Baptism banned until child can decide for themselves.

muppeteer

http://www.news.com.au/national/mum-loses-biblical-row/story-e6frfkvr-1226229754277?sv=ca240be5cb80b5fc68ff35d6a2779f69#.TvRywRbp7-4.twitter

A COURT has been forced to intervene in a bitter dispute between estranged parents over whether their seven-year-old daughter should be baptised.

A magistrate decided she could not yet be baptised, the Herald Sun reported.

He determined that the girl should make up her mind about being baptised when she was older.

In a judgment published this week, the Family Court dismissed an appeal from the mother against the ruling.

It ruled against overturning orders preventing her from changing her daughter's surname to a hyphenated name and provided for the girl to spend alternate Christmases with her dad.

Family Court Justice Stephen Thackery ordered the mother pay the father's costs because of the minor nature of the issues and her lack of success.

"A party who chooses to agitate minor matters on appeal runs the risk they will be required to meet the costs they have forced the other party to incur," he said.

The woman told the Family Court the magistrate had erred in law in making his decision that the child could not yet be baptised.

She said this was because the girl was attending a Christian school, was a practising Christian and had placed importance in the Christian faith.

Justice Thackery said the mum failed to demonstrate the magistrate's decision was clearly wrong.

The magistrate who originally heard the case said the little girl had been asking about baptism and the mother believed it would help her fit in at school if she were baptised.

"In my view, it is not necessary for (her) to be baptised in order to 'fit in'," the magistrate had ruled.

He said the father was not religious and believed a decision about baptism should be left until the girl was older so that she could have proper input.

"His concern is about baptising her into a particular faith before she is able to decide for herself what religion she wishes to be part of," the magistrate said.

"I consider that is it not necessary for (the child) to be baptised at this early stage. Given the conflict between the parents on this issue, and given her tender age, this process can be safely left to a later date."

Interesting decision from Australia.
I would predict some complaints about religious freedom being curtailed but the judge seems to have neutered such complaints by leaving the decision up to the child when she is old enough. Can only guess at what age that will be though. Isn't 7 nearly communion age anyway?

May the mod/gods move this thread to a sticky as they see fit

eoin5

Poor kid

I bet the school is going to end up in the middle on this one too. What will the dad think of morning prayers and religious instruction classes etc..

Rev Hellfire

Both parents sound like muppets.

muppeteer

It's hard to tell which parent is being the stubborn one or if it's both of them that have had to drag things through the courts.
Either way, the fathers position seems to have been vindicated by the magistrate.
A kid growing up confused/conflicted about religion seems inevitable.

dmw07

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

Both parents sound like muppets.

You did well to deduce that from such scant evidence.

Galvasean

dmw07 wrote: »

You did well to deduce that from such scant evidence.

He said they sound like (based on the scant evidence). He never said they were.

dmw07

Galvasean wrote: »

He said they sound like (based on the scant evidence). He never said they were.

Still wondering what his (I take it?) explanation as to how he arrived at a sounds like presumption based on that text(It had one quote from the judge in reference to the father which doesn't even match the editors comment) is. He committed to saying sounds like. How

I couldn't even contemplate imagining what the parents characters are like. Just saying he did well to arrive at that point.

Ellis Dee

This looks like a lot of pettiness between the parents, and it's interesting that the child is seven years old. That indicates that the parents agreed for a long time that she shouldn't be baptised, something that is usually done to kids when they are only days or weeks old. So why does the mother leave it until now to decide the child should be formally inducted into her religious cult?

The court ruling that decisions like that should be left until people are of age (18, maybe 16) seems wise and fair to me.:)

The same should apply to circumcision. But, as the god-botherers know only too well, the time to strike and indoctrinate is when minds are still impressionable and malleable. Does anyone really think there would be long lines of adults outside Dr. Cohen's or Dr. Khan's surgeries waiting to have their snags snigged if that decision was left to them?:rolleyes:

Zombrex

muppeteer wrote: »

http://www.news.com.au/national/mum-loses-biblical-row/story-e6frfkvr-1226229754277?sv=ca240be5cb80b5fc68ff35d6a2779f69#.TvRywRbp7-4.twitter

Interesting decision from Australia.
I would predict some complaints about religious freedom being curtailed but the judge seems to have neutered such complaints by leaving the decision up to the child when she is old enough. Can only guess at what age that will be though. Isn't 7 nearly communion age anyway?

May the mod/gods move this thread to a sticky as they see fit

People like this can have kids but gay people can't adopt. Yes, Christianty makes perfect sense .... :rolleyes:

Galvasean

Ellis Dee wrote: »

. Does anyone really think there would be long lines of adults outside Dr. Cohen's or Dr. Khan's surgeries waiting to have their snags snigged if that decision was left to them?:rolleyes:

I believe its considered a fashion statement in the US

muppeteer

Zombrex wrote: »

People like this can have kids but gay people can't adopt. Yes, Christianty makes perfect sense .... :rolleyes:

Without people like this who would feed the poor lawyers:).

Still, the judgment at least shows that when there is a disagreement between parents that the default position is no religious ceremony. Could easily have been a difference between two different religions.

I have to wonder about the poor kid though, might be gods are bull**** weekdays then a dose of bible on the weekend to counter wicked daddy.

recedite

muppeteer wrote: »

Still, the judgment at least shows that when there is a disagreement between parents that the default position is no religious ceremony.

Interesting alright, although no guarantee that the default position here would be the same (yet).

philologos

It's not banned. It's just that in this particular dispute that the judge has ruled this way, and rightfully in my opinion. I support baptism at an age when people decide to believe in Jesus for themselves. An outward sign of an internal motion of becoming born again, becoming a child of God. Others may disagree, but that's my take.

Dades

^^ Hurrah!

muppeteer

philologos wrote: »

It's not banned. It's just that in this particular dispute that the judge has ruled this way, and rightfully in my opinion. I support baptism at an age when people decide to believe in Jesus for themselves. An outward sign of an internal motion of becoming born again, becoming a child of God. Others may disagree, but that's my take.

Indeed just in this case, but now with a president set for future similar cases.

If you support baptism at the age of reason not before then would you also wait to introduce religious activities/practices until the age of reason too?
I find religious instruction of children to be far too similar to instructing a child in party politics. Something to be introduced much later when the child has a chance of reasoning their choices.

philologos

The church I currently attend advocates adult baptism rather than child baptism.

I don't believe there is anything wrong with teaching any child about Christianity though. If I had children I would feel it would be immoral not to given what I believe about Jesus saving mankind from sin. On hearing the Christian POV clearly, they are up to decide whether or not to follow Christ. I'd feel that I would be failing any hypothetical child I had by not teaching them about Christ. I wouldn't compare this to politics, as I feel as a Christian I would be actively denying the most fundamental component of reality if I didn't introduce my child to Christ.

The practicalities of having to arrange a babysitter everytime I went to church would be a little bit absurd also.

muppeteer

philologos wrote: »

The church I currently attend advocates adult baptism rather than child baptism.

I don't believe there is anything wrong with teaching any child about Christianity though. If I had children I would feel it would be immoral not to given what I believe about Jesus saving mankind from sin. On hearing the Christian POV clearly, they are up to decide whether or not to follow Christ. I'd feel that I would be failing any hypothetical child I had by not teaching them about Christ. I wouldn't compare this to politics, as I feel as a Christian I would be actively denying the most fundamental component of reality if I didn't introduce my child to Christ.

The practicalities of having to arrange a babysitter everytime I went to church would be a little bit absurd also.

There are many different levels of teaching a child about your beliefs to instructing a child in your beliefs. The latter become far too compulsory for my liking as a child is completely at your will if they are instructed before the age of reason.
While I commend conducting baptism in adulthood, I would fear that if a child was instructed in prayer and belief with all the bells and whistles from too young an age then the choice may not be a fully free one.

amacachi

The fact that 2 different judges are taking a side other than the mother's in a family law case suggests to me that she must've turned up and told them to fcuk off.

Or that Australia has a fairer system than us maybe :pac:

robindch

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

Both parents sound like muppets.

I'd say at least one parent is a muppet, and probably no more than that.

strobe

I motherfucking heart Australia. They are always at this kind of shit.

"But, but, but God and stuff..!" - "Go fuck off out of it!" <- That's what that say, that's a thing what they say.

amacachi

strobe wrote: »

I motherfucking heart Australia. They are always at this kind of shit.

That and genocide.

strobe

amacachi wrote: »

That and genocide.

Well... indeed.

But they've toned down on the genocide lately though, so they get a pass with me. I'm not that big on blaming people for the actions of their parents parents. That just seems a very Christian kind of thing to do, the whole blaming people that didn't actually do anything wrong dealy.

amacachi

strobe wrote: »

Well... indeed.

But they've toned down on the genocide lately though, so they get a pass with me. I'm not that big on blaming people for the actions of their parents parents. That just seems a very Christian kind of thing to do, the whole blaming people that didn't actually do anything wrong dealy.

It's easy to tone down on the genocide thing once it's either been completed or nearly completed to the point where one feels comfortable making jokes about it.

hairy sailor

muppeteer wrote: »

It's hard to tell which parent is being the stubborn one or if it's both of them that have had to drag things through the courts.
Either way, the fathers position seems to have been vindicated by the magistrate.
A kid growing up confused/conflicted about religion seems inevitable.

Usually easy to tell which parent's being stubborn,the parent with the law on their side & who usually hold's all the card's,i.e the woman

strobe

amacachi wrote: »

It's easy to tone down on the genocide thing once it's either been completed or nearly completed to the point where one feels comfortable making jokes about it.

So... An Irish genocider, an English genocider and a Scottish genocider walk into a bar. The bar man takes one look and says, "What is this, some kind of joke?"

amacachi

strobe wrote: »

So... An Irish genocider, an English genocider and a Scottish genocider walk into a bar. The bar man takes one look and says, "What is this, some kind of joke?"

Would the Irish genocider not kill himself by choking on a spud, the Scottish genocider with alcohol/heroin and the English genocider by trying for several days straight without food or water to come up with a particularly resonant Nationalistic quote?

Or something like that.

strobe

Good point.

Peregrinus

A few points.

eoin5 wrote: »

I bet the school is going to end up in the middle on this one too. What will the dad think of morning prayers and religious instruction classes etc..

This is a family law matter, which is why neither the child nor the parents nor the school have been named in the news report. The school quite possibly doesn’t know the matter has been to court but, even if they do, they certainly won’t get involved.

Ellis Dee wrote: »

. . . it's interesting that the child is seven years old. That indicates that the parents agreed for a long time that she shouldn't be baptised, something that is usually done to kids when they are only days or weeks old. So why does the mother leave it until now to decide the child should be formally inducted into her religious cult?

We don’t know that the parents agreed that she shouldn’t be baptised; all we know is that they didn’t agree that she should be baptised.

The school is described in the news report as a “Christian” school, which in the Australian usage means a school associated with a Protestant tradition. It could well be a Baptist school – there are plenty of them around – in which case infant baptism is not the norm. (But neither is baptism at age 7.)

We don’t know that this is the mother’s “religious cult”. The girl goes to a Christian school, but it is common for non-religious parents in Australia to send their children to Christian schools. We’re told that the girl is a “practising Christian” and that she has asked about being baptised, but we are not told whether the mother was ever baptised or whether she practises any religion. Her stated reason for wanting the child baptised is that she want the girl to “fit in” at school, which suggests that her own religious convictions are not in play. The fact that the question of baptism doesn’t seem to have come up until the girl expressed an interest it in suggests that her parents weren’t particularly interested in having her baptised.

Ellis Dee wrote: »

The court ruling that decisions like that should be left until people are of age (18, maybe 16) seems wise and fair to me.

That’s not the court’s ruling. The ruling is that the question can be put off until a “later date”, when the girl could have “proper input”. But in the family court context that does not mean 18 or 16; children are regularly consulted at considerably younger ages (but not at 7). Plus, this is a ruling about this girl, and her parents, in their circumstances, and no-one else. It’s not a general ruling about “decisions like this” and “people”.

muppeteer wrote: »

. . . the judgment at least shows that when there is a disagreement between parents that the default position is no religious ceremony.

Nope. Nothing in this ruling about “default positions”. This is a ruling about this girl, in these circumstances, at this time.

muppeteer wrote: »

I have to wonder about the poor kid though, might be gods are bull**** weekdays then a dose of bible on the weekend to counter wicked daddy.

You’re writing your own fantasy here. There’s nothing in the news report to suggest that either of her parents are religious. My guess is that neither of them are.

J C

robindch wrote: »

I'd say at least one parent is a muppet, and probably no more than that.

Are they now moving from banning prayer in schools ... to banning prayer in swimming pools????

This case seems to be a non-event ... once the child is Saved ... she can be baptised anytime she decides ... and the secular courts have no ability to enforce anything about such spiritual issues.
Are they going to follow this girl around to stop her being baptised ... with water and the Holy Spirit? ... and how are they going to be able to practically stop her doing this ... if she wants to do it?
... are they going to police her every encounter with water ???
... and, in any event, whether she is baptised or not is a moot point in relation to her Salvation.

muppeteer

Peregrinus wrote: »

That’s not the court’s ruling. The ruling is that the question can be put off until a “later date”, when the girl could have “proper input”. But in the family court context that does not mean 18 or 16; children are regularly consulted at considerably younger ages (but not at 7). Plus, this is a ruling about this girl, and her parents, in their circumstances, and no-one else. It’s not a general ruling about “decisions like this” and “people”.


Nope. Nothing in this ruling about “default positions”. This is a ruling about this girl, in these circumstances, at this time.


You’re writing your own fantasy here. There’s nothing in the news report to suggest that either of her parents are religious. My guess is that neither of them are.

Surely previous precedents would have been used in making the ruling and this case can be used as a precedent in future rulings too can it not? Unless there is something different about family law that I'm missing?

Also notice the might i my post, just a musing with a dash of hoping that this wouldn't be the case.

Since the article specifically mentions that the father is non religious it would seem a fair assumption to make that the mother is religious.

robindch

J C wrote: »

Are they going to follow this girl around to stop her being baptised ... with water and the Holy Spirit? ... and how are they going to be able to practically stop her doing this ... if she wants to do it?

Same way that they stop, or try to stop, people having sex before the age of 18, and for much the same reasons.

I look forward to the day when the law sees fit to prohibit people from interfering with a child's mind, as much as it now tries to prohibit interference with a child's body.