In Baptism, we have godparents

branie

So what's the humanist version at Naming ceremonies?

Dougla2

branie wrote: »

So what's the humanist version at Naming ceremonies?

birth certificate

Ghost Buster

branie wrote: »

So what's the humanist version at Naming ceremonies?

Good, trust worthy friends and family.

MagicMarker

Why does there have to be a ceremony?

Zillah

branie wrote: »

So what's the humanist version at Naming ceremonies?

Advanced military grade robotic bodyguards?

Ickle Magoo

Guardians?

bad2dabone

whoops

Zillah

bad2dabone wrote: »

naming ceremony?

uh?

I just told the registrar in the hospital, there was no ceremony.

What's the story with the massive misconceptions about atheism?

He specifically said humanist.

What's the story with people not reading the OP?

ShooterSF

Liver parents. Because the actual parents get to eat the heart and rump. The liver parents get the next best part.

Dan133269

Devil parents!

Dades

Don't need them in Humanist ceremonies.

For baptisms, Godparents are to assist in the child's spiritual education (like that ever happens) and have no legal standing whatsoever.

Hence for a Humanist ceremony no equivalent is unnecessary.

strobe

Dades wrote: »

Hence for a Humanist ceremony no equivalent is unnecessary.

Ok, now I'm confused.

Dades

strobe wrote: »

Ok, now I'm confused.

Can't imagine why!

Godparents: to ensure the Christian spiritual welfare of the child.

Humanism: no spiritual aspect whatsoever.

I've had some wine - am I drunk and missing something?

Zillah

Dades wrote: »

I've had some wine - am I drunk and missing something?

Yes.

Dades wrote: »

Hence for a Humanist ceremony no equivalent is unnecessary.

However, you being clear while posting is not completely incongruent with us not following what you're not saying.

WesternNight

Dades wrote: »

Hence for a Humanist ceremony no equivalent is unnecessary.

Double negatives confuse people, apparently

Zillah

WesternNight wrote: »

Double negatives confuse people, apparently

Yes they don't.

mohawk

Dades wrote: »

I've had some wine - am I drunk and missing something?

Has anyone ever told you that you should never drink and type!! Its far too dangerous.

WesternNight

Zillah wrote: »

Yes they don't.

Touché.

Dades

I could edit my post - but that would be cheating...

Suffice to say drop th "un".

Mmm. Wine.

Zillah

Dades wrote: »

I could edit my post - but that would be cheating...

Suffice to say drop th "un".

Mmm. Wine.

*clink*

robindch

Dades wrote: »

Godparents: to ensure the Christian spiritual welfare of the child

Bollocks to that! In the eyes of the church, the "godparents" are there for no other reason than to ensure that the unfortunate child is indoctrinated.

The ghastly phrase "spiritual welfare" as applied to children, is as disingenuous as the word "ethos" is when applied to schools. Both exist simply to lend an air of moral rectitude to a fundamentally dishonest act.

Dades wrote: »

I've had some wine - am I drunk and missing something?

Ah, that's it. Thought you'd lost it there for a moment

ShooterSF

robindch wrote: »

Bollocks to that! In the eyes of the church, the "godparents" are there for no other reason than to ensure that the unfortunate child is indoctrinated.

The ghastly phrase "spiritual welfare" as applied to children, is as disingenuous as the word "ethos" is when applied to schools. Both exist simply to lend an air of moral rectitude to a fundamentally dishonest act.

They're good at that sort of stuff. Was in a rare real life situation discussing religion with a few people when one mentioned "clerical abuse" to which I piped up and said "you mean the child rape?".

Gregor Samsa

We had a bit of a debate about this before the naming ceremony for our daughter. It wasn't a humanist one, just an excuse to get all the family together - but we decided to honour (or burden) my brother and my partner's sister just for the hell of it. In fact, even the term "naming ceremony" wasn't really relevant, as she was 6 months old at the time and had her name already. But it seems the lexicon hadn't caught up yet, so you have to go with what you have.

My atheist brother wanted to be referred to as Godfather - but in the Marlon Brando sense, not the Christian sense. "Guardian" sounded a bit formal and legal. In the end I just mumbled at that bit of the speech - everyone at the party knew that all it really meant was that these two had to be particularly generous with birthday and xmas gifts.

Truley

robindch wrote: »

The ghastly phrase "spiritual welfare" as applied to children, is as disingenuous as the word "ethos" is when applied to schools. Both exist simply to lend an air of moral rectitude to a fundamentally dishonest act.

Whatever your opinions on baptism, where do you get the idea that it's 'dishonest?' Likewise with schools having an ethos?

robindch

Truley wrote: »

Whatever your opinions on baptism, where do you get the idea that it's 'dishonest?'

It's dishonest to make somebody a lifetime (according to Vatican rules) member of an organization without their informed consent. In effect, it's a parent taking advantage of a child's innocence and trust and I do not find that an act imbued with much honesty.

Truley wrote: »

Likewise with schools having an ethos?

Schools which reject the applications of the children of parents who are of competing (or no) religions, implement a system of what is effectively religious apartheid. This is bad enough. It is far worse that they do this (a) while taking money from the same parents to run the schools that they refuse their children (b) that they do it with the blessing of the state and (c) have the effrontery to call it "preserving an ethos" rather than something more accurate, like "open religious discrimination".