. It cannot dispute claims that it is told. It has no prior knowledge and as such cannot adequately consider the information it is given - it takes it all as truth.

Perhaps banning was the worng word to use, initally. But surely any caring being would not force a belief onto a child. Surely they would educate it in all the possibilites and oppertunites that the world has to offer, so that later when the child has the capabilities to decide independently, they can be assured that the child is happy in his or her own personal choice.

Why do we even require children to be baptised so young? Is it merely just to maintain numbers as a colleague of mine claims?

PDN

mehfesto2 wrote: »

It's not so much the act as opposed to the beliefs behind it.

If you sit a child down at lease once a week for an hour and praise, say, Capitalism and highlight all the good it does and never the bad and then expect that child at a later age to be able to rationally discuss something like Communism without any form of prejudice, you'd be laughed at. If you convince a child A is right and B is wrong from an early age, the child will know no different.

To indoctrinate a child, or force beliefs on it, when it did not ask for it, be it religious or anything otherwise, is wrong. A child is innocent. It cannot dispute claims that it is told. It has no prior knowledge and as such cannot adequately consider the information it is given - it takes it all as truth.

Perhaps banning was the worng word to use, initally. But surely any caring being would not force a belief onto a child. Surely they would educate it in all the possibilites and oppertunites that the world has to offer, so that later when the child has the capabilities to decide independently, they can be assured that the child is happy in his or her own personal choice.

Why do we even require children to be baptised so young? Is it merely just to maintain numbers as a colleague of mine claims?

Btw, just to make it clear that I have no axe to grind here, I don't believe in baptising infants and think the practice is pointless.

However, if we apply your logic to other areas then we would argue that it is wrong to teach children to be tolerant and accepting of other races. After all, shouldn't we let them wait until they are older to decide whether they want to be racists or not?

All parents should want to provide for their children an environment and upbringing that will help them to live a productive and fulfilling life that will be meaningful for them, and hopefully beneficial to society. Christians believe that helping a child come to an early faith in Christ will help them live such a life.

mehfesto2

PDN wrote: »

Btw, just to make it clear that I have no axe to grind here, I don't believe in baptising infants and think the practice is pointless.

However, if we apply your logic to other areas then we would argue that it is wrong to teach children to be tolerant and accepting of other races. After all, shouldn't we let them wait until they are older to decide whether they want to be racists or not?

All parents should want to provide for their children an environment and upbringing that will help them to live a productive and fulfilling life that will be meaningful for them, and hopefully beneficial to society. Christians believe that helping a child come to an early faith in Christ will help them live such a life.

I think that's an unfair example. I didn not say we should not allow children to be tolerant and accepting of other races. I just said why not let them lead a religious free life until they are able to decide whetehr they want to or not.

Infact forcing a child with a religion such as Islam would almost force issues such as sexism or homophobia onto a child.

Allowing a child to grow in a world were they are asked to behave as caring human beings (courteous to others, respectful, polite etc.), and not living within the confines of texts they cannot possibly comprehend, would surely be more beneficial to a society?

Then when the child is 16 or 18 or whenever they feel they have the capacity to choose it themselves, should they be allowed to be baptised, etc. Allow the child to discover what they[/] believe on this personal issue.

PDN

mehfesto2 wrote: »

I think that's an unfair example. I didn not say we should not allow children to be tolerant and accepting of other races. I just said why not let them lead a religious free life until they are able to decide whetehr they want to or not..

What you said was:

To indoctrinate a child, or force beliefs on it, when it did not ask for it, be it religious or anything otherwise, is wrong. A child is innocent. It cannot dispute claims that it is told. It has no prior knowledge and as such cannot adequately consider the information it is given - it takes it all as truth.

Tolerance towards other races is a belief. It happens to be a belief that you and I both see as valuable - but that is neither here nor there. Once you start telling parents that they can't encourage one kind of belief in their children, then it is inconsistent to stop them from encouraging orther beliefs.

So who decides which beliefs are OK for parents to teach their children?

The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which has been adopted by the UN, asserts that it is a basic human right for parents to educate their children according to their religious beliefs (with obvious caveats regarding the welfare of the child).

ICCPR Article 18:4 wrote:

The States Parties to the present Covenant undertake to have respect for the liberty of parents and, when applicable, legal guardians to ensure the religious and moral education of their children in conformity with their own convictions.

mehfesto2

PDN wrote: »

What you said was:



Tolerance towards other races is a belief. It happens to be a belief that you and I both see as valuable - but that is neither here nor there. Once you start telling parents that they can't encourage one kind of belief in their children, then it is inconsistent to stop them from encouraging orther beliefs.

So who decides which beliefs are OK for parents to teach their children?

The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which has been adopted by the UN, asserts that it is a basic human right for parents to educate their children according to their religious beliefs (with obvious caveats regarding the welfare of the child).

Are these not absoloute beliefs, though? They are saying that there is no middle ground, no possible room for error?

When you baptise a child you are saying essentially, "you are right. You are correct in your beliefs. There is no other possible belief other than the one that both you and I hold." Otherwise why Baptise* the child?

Similarly then Racism is an absoloute belief. That races can not be as acceptable as 'us'. That they are wrong and we are right.

Can we not teach our children so that they possess the ability to acknowledge fault in all areas of life? That they may be sometimes be wrong. So that they can learn from these mistakes and make informed, intelligent decisions later?

Taking religion out of a child's life would allow it to view religions impartially as they grow older. They would not be 'fixed' to an absoloute belief. Too taking out racist bigotry would allow the child to make his/her own assumptions on races and allow them to choose whether or not they want to be racist as an adult.

However there is no formal decision in the race case. There is in the religious one. Parents have the rights to educate their child in whatever beliefs they choose. Where is the childs choice in this? If the parents can choose to outline the childs life from day one, why not allow them to abort if the child's life?

Becasue children cannot make choices. We should not allow them to be baptised so early on, consequently. Especially considering it is 'irreversible'.

philologos

mehfesto2 wrote: »

When you baptise a child you are saying essentially, "you are right. You are correct in your beliefs. There is no other possible belief other than the one that both you and I hold." Otherwise why Baptise* the child?

This isn't what is being said at all. What is being said is a parent cares enough for their child to encourage them to live the lifestyle that God has given them. There may well be other ideologies concerning God, or concerning religion, but the ideology that they chose to follow is Christianity. The child upon reaching a later age can make a critical judgement for themselves whether or not they wish to continue.

mehfesto2 wrote: »

Similarly then Racism is an absoloute belief. That races can not be as acceptable as 'us'. That they are wrong and we are right.

Not comparing like with like?

mehfesto2 wrote: »

Can we not teach our children so that they possess the ability to acknowledge fault in all areas of life? That they may be sometimes be wrong. So that they can learn from these mistakes and make informed, intelligent decisions later?

Whether or not they are wrong is up to debate. It depends on how likely it is that it is indeed wrong. If someone can put a decent case that Christianity is most likely wrong, I will listen to it.

mehfesto2 wrote: »

Taking religion out of a child's life would allow it to view religions impartially as they grow older. They would not be 'fixed' to an absoloute belief. Too taking out racist bigotry would allow the child to make his/her own assumptions on races and allow them to choose whether or not they want to be racist as an adult.

It would also render them ignorant about religion. If you are expecting Christians to agree that leaving morality from God out of a childs life is a good thing you are a bit naiive to say the least. We believe that God can offer children the best lives they can possibly have. It would be cruel for us to deprive this from people.

Again, if you are comparing Christianity to racism you are showing a clear bias.

mehfesto2 wrote: »

However there is no formal decision in the race case. There is in the religious one. Parents have the rights to educate their child in whatever beliefs they choose. Where is the childs choice in this? If the parents can choose to outline the childs life from day one, why not allow them to abort if the child's life?

How isn't there a choice?

Parents have the choice to educate their children. The difference between you and I is that I believe that it is only right and proper that Christians lead their children to faith in God, I believe it is the best thing you can teach a child in this world.

As for abortion, completely different topic. Killing innocent live is universally wrong, teaching a child about religion isn't, in fact in Christian teaching it's a universal good.

mehfesto2 wrote: »

Becasue children cannot make choices. We should not allow them to be baptised so early on, consequently. Especially considering it is 'irreversible'.

We educate so people can decide later if they wish to continue.

I think later baptism is good, but teaching should be encouraged from an early age to help children discern what is in accordance with God's will (good) and what is not (evil). I feel not teaching these children sets them at a disadvantage in life.

paperorplastic

No, I don't think Baptism is child abuse. Just a ritual, that will appear to be more and more strange to people as time goes by. No doubt it'll be replaced with something else, something more fitting for the times.

dvpower

PDN wrote: »

As for calling it 'child abuse', let's leave that to Richard Dawkins' etc. Here in this forum that counts as trolling.

Calling Baptism child abuse is ridiculous. Less ridiculous, but also wrong, is suggesting that Dawkins thinks that baptism is child abuse.

He does make the child abuse charge against the RCC for 'priestly subversion of child minds'. Wrongly in my opinion, but since (in the context of this thread) a young child being baptised has no understanding at all of whats going on, Dawkins' charge doesn't apply.

fatmammycat

I am amazed that people are okay with male circumcision on defenseless infants. What about the right to body integrity? Would we be okay with parents lopping a finger tip if their particular brand of religion required it? An ear lobe?
I don't think baptism is abuse- but infant baptism strikes me as ridiculous- the baby does not chose to be part of a religion and makes no committment to a god, it's just a ritual for parents. But hey, a least the family have a day out and the child gets to keep all its body parts.

Zombrex

mehfesto2 wrote: »

Are these not absoloute beliefs, though? They are saying that there is no middle ground, no possible room for error?

No, what he is saying is that you cannot divorce teaching your children beliefs from the what the beliefs actually are.

I suspect you object to parents teaching their children religion because you object to the beliefs in these religions, not simply because it is parents teaching their children something. Parents teach their children stuff all the time.

The point to remember is that the parents obviously believe that it is a good and worthy thing to teach children.

By all means disagree (I certainly do) but disagree because you disagree with what is being taught, rather than the vague idea that parents shouldn't teach their children stuff.

mehfesto2 wrote: »

When you baptise a child you are saying essentially, "you are right. You are correct in your beliefs. There is no other possible belief other than the one that both you and I hold."

You are doing basically the same thing when you teach your children not to throw rocks at old people, drown cats or stick peanuts in their noses.

Again merely teaching children stuff is not bad. And children need a high level of authority in what they are taught, saying it is possibly maybe not ok to throw rocks at old people according to some people, is just going to confuse the child.

Again don't get me wrong. I have issues with parents teaching children religious beliefs.

But you can't win that argument by attacking the very notion of parents teaching their children their own held beliefs, because that becomes impossible to argue against.

jhegarty

mehfesto2 wrote: »

Becasue children cannot make choices. We should not allow them to be baptised so early on, consequently. Especially considering it is 'irreversible'.

What is irreversible about it ?

PDN

dvpower wrote: »

Calling Baptism child abuse is ridiculous. Less ridiculous, but also wrong, is suggesting that Dawkins thinks that baptism is child abuse.

Ah, my apologies to Dawkins then. I was going by what was reported by an atheist poster called munsterdevil on the Atheist Ireland Forum http://atheist.ie/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=2665.

That'll teach me not to believe such sources in future.

MrPudding

jhegarty wrote: »

What is irreversible about it ?

You cannot be unbaptised.

MrP

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

Ah, my apologies to Dawkins then. I was going by what was reported by an atheist poster called munsterdevil on the Atheist Ireland Forum http://atheist.ie/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=2665.

That'll teach me not to believe such sources in future.

You spend a lot of time on the Atheist Ireland forum? This is a whole new side to you PDN :pac:

20goto10

I wouldn't call it child abuse. For the majority of people its simply part of the school enrolement process.

Osgoodisgood

mehfesto2 wrote: »

Should Baptism - and other such ceremonies in other religions be banned until the child is on an age where they can make such a massive decision themselves?

I consider baptism of an infant to be utterly pointless but certainly wouldn't agree with banning it. If the child grows up and makes an informed but not brainwashed decision to be baptised then good for him/her. Go for it.

Other ceremonies such as circumcision are barbaric practices that have no place in modern society unless there is a medical requirement to carry out such an invasive and permanent procedure.