To christen or not

D1stant

Myself and the OH are not religious nor zealot athiest. Skeptic agnostic is probably close, but rarely does religion or God come up tbh. My wife is probably a little warmer towards the RC tradition than me

Now the question is whether we christen our newborn or not. Personally I'd rather not as

- I think the whole rationale is nonsense
- Its the childs choice whenever or if she wants to
- Its hypocritical of me

The wife wants to christen as

- the child will be included in the ceremonies with all her peers
- it does no harm, its just fantasy along the lines of Santa

I'm kind of stuck in the logic and wondered how other people would feel about it

robindch

This topic comes up fairly regularly, so I'll give (my ) standard advice:

Trade a nice christening with all the trappings for the missus's agreeing to a place in an Educate Together school, or if there's no ET nearby, for her agreeing for the child to be excused from religion "classes" when they appear.

The only reason you'll need a baptismal cert is if access to your local school is controlled by the church, and the opening class is oversubscribed, in which case there's a real risk the church will refuse a place to your child in favour of some other kid with the right religious paperwork.

BTW, the church is quiet shameless in its use of childhood peer-pressure and coming-of-age ceremonies to boost its client-base. Saying that "it'll do no harm" is quite naive -- the church runs schools specifically so that they can indoctrinate children to ensure that there will be a credulous client-base in 25 years time.

wonderfulname

Personally I would say don't do it, unless there is a real chance of problems with regard schooling. Allow your child grow up with an objective view and let them get baptised if they choose to once they are old enough to do so. I'm not confirmed, I made that choice at that age, despite the tradition of giving kids wads of cash for the thing, and the fact all the cool kids were doing it. I'm a little annoyed now as it appears that was for nothing as I'm still on the books as having been baptised as a baby, and hence, according to the church, I'm catholic, just not one they can marry, woot...
Oh, and according to our society I'm also catholic, as once you answer "don't have one" when someone asks your religion they immediately ask whether you were born catholic or protestant.

A label that doesn't fit for the rest of my life over a drop of water, crazy isn't it?

Your child won't care all that much that they don't get to do the religious stuff by the way, they possibly will that they don't get the lucrative earner but other than that it won't effect them.

AhSureTisGrand

wonderfulname wrote: »

I'm not confirmed, I made that choice at that age, despite the tradition of giving kids wads of cash for the thing

Well that was silly :P

wonderfulname

I didn't much fancy being a hypocrite, glad of it though, if just for the look on peoples faces...

Beruthiel

D1stant wrote: »

My wife is probably a little warmer towards the RC tradition than me

RC is not a tradition. It is a religion and you either believe and follow everything in that religion, or, you don't.
Go with the naming ceremony.

There are changes coming in the schools. By the time your child starts, things will have changed a lot with regards to religion. Hopefully.
There's also Educate Together.

cavedave

D1stant

Myself and the OH are not religious nor zealot athiest

What ceremony do zealot atheists have for their kids?

Beruthiel

cavedave wrote: »

What ceremony do zealot atheists have for their kids?

Instead of baptizing it, they eat it.
With a nice jus de vin and a bottle of Chianti of course...

Malari

Can you baptise kids at the age of 5 if the local school is kicking up a fuss, or can you only do it for babies?

TwoShedsJackson

As far as I know you can be baptised at any age, many's the hippy I saw getting dunked in a barrel at Glastonbury in the 90s, and they were at least 20

Malari

TwoShedsJackson wrote: »

As far as I know you can be baptised at any age, many's the hippy I saw getting dunked in a barrel at Glastonbury in the 90s, and they were at least 20

Oh, yeah, ok, I didn't phrase that very well. I know it's possible to get baptised at any age. I mean when you put your kid's name down on a school list and the school tells you they have not been accepted because they are not baptised, can you not just go get the kid a quik-e-baptism and be accepted. Does the school take the view that only kids baptised at birth are true catholics?

D1stant

Beruthiel wrote: »

RC is not a tradition. It is a religion and you either believe and follow everything in that religion, or, you don't.
Go with the naming ceremony.

There are changes coming in the schools. By the time your child starts, things will have changed a lot with regards to religion. Hopefully.
There's also Educate Together.

Tradition, fable, religion. What's the difference?

In this country RC is a tradition.

And by the way I say you'd be hard pressed to find anyone that believes and follows all of it

bleg

D1stant wrote: »

Myself and the OH are not religious

So why would you christen?

minikin

Have a fifteen month old, neither her mother nor I are practicing catholics.
We decided to have her baptised as it was the easiest option.

I reckon kids have enough problems without landing another 'difference' on them.

From an emotional point of view I reckon it, the thought that there's some almighty being looking after them, makes a child's life easier.

I see it as being our role as parents to protect our children from as much stress/worry as possible - if temporarily believing in a beardy chap on a cloud helps - what's the harm?

Beruthiel

minikin wrote: »

From an emotional point of view I reckon it, the thought that there's some almighty being looking after them, makes a child's life easier

As a child, I found the concept of an all powerful being watching my every move and judging me to be frightening.

I don't believe it makes a childs life easier. It certainly didn't seem to make any difference with my child.

MagicMarker

I can understand someone baptising their child if they are left with no other choice in terms of education etc, but other than that there is no reason at all to do it. Baptising a child because they may feel ''left out'' somewhere down the line is pretty weak, I don't think that even counts as a reason.

Rachiee

I thionk its hypocritical to raise you're children with a religion that you dont believe in dont christen and educate youre child about the different religions as and when necessary, the only time thye child will suffer for it will be the first communion (particularly for a girl ) but you can do things to cheer the child up and support it at that time in the long run the only time its good to be a catholic is first communion which is just one day the child will get over it.

minikin

As a child, I found the concept of an all powerful being watching my every move and judging me to be frightening.

Funny, I don't remember being worried about such concepts as a child.

MagicMarker

minikin wrote: »

Funny, I don't remember being worried about such concepts as a child.

So why use it as an excuse to baptise your child?

You need to also bear in mind you can't officially leave the catholic church, ever. So it's more than just something harmless that doesn't mean anything.
not feeling left out is also not a good reason imo.

minikin

MagicMarker wrote: »

minikin wrote: »

Funny, I don't remember being worried about such concepts as a child.

So why use it as an excuse to baptise your child?

Where did I say that introducing the concept of a fearsome judgemental god was one of my reasons for having her baptised? Beruthiel introduced that particular canard. I questioned it.

I'll be introducing her to the concept of a god who looks after you when you're alive and looks after grannies and goldfish when they're dead. And he'll he a happy giggly god with a sense of humour - this is my choice as he's completely fictional anyway!

This is just as un-hypocritical as telling her about santa claus, the tooth bunny or the easter fairy.

FouxDaFaFa

minikin wrote: »

I'll be introducing her to the concept of a god who looks after you when you're alive and looks after grannies and goldfish when they're dead. And he'll he a happy giggly god with a sense of humour - this is my choice as he's completely fictional anyway!

This is just as un-hypocritical as telling her about santa claus, the tooth bunny or the easter fairy.

But Santa or the tooth fairy do not dictate how you live your life (apart from being "good" for Santa). A religion is supposed to inform many aspects of your life. I just find it difficult to understand how you're happy for your child to learn to worship and learn prayers to a being you don't believe in.

I'm not trying to get on your back, it's obvious you love your daughter and want her to be happy. Just curious, if she asked you if you believed in God would you tell her the truth?

OP, I would consider the impact of this further down the line too. Not just as being relevant for primary school. I know that when I decided that I didn't believe in God (about 16/17) I kind of resented the fact that my parents had had me baptised because I will forever be on the books of an organisation I really don't want to be associated with. Now of course, your child could decide they want to follow a religion. I know an atheist who decided to be baptised at the age of 20. I just think it's better to give the child a chance to decide what they want.

minikin

But Santa or the tooth fairy do not dictate how you live your life

I was born into a catholic family, I was christened, communioned, confirmed, even did the altarboy thing for a few years... and then I grew up. What part of that equation results in the church dictating how I live my life. Do you seriously believe for a minute that it had anything like the influence of my parents, friends, relations, teammates, neighbours, teachers, the local library, the media? Seriously?

There are lots of things that dictate how I live my life - none of them are imaginary though.

It strikes me that those who are anti-something are precisely those who take it too seriously.

Just curious, if she asked you if you believed in God would you tell her the truth?

What age is she when she asks this though?
See this is my point - you can't be too coldly logical when they're young, this is why you shield them from certain realities until they are old enough to rationalise them for themselves.

I was reading some nursery rhymes to her last night - one of which was seesaw marjorie daw.
Should I have refused to read it because it espoused the abuse of the working man by disregarding the national minimum wage?
No - because it's just a nonsense rhyme that makes her smile.

robindch

D1stant wrote: »

The wife wants to christen [...]

bluewolf wrote: »

You need to also bear in mind you can't officially leave the catholic church, ever.

Bluewolf is quite right.

What you could do -- now that I think of it -- is to suggest a contract with the priest or the local bishop, to be signed before baptism. This contract would state that you're allowing your child to be baptized, but only on condition that the church will agree not to consider the child a catholic, if the child subsequently chooses not to consider themselves a catholic.

I can't see the church signing such a contract, but it should help to concentrate minds.

FouxDaFaFa

minikin wrote: »

Do you seriously believe for a minute that it had anything like the influence of my parents, friends, relations, teammates, neighbours, teachers, the local library, the media? Seriously?

No, I don't. It rarely does except for those who are extremely devout. But it did affect your life. You said yourself, you did the ceremonies. You were an altar boy. You devoted time and energy every Sunday to a certain thing. Even though it didn't dictate your every move, I consider that "having an influence".

minikin wrote: »

It strikes me that those who are anti-something are precisely those who take it too seriously.

You're right. I expect people who are "Catholic" or "Jewish" or whatever to take it seriously. Otherwise, what's the point? It's just a label to some people. I guess I would just be uncomfortable personally calling myself something and being extremely half-hearted about it.

tallaghtmick

D1stant wrote: »

Myself and the OH are not religious nor zealot athiest. Skeptic agnostic is probably close, but rarely does religion or God come up tbh. My wife is probably a little warmer towards the RC tradition than me

Now the question is whether we christen our newborn or not. Personally I'd rather not as

- I think the whole rationale is nonsense
- Its the childs choice whenever or if she wants to
- Its hypocritical of me

The wife wants to christen as

- the child will be included in the ceremonies with all her peers
- it does no harm, its just fantasy along the lines of Santa

I'm kind of stuck in the logic and wondered how other people would feel about it

Your wife is a legend for that remark:D

D1stant

robindch wrote: »

Bluewolf is quite right.

What you could do -- now that I think of it -- is to suggest a contract with the priest or the local bishop, to be signed before baptism. This contract would state that you're allowing your child to be baptized, but only on condition that the church will agree not to consider the child a catholic, if the child subsequently chooses not to consider themselves a catholic.

I can't see the church signing such a contract, but it should help to concentrate minds.

I can t see the church signing (or honouring) a contract either

Im personally not too bothered by the label. So I exist in a RC database somewhere that says Im a catholic. Thats less important and useful to me than what the amazon.com database says about what books I like.

I would really just rather she was kept out of the whole thing but maybe its still not that pragmatic in Ireland.

minikin

FouxDaFaFa:
Are you half hearted about being a citizen?
Do you fly your national flag?
Do you speak your national language?
Do you volunteer in your country's defence forces to protect her sovereignty?
Do you follow each and every law and bye-law to the letter?

I would not criticise you if you didn't devote yourself completely to your nation, why would you demand the same of someone for the religion they happen to have been introduced to as a child? What would you expect anything of another person? We all have freewill. If you don't believe in something that's fine but don't go around wrecking the comfortable myth for those who do... like the kid who cocks christmas up for everyone else in class by telling them there's no santa.

You say the catholic church affected my life because of the the (approximately) 390hours I spent going to mass, roughly half an hour a week up til the age of fifteen. I've been out of the womb for about 317,988 hours. One eight hundred and fifteenth of my life. I have spent more time on the crapper... which of these activities do I still worship today?

You're simply overthinking the impact that religion has on the lives of most people.

FouxDaFaFa

minikin wrote: »

FouxDaFaFa:
Are you half hearted about being a citizen?

I would not criticise you if you didn't devote yourself completely to your nation, why would you demand the same of someone for the religion they happen to have been introduced to as a child? What would you expect anything of another person? We all have freewill. If you don't believe in something that's fine but don't go around wrecking the comfortable myth for those who do... like the kid who cocks christmas up for everyone else in class by telling them there's no santa.

Everyone's a citizen of somewhere, there's nothing you can do about that. I'll be the first to admit that I'm not overly patriotic, etc. I do some of the things you mention above and don't do others. I would consider myself more of a "citizen of the world" (excuse how lame that sounds) than of Ireland, even though I am happy to be Irish.
I don't expect religious people to follow everything to the letter. But at the very least surely, to be a christian you should believe in God.
I don't want to "ruin" anything for anyone, I have no problem with people getting comfort/joy out of something even if I don't believe in it. But I do think people should be encouraged to think about things and question the things they've been told, not just accept everything as it's told to them.

Ps-I let my little brother think he was breaking the news to me about Santa when he was 11 and I was 17, so I'm not *that* kid.;)

minikin

I don't expect religious people to follow everything to the letter. But at the very least surely, to be a christian you should believe in God.

I'm only a christian in the sense that that was the label placed upon me as a child. It's an unimportant label... but why do you feel you have a right to have expectations of me as an individual because someone else has placed a label on me? Seems very judgmental. Do I have to be a drunk because that's the expectation some people place on the label 'Irish'?

CashMoney

How any person, knowing the full facts of all of the abuse cases, including cover-ups by the church authorities that go right to the very top can add their child to the churches numbers, especially when the parents are not even believers, beggars belief. It really does.

Mark Hamill

minikin wrote: »

I'm only a christian in the sense that that was the label placed upon me as a child. It's an unimportant label... but why do you feel you have a right to have expectations of me as an individual because someone else has placed a label on me?

Because thats what labels are for, to help us manage our expectations of people. And its a bit rich to question us expecting something of you because of a label trust upon you by someone else, when you are proposing to do the same with your kids.

D1stant

D1stant wrote: »

Im personally not too bothered by the label. So I exist in a RC database somewhere that says Im a catholic. Thats less important and useful to me than what the amazon.com database says about what books I like.

Why's having another label an issue?
Because then in future we are going to have a lot more of these threads, as they will claim large numbers of members as a good reason to hold onto schools.
Because you are officially agreeing to sign up to a church which is currently engaged in massive scandals and has reacted by cutting off its priests and denying everything and refusing to pay the compensation to victims: even more, you are not joining up because you believe in everything else they've done, but just for the hell of it.
And because we will have threads like another recentish one where someone wanted to convert to another religion but needed a letter from CC saying they were no longer a member first... I don't know how that one turned out.

minikin

How any person, knowing the full facts of all of the abuse cases, including cover-ups by the church authorities that go right to the very top can add their child to the churches numbers, especially when the parents are not even believers, beggars belief. It really does.

Hi CashMoney,

See that soap-scum covered baby in the sewer system... you've just put that there.

Because thats what labels are for, to help us manage our expectations of people. And its a bit rich to question us expecting something of you because of a label trust upon you by someone else, when you are proposing to do the same with your kids.

Mark Hamill,
You're seriously condoning generalisation as a suitable alternative to engaging with individuals?
Are all Jewish people the same? Are all Nigerian people the same? Are all builders the same? Are all liverpool fans the same?

FouxDaFaFa

minikin wrote: »

I'm only a christian in the sense that that was the label placed upon me as a child. It's an unimportant label... but why do you feel you have a right to have expectations of me as an individual because someone else has placed a label on me? Seems very judgmental. Do I have to be a drunk because that's the expectation some people place on the label 'Irish'?

The definition of Christian is someone who believes in God, it's not just an expectation I might have about what Christians do. If you don't you are lapsed or an atheist/agnostic. The definition of Irish is not "drunk", that's a sterotype or expectation that some people might have.You can be an Irish pioneer. However, I honestly don't see how you can be a Christian who doesn't believe in God.

I'm not trying to judge anyone or get into anything heavy here, I only posted to try to help the OP come to a decision and offer my experience.

Mark Hamill

minikin wrote: »

FouxDaFaFa:
Are you half hearted about being a citizen?
Do you fly your national flag?
Do you speak your national language?
Do you volunteer in your country's defence forces to protect her sovereignty?
Do you follow each and every law and bye-law to the letter?

I would not criticise you if you didn't devote yourself completely to your nation, why would you demand the same of someone for the religion they happen to have been introduced to as a child?

Calling yourself an irish citizen only implies that you where born in Ireland (or have lived their legally, for sufficient time). It makes no assumptions about what you think of the place. Religious labels are supposed to represent your beliefs.

minikin wrote: »

You're simply overthinking the impact that religion has on the lives of most people.

You're simply underthinking the impact those people have on religious organisations power and authority. People associating with the label of "catholic" (particularly on things like the census), regardless of whether they even know what it means, all add up as "followers" of the church, thus increasing its membership and supposed representation.
Even aside from all the detestable things the church has done, why enlist membership to any organisation if you dont actually feel represented by it? Your lack of caring about the membership wont stop the organisation from using it to claim representation of you.

minikin

You're simply underthinking the impact those people have on religious organisations power and authority. People associating with the label of "catholic" (particularly on things like the census), regardless of whether they even know what it means, all add up as "followers" of the church, thus increasing its membership and supposed representation.

Ah come on, what power and authority does the catholic church have in Ireland today? It only has influence where we as a society and the civil authority allows it.

Even aside from all the detestable things the church has done, why enlist membership to any organisation if you dont actually feel represented by it? Your lack of caring about the membership wont stop the organisation from using it to claim representation of you.

Eh, I am not enlisting in it, we had our daughter christened as it gives her the path of least resistance when it comes to educational choices. It gives her more options... and it affords her the opportunity to like or dislike what she's hearing, IF we bring her to church.

She gets to dress up in her 'sunday best' and gets a lesson in patience and learning to behave appropriately in public. She may even divine something positive from the christian message - which is essentially don't be a douchebag to each other. Is that such a bad thing? When she's older she can do what she wants with any information she has gathered.

chicken fingers

Better to have a child that is slightly different than perhaps getting sucked into this cult.
Anyways even now, the majority of Ireland are secretly non believers in magic.
By the time your kid goes to school he/she will certainly not be alone in being given the choice to believe or not to believe, when they are old enough.

wonderfulname

Why does this "different" thing keep coming up? Instil some self confidence in them and there's no problem. If I raised a child to feel it was more important to blend in than be themselves I'd feel I'd failed them.

Mark Hamill

minikin wrote: »

Ah come on, what power and authority does the catholic church have in Ireland today? It only has influence where we as a society and the civil authority allows it.

Look at the hassle the government has in getting the compensation off the religious orders who where told to pay up. See how they where only told to pay half of the total compensation amount? About 10 years ago? And how they have only given ~3%? Do you think any business of charity would be given such leeway? Even if you ignore the control they have on schools, they still have far too much sway over the law of our land.

minikin wrote: »

Eh, I am not enlisting in it, we had our daughter christened as it gives her the path of least resistance when it comes to educational choices. It gives her more options... and it affords her the opportunity to like or dislike what she's hearing, IF we bring her to church.

Why enlist your daughter in the churches membership if it doesn't represent yours? (it hardly represents hers, shes and infant) How does it give your daughter more options to force on her a membership that can no longer be removed? Why does she need to be christened in order to make a decision about whether she likes what she hears in church (should you even bother to bring her)? How can you question the power and authority of the church in one paragraph, in the next claim that christening will help you daughter get into catholic controlled schools and not see the glaring contradiction?

minikin wrote: »

She gets to dress up in her 'sunday best' and gets a lesson in patience and learning to behave appropriately in public. She may even divine something positive from the christian message - which is essentially don't be a douchebag to each other. Is that such a bad thing? When she's older she can do what she wants with any information she has gathered.

Nothing here is even remotely unique to christianity. Do you think that no christened kids never get to wear nice clothes or learn manners or something? That its only through religion that she could learn not to be a douche? Aren't you her parent? Cant you teach her or have her do these things anyway? Your responsibilities aside, does she need the label of christian in order to get a lesson in patience, to get something positive from the christian message? Couldn't you have her learn all this without inflicting an unnecessary and invalid label on her? Couldn't you bring her to church and have her hear all about it, with a view to her making up her own mind as she grows up, without making it up for her when she is a baby?

MrPudding

Rachiee wrote: »

I thionk its hypocritical to raise you're children with a religion that you dont believe in dont christen and educate youre child about the different religions as and when necessary, the only time thye child will suffer for it will be the first communion (particularly for a girl ) but you can do things to cheer the child up and support it at that time in the long run the only time its good to be a catholic is first communion which is just one day the child will get over it.

I don’t think it is hypocritical, more pragmatic. The main issue is not the feeling of being left out as they are the only person in the class not receiving first communion; the main issue is not being in a class at all because the scum that run 98% of the primary schools in the country have a legally granted dispensation to discriminate against children because they have not been baptised.

That said, I personally think one should not baptise a child if you don’t believe. Now, for me that is hypocritical because I got my first 3 kids baptised, and one of them had first holy communion. I did it to stop relative whining at me. My forth child has not been baptised, nor will she be, and none of them will receive any further sacraments unless they choose to as an adult.

I am in a slightly better position than my atheist brethren in Ireland as I have a wider choice of school here in the UK. That said, one of the best schools in my area in the catholic school, but I chose not to send them there as I did not want to go through the whole charade that would be required. I may have bent to family pressure in the past, but I am holding firm now.

MrP

Mark Hamill

wonderfulname wrote: »

Why does this "different" thing keep coming up? Instil some self confidence in them and there's no problem. If I raised a child to feel it was more important to blend in than be themselves I'd feel I'd failed them.

I wonder what these people think will happen when their kids leave school for the real world, what with all its different colours and nationalities and languages. Teaching kids that they should hide or suppress any uniqueness is pretty horrible and will only retard them when they grow up and have to deal with people who aren't just like them (ie 99.999% of everyone out there)

Dont be at yourself

Don't really get the fear of being different. Kids are different, in many ways. Unless you're really living in the back arse of nowhere, schools are full of Irish, Polish, Nigerian, Chinese, black, white, Catholic, Muslim, Protestant, Mormon, Athiest. Your kid isn't going to be the only one who's different. The modern classroom is probably pretty far removed from the one of your childhood.

ShooterSF

minikin wrote: »

You're seriously condoning generalisation as a suitable alternative to engaging with individuals?
Are all Jewish people the same? Are all Nigerian people the same? Are all builders the same? Are all liverpool fans the same?

Sorry to butt in but yes. All Jewish people (at least if you mean Jewish in it's proper religious context) should believe in the jewish god and "his" teachings. All Nigerians should have either been born in Nigeria or gained citizenship in other ways and all builders should work as a builder or at least be out of work having spent their life as a builder).

What the fuck is the point in labeling someone the wrong thing. Urg blood boiling. I'm a builder by the way, though I've never handled a brick in my life or worked on a construction site. I just like the label.

Fastly becoming my biggest pet peeve.

wonderfulname

Of course there is one side of this that we haven't discussed, the Catholic side. In baptising your child you are making a commitment to the church to raise your child as a Christian, and to teach them of the faith, as are the godparents, people forget this now as everyone used be raised Catholic regardless, but depending on where you live your priest could ask quite a lot of you in this regard. It is seen as a very serious commitment whether explicitly stated or not, maybe that's why the church thinks every baptised baby is another name added to the ranks...

A lot of cultural catholics evidently don't see a problem with ignoring this fact and smiling and nodding at the priest, but I would so I figured I'd put it out there.

robindch

ShooterSF wrote: »

Fastly becoming my biggest pet peeve.

That's nothing -- wait 'til you start noticing that the people use the word "ethos" to excuse apartheid

BTW, hence the term ethosser(*)

(*) Hasn't exactly taken off yet, but I'm biding my time.

Turtwig

This is actually very easy : don't.:)

People who like to argue against new cultural norms for their kids always assume they will be bullied because of their differing opinions. The reality is that every scientific paper done on the matter shows no significant difference in the probability of a child being bullied or not. Yes, there are anecdotes, plenty of them, but no one really bothers to count the anecdotes on kids who are bullied anyways. The real issue here is picking the right school and teachers, only the kids who were going to be headstrong pricks anyways are going to voice their parents opinion. What you really need to do is avoid those kind of kids who grew up, never changed and became teachers. They're the most likely culprits and depending on their character they may even encourage the kids under their tutelage to act the same and that's when your kid is in real danger of being ostracised. Feedback from other parents and perhaps meeting some of the teachers is a must. For what scant it may be worth, if the child is not accepted because of your viewpoint then odds are even if you were a Catholic couple the school in question wouldn't be the best for you child. Tolerance is the most important virtue education can teach imo.:) Finding the right school is far from easy, you may have to move home or drive the kiddo's long distances but in fairness it's probably the biggest sacrifice you'll have to make for your kids after saving up all that money for them to go to College while knowing that they'll probably spend it all on nights out drinking.:D

iguana

My non-believer parents had me baptised and it was quite honestly the worst thing they ever did to me. Granted on the scale of awful things parents can do to their children it barely rates. But I hated them for it for a very long time when I was younger. Not one thing in our house caused more arguments and tantrums on my part. (I'm not proud of the tantrums part but in my defence I was a teenager.) I could never understand why two intelligent people, who I respect so much in almost every regard, could have done something so thoughtlessly stupid to me for the sake of something they had no belief in. They never looked at me as a baby and thought about how I would feel as an adult about a decision they made for me, which well over 30 years later has proved irrevocable.

It's not a tradition, it's a religion. Your reasons for baptising may be to do with tradition but that does not change what you are doing. The Catholic Church is a religion, one which is still very powerful. One which is extremely corrupt. One which uses it's member numbers for political influence. Anyone who is a member of that church, just through being baptised when they were 6 weeks old, gives them power, no matter how they feel about it when they are old enough to understand. I hate that I'm officially a catholic, I hate that, that organisation has me as a number when it counts their members and uses our existence to justify their influence. It makes me feel so angry and impotent. And while all injustices make me feel angry and impotent, this is an impotence my parents saddled me with.

The good news is I grew up, realised that my parents were flawed as all humans are and forgave them for their mistake, because it was a mistake. I'm not at all angry at them now, though that doesn't mean that I still really wish they had given my adult feelings more thought when I was born. Also in their defence it was the 70s and neither of them had a clue about the levels of abuse and cover-ups which were ongoing, (even though we later found out one of their siblings was a victim of it:(). I know that if they had known that then they would not have baptised their children.

gargleblaster

I didn't do it to my kids. Didn't see the point. My parents had my older sister christened but perhaps they grew sufficiently suspicious of religion by the time I was born. For whatever reason I wasn't christened though we were both sent to CCD classes. None of our younger siblings were forced to go, lucky.

And as for telling kids that God is real so that they can be reassured and feel safe, I really don't know what to think about that. I can see the reasoning behind the idea of giving kids a security blanket-type idea of an omnipotent caring being, but I disagree with it because I wouldn't want to do anything that might predispose them to getting sucked into any of the more fundamentalist groups. I also have serious issues with religion in general as a feminist.

robindch

iguana wrote: »

They never looked at me as a baby and thought about how I would feel as an adult about a decision they made for me, which well over 30 years later has proved irrevocable.

Nicholas Humphrey's 1997 lecture 'What shall we tell the children' discusses this point exactly:

http://edge.org/conversation/what-shall-we-tell-the-children

Nicholas Humphrey wrote:

I want to propose a general test for deciding when and whether the teaching of a belief system to children is morally defensible. As follows. If it is ever the case that teaching this system to children will mean that later in life they come to hold beliefs that, were they in fact to have had access to alternatives, they would most likely not have chosen for themselves, then it is morally wrong of whoever presumes to impose this system and to chose for them to do so. No one has the right to choose badly for anyone else.

This test, I admit, will not be simple to apply. It is rare enough for there to be the kind of social experiment that occurred with the Amish and the military draft. And even such an experiment does not actually provide so strong a test as I'm suggesting we require. After all the Amish young men were not offered the alternative until they were already almost grown up, whereas what we need to know is what the children of the Amish or any other sect would choose for themselves if they were to have had access to the full range of alternatives all along. But in practice of course such a totally free-choice is never going to be available.

Still, utopian as the criterion is, I think its moral implications remain pretty obvious. For, even supposing we cannot know—and can only guess on the basis of weaker tests—whether an individual exercising this genuinely free choice would himself choose the beliefs that others intend to impose upon him, then this state of ignorance in itself must be grounds for making it morally wrong to proceed. In fact perhaps the best way of putting this is to put it the other way round, and say: only if we know that teaching a system to children will mean that later in life they come to hold beliefs that, were they to have had access to alternatives, they would still have chosen for themselves, only then can it be morally allowable for whoever imposes this system and choses for them to do so. And in all other cases, the moral imperative must be to hold off.

Tonyandthewhale

Your child won't feel left out because they weren't baptised. If they decide getting their holy communion is the most important thing ever maybe you can consider getting them baptised them. But more than likely they won't be the only non-catholics in the class and they won't want to go through all the extra sitting around and praying and boredom entailed. When I was a child getting my communion (mid 1990's) no one really cared about communion, no one thought it was important, they just wanted money. The non-catholics in the class were allowed attend the church ceremony and were included as much as they wanted to be so they wouldn't feel left out and no one really noticed only some grumbles that they got to miss the occasional boring mass.

On the other hand, I'm a baptised, first communion and confirmed athiest. Growing up I never felt religious and I always struggled with my faith but the option of atheism or opting out was never explained to me. It wasn't ever the most important thing in my life but there were times when I felt that I was letting down my Catholic faith. There were morals thrust on me that I didn't believe in but I had been led to believe by my Catholic schooling that I should believe in them. It didn't scar me for life or anything but it didn't make life any easier.

As a teenager I renounced my faith and felt betrayed that I had been labelled a Catholic, an organisation that I hated and continue to hate so much. Some people don't worry about this but some people look at the rape and paedophilia and all the rest of it and their stomach churns to think they were ever part of the same organisation. You can't know at this stage which type of person your child is going to grow up to be but either way, why implicate them in this culture or gay-hate, child abuse, anti-feminism and general barbarism? What if they grow up identifying as a Catholic only to realise that they're gay or what if they find out that someone was abused by a representative of the catholic church (it still happens), what king of crisis of identity is that going to cause (maybe none, but you can't know that at this stage).

What benefit is baptism going to do? We're coming to the end of the"protected catholic ethos" and being non-catholic isn't the big deal it used to be.