Baptism banned until child can decide for themselves.

J C

wrote:

Originally Posted by J C
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?

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

... this theme equating the rearing of children in the Christian Faith with child abuse is a recurring and very sinister one amongst atheists. So I'm calling you on it ... please explain your outrageous claim that Christian Baptism can be equated to child abuse?

robindch wrote: »

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.

... what? ... are you proposing that they should put children into a blacked out room until they are 18 ... or something?


Children have all kinds of mind altering experiences, from the day they are born.
What I think you are saying is that children should only be exposed to your atheistic ideas ... in school, on the mass media, etc.!!!

... and, by the sound of things, you wouldn't be averse to forcibly removing Christian children from Christian homes to forcibly indoctrinate them with Atheism!!!:eek:

coffee_cake

someone kill me, i'm agreeing with jc

in fairness,

I look forward to the day when the law sees fit to prohibit people from interfering with a child's mind

does come across a bit silly

Nollog

Oh no!
Something you don't believe in is laying claim to a person's soul which you don't believe in either!

I agree though, it should be a choice to enter a religion, not something a parent decides just for the hell of it.

J C

bluewolf wrote: »

someone kill me, i'm agreeing with jc

in fairness,

does come across a bit silly

It isn't silly at all ... it's very sinister to compare Christian Baptism to child abuse.

... and it's a direct threat to all Christian parents ... and their right to pass on their Faith to their children!!!

philologos

I think bluewolf was saying that robindch's position that it should be illegal for any parent to provide any form of influence to their children was absurd? If that's what she was saying I agree wholeheartedly.

/\/ollog: It's not something any parent decides to teach anyone for the "hell of it". The point is because they believe that the Gospel will positively impact their child's life, that God will be a guide and a strength to anyone who trusts in Him, and that God provides a solid ethical basis on which people can live their lives. I believe in Jesus as the most important aspect to human reality, why on earth would I keep that from anyone particularly those people whom I'm supposed to love the most.

Coriolanus

J C wrote: »

It isn't silly at all ... it's very sinister to compare Christian Baptism to child abuse.

... and it's a direct threat to all Christian parents ... and their right to pass on their Faith to their children!!!

J C wrote: »

... this theme equating the rearing of children in the Christian Faith with child abuse is a recurring and very sinister one amongst atheists. So I'm calling you on it ... please explain how your outrageous claim that Christian Baptism can be equated to child abuse?

... what? ... are you proposing that they should put children into a blacked out room until they are 18 ... or something?


Children have all kinds of mind altering experiences, from the day they are born.
What I think you are saying is that children should only be exposed to your atheistic ideas ... in school, on the mass media, etc.!!!

... and, by the sound of things, you wouldn't be averse to forcibly removing Christian children from Christian homes to forcibly indoctrinate them with Atheism!!!:eek:

He's not equating it to child abuse, at least from my reading of it. I think the point he's making is that the child is not able properly give consent, whether that is to a sexual act (which could be with another child for all of the arguements purpose) or to a purportedly signifigant and life-altering act.

Galvasean

philologos wrote: »

/\/ollog: It's not something any parent decides to teach anyone for the "hell of it".

Indeed. They are actively trying to keep the kid out of hell.

Sonics2k

J C wrote: »

... this theme equating the rearing of children in the Christian Faith with child abuse is a recurring and very sinister one amongst atheists. So I'm calling you on it ... please explain how your outrageous claim that Christian Baptism can be equated to child abuse?

He didn't mention Child Abuse J.C.

He was very clearly referring to persons under the age of 18 having sex, eg 15-16 year olds.

robindch

Nevore wrote: »

He's not equating it to child abuse, at least from my reading of it. I think the point he's making is that the child is not able properly give consent, whether that is to a sexual act (which could be with another child for all of the arguements purpose) or to a purportedly signifigant and life-altering act.

Yes, that's mostly it, though I was enjoying being a bit controversial too

The issue for me is that the right to raise a child, a concomitant part of being a parent, implies a reciprocal responsibility to ensure that this raising is accurate, honest, fair, reality-based and as free as possible of political bias.

It seems a curious imbalance that parents are allowed, by law, to say pretty much anything to their kids, to indoctrinate their unformed minds with any belief system they wish, even deeply anti-social ones -- some of which can cause psychological issues that last a lifetime; while the roughly parallel physical interference with an unformed body, which can also cause lifelong psychological issues, is rightly ringfenced with strong laws.

In the case of physical interference, the law asserts that implied consent lies with the kids (unable to give it; hence the violation); while with psychological interference, the consent lies with the parents exclusively and kids have few, if any, rights in that regard.

J C

Nevore wrote: »

He's not equating it to child abuse, at least from my reading of it. I think the point he's making is that the child is not able properly give consent, whether that is to a sexual act (which could be with another child for all of the arguments purpose) or to a purportedly signifigant and life-altering act.

On any objective reading, Robin is directly equating Christian Baptism to statutory rape (as he wishes to use the same laws to prevent both underage sex and Baptism) ... and (to make it even more serious) the transmission of the Christian Faith is largely an adult-child interaction, within Christian families ... here is the exchange:-

wrote:

Originally Posted by J C
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?


Robin
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

The clear implication is that the full force of law (up to and including life imprisonment, which is the maximum penalty for statutory rape) should be used to prevent Christian parents passing on their Christian Faith to their children.
... and Christians need to bear in mind that the Australian Court ruling would set common law precedent under Irish Law - except for the fact that the Irish Constitution currently protects parental rights in relation to the moral and religious upbringing of their children.
Ultimately, this comes down to whether the parent or some other institution has the right to decide on the moral and religious upbringing of children.
Children will not and cannot be reared in a moral and attitudinal vacuum ... and the secular school system and mass media will see to it that all kinds of nihilistic ideas will be passed on to the child from the moment they can talk and understand English!!!!
... so what we are seeing is that Atheists aren't content with the monopoly of their nihilistic ideas that they are creating in the public sphere ... they now want to enter the privacy of peoples homes to seize children that they deem to be 'abused' by being baptised and brought up within a Christian moral framework!!!!

This is no exaggeration as it is the clear implication of using the full force of law 'to prohibit people from interfering with a child's mind, as much as it now tries to prohibit interference with a child's body'.:(

Nollog

philologos wrote: »

/\/ollog: It's not something any parent decides to teach anyone for the "hell of it". The point is because they believe that the Gospel will positively impact their child's life, that God will be a guide and a strength to anyone who trusts in Him, and that God provides a solid ethical basis on which people can live their lives. I believe in Jesus as the most important aspect to human reality, why on earth would I keep that from anyone particularly those people whom I'm supposed to love the most.

No, that's what the theory is. In current practice, it's to get gifts/money for the child, and a social gathering.
The religious impact on the child is an afterthought.
Plenty of Christians don't believe a word of the bible, but they still baptise/christen their child for the above reasons.

Furthermore, Jesus' teachings are supported by not only atheists, but by a wide variety of people.
All he ever thought was tolerance, fairness and threw in a few pieces of magic along the way.
I don't think you can stop a child learning from him just by not indoctrinating them into a religious cult with more rules than common sense.

J C

Sonics2k wrote: »

He didn't mention Child Abuse J.C.

He was very clearly referring to persons under the age of 18 having sex, eg 15-16 year olds.

He equated Christian Baptism with the laws prohibiting sex with minors.

... and as most of the interactions involved in the transmission of Christian Faith are from adults to young children ... he clearly wasn't and indeed he couldn't be referring to interactions between 15-16 years olds!!!

The Atheists have largely succeeded in their objective to insulate the minds of children from the influence of the Christian Faith.
Public Schools ban all mention of Theistic Faith ... while mandating that the core beliefs of Atheism, like Materialistic Evolution, be taught to all children!!!
The secular media have created such an atmosphere of distrust amongst parents (greatly assisted by the reality of pervert priests and their church protectors) that parents won't generally allow their children to receive any alternate opinion other than what is taught in school or broadcast on TV ... both of which are increasingly controlled by Atheists and their fellow travellers.
... and now the final act in the drama ... seems to be underway ... the prevention of Christian parents themselves passing on their Faith to their children within their own homes and churches!!!!

Nollog

J C wrote: »

The Atheists have largely succeeded in their objective to insulate the minds of children from the influence of the Christian Faith.
Public Schools ban all mention of Theistic Faith ... while mandating that the core beliefs of Atheism, like Materialistic Evolution, be taught to all children!!!
They have created such an atmosphere of distrust amongst parents (greatly assisted by the reality of pervert priests and their church protectors) that parents won't generally allow their children to receive any alternate opinion other than what is taught in school or broadcast on TV ... both of which are increasingly controlled by Atheists and their fellow travellers.
... and now the final act in he drama ... the prevention of parents themselves passing on their Faith to their children has commenced!!!!

You kind of sound like Hitler talking about Jews.

I don't think atheists control your media or your politicians, nor are they causing a society of distrust, it's more of everyone becoming more prudent.
We don't trust people as easily anymore, this is because we're seeing how dumb it is to trust people for no reason.

J C

robindch wrote: »

Yes, that's mostly it, though I was enjoying being a bit controversial too

I hope you are not saying that you were 'trolling'!!!:eek:

robindch wrote: »

The issue for me is that the right to raise a child, a concomitant part of being a parent, implies a reciprocal responsibility to ensure that this raising is accurate, honest, fair, reality-based and as free as possible of political bias.

I don't think that parents have a responsibility to do any of this ... parents have a clear responsibilty to not rear children in some moral and values vacuum!!!!
... and who decides what is 'accurate', 'fair' and 'real' ... I certainly wouldn't trust somebody who doesn't believe in God and who thinks that he is a glorified Ape to provide the moral framework for my children!!!
... and what is wrong with 'political bias' ... against Nazism, Communism ... Stalinism and all of the other 'ism' scourges of the 20th Century!!!!

robindch wrote: »

It seems a curious imbalance that parents are allowed, by law, to say pretty much anything to their kids, to indoctrinate their unformed minds with any belief system they wish, even deeply anti-social ones -- some of which can cause psychological issues that last a lifetime; while the roughly parallel physical interference with an unformed body, which can also cause lifelong psychological issues, is rightly ringfenced with strong laws.

They are already not allowed to present age-inappropriate material or otherwise advocate gross immorality (like the encouragement of thievery) to their children.
However, in any event, we are talking about the transmission of the Christian Faith by Baptism, here ... and not some morally dubious indoctrination.
The Christian Faith morally uplifts children ... and doesn't result in any social or psychological problems ... so the state and the Atheists should 'but out' of our childrens lives!!!

robindch wrote: »

In the case of physical interference, the law asserts that implied consent lies with the kids (unable to give it; hence the violation); while with psychological interference, the consent lies with the parents exclusively and kids have few, if any, rights in that regard.

The parent has the sole (Constitutionally protected) right to make decisions for their children in all kinds of 'physical' areas from medical treatment to the food they feed their children to the clothes they buy and the religious upbringing they choose for them ... although the control freaks (who think they know best) are trying to circumscribe parental rights in all of these areas and more besides!!!
The only time the law should interfere with a parental decision in relation to either the physical or psychological welfare of their children is when the decision is objectively and clearly detrimental to the child's well-being ... and not just because some Atheist thinks that children aren't fully indoctrinated with their anti-God philosophy!!!

J C

/\/ollog wrote: »

You kind of sound like Hitler talking about Jews.

The reverse is actually the case ... Atheists are the ones advocating the jailing of Christian Parents who pass on their Faith to their children.
So ... if there is an analogy with the Nazis, it is the Atheist advocacy of anti-Christ laws that even Hitler would have blanched at (he never went as far as legally requiring the Jews to not teach the Jewish Faith to their children) ... but you guys seem to think that this is a good idea.

/\/ollog wrote: »

I don't think atheists control your media or your politicians, nor are they causing a society of distrust, it's more of everyone becoming more prudent.
We don't trust people as easily anymore, this is because we're seeing how dumb it is to trust people for no reason.

... so why should we trust an Atheist when s/he wants to take over our school to teach our precious children all kinds of anti-God and anti-Christ philosophies ... starting with the denial of God's righful place as Creator of all things ... and ending with the idea that we are animals ... with no future beyond the crematorium!!!

... and now ye want to go one step further ... and seize children and jail the parents who present the truths of their Christian Faith to their children in their own homes and churches ... on the spurious basis that this amounts to 'Child Abuse'!!!:(

Galvasean

J C wrote: »

So ... if there is an analogy with the Nazis, it is the Atheist advocacy of anti-christ laws that even Hitler would have blanched at (he never went as far as legally requiring the Jews to not teach the Jewish Faith to their children) ...

No, no... he just killed them

Nollog

J C wrote: »

The reverse is actually the case ... Atheists are the ones advocating the jailing of Christian Parents who pass on their Faith to their children.
So ... if there is an analogy with the Nazis, it is the Atheist advocacy of anti-christ laws that even Hitler would have blanched at (he never went as far as legally requiring the Jews to not teach the Jewish Faith to their children) ... but you guys seem to think that this is a good idea.

I meant more the tone, and "they are all that's wrong with the world!" air what seems to be in your post.

J C wrote: »

... so why should we trust an Atheist when s/he wants to take over our school to teach our precious children all kinds of anti-God and anti-Christ philosophies ... starting with the denial of God's righful place as Creator of all things ... and ending with the idea that we are animals ... with no future beyond the crematorium!!!

... and now ye want to go one step further ... and seize children and jail the parents who present the truths of their Christian Faith to their children ... on the spurious basis that this amounts to the equivalent of statutory rape!!!:(

It's not anti-god or anti-jesus to tell children only what's got evidence to back it up.
Atheists aren't going into your school telling children to stop praying, they're going into your schools to tell the teachers not to force prayers into their children's faces.
You'll meet plenty that will though, your rape story is an example. Some atheists are tools, but some Christians can be equally toolish.

J C

wrote:

Originally Posted by J C
So ... if there is an analogy with the Nazis, it is the Atheist advocacy of anti-christ laws that even Hitler would have blanched at (he never went as far as legally requiring the Jews to not teach the Jewish Faith to their children) ...

Galvasean
No, no... he just killed them

... so where does this leave Christians ... when Athests are advocating going beyond the Nuremberg Laws in relation to Christianity?

The price of freedom (and life) is eternal vigilence.

... and when Atheists start advocating the use of law to eliminate Faith ... and to jail people of Faith ... it is but a short step to advocating the elimination of the people of Faith ... themselves.

The same kind of 'apologetics' were used about Hitler ... they said that Hitler really didn't mean what he said about the Jews ... and they were going to be 're-settled' in the East - and manyJews believed this propaganda!!.
Had 10 million Jews rose up (or even got out of the Axis Countries) there would be no Holocaust for Hitler to prosecute!!!

I therefore take everyone at their word ... and if somebody threatens to take my children off me for teaching them the Christian Faith I believe that he is serious ... and I will ask him to withdraw the threat ...
... and in such an environment, the introduction of laws protecting people of Faith from the resurrection of such ideas would also be a good idea!!!

philologos

/\/ollog wrote: »

No, that's what the theory is. In current practice, it's to get gifts/money for the child, and a social gathering.
The religious impact on the child is an afterthought.
Plenty of Christians don't believe a word of the bible, but they still baptise/christen their child for the above reasons.

Plenty of so called Christians aren't Christians at all in that they don't follow Jesus as their personal Lord and Saviour. I agree with you. Christians who believe and trust in Jesus, tell the kids about Jesus because He's the centre of all truth and reality, that He is a positive force that can impact their lives for the better.

I have a lot of friends who are Christians and who are beginning to start their own families putting Jesus at the centre of it all. It's an exciting journey for all involved. This is a different approach to the "cultural christian" who couldn't care less about it. If such people were honest about it they would be really agnostics.

/\/ollog wrote: »

Furthermore, Jesus' teachings are supported by not only atheists, but by a wide variety of people.
All he ever thought was tolerance, fairness and threw in a few pieces of magic along the way.

Have you actually read any of the Gospels? - Jesus' teachings were fundamentally centred around God, and probed deep into inconsistencies which raged on in the world around him, whether that be with orthodox Jewish believers (Pharisees) or the political leadership.

We've been studying Mark's Gospel over on the Christianity forum and we will be probably until we get right through it if you'd be interested in seeing what Jesus stood for.

Atheism involves the inherent rejection of Jesus Christ as Lord.

/\/ollog wrote: »

I don't think you can stop a child learning from him just by not indoctrinating them into a religious cult with more rules than common sense.

Simply I believe that the Gospel is common sense. It's reasonable and that was a huge part of why I believe in it today. If I had any children I would have no intention of stopping them from learning, I would just teach them wholeheartedly about where Christians stand for, and common objections and Christian responses to those objections. I would intend for any hypothetical child of mine to know how to engage with the world positively in questions about Christian faith.

On the basis of that knowledge they can decide to reject Christ or accept Him.

J C

/\/ollog wrote: »

I meant more the tone, and "they are all that's wrong with the world!" air what seems to be in your post.

There are many other forces at work in the World ... but on this thread I am faced with an idea presented by an avowed Atheist, that passing on the Christian Faith is tantamount to Child Abuse ... with all of the legal follow-on that this implies!!!
... no Atheist has dissociated themselves from this statement ... so I am left with the conclusion that you are supporting it with your silence.

/\/ollog wrote: »

It's not anti-god or anti-jesus to tell children only what's got evidence to back it up.

Jesus Christ has more evidence to back up His existence than Materialsitic Evolution has ... so on that basis, the Christian Faith should be taught and Evolutionism should be banned!!!
I don't agree that this should be the case, however, because the test shouldn't be provability ... just teach the facts ... and the views on both sides of the argument ... and let the people make up their own minds ... anything else is propaganda!!

/\/ollog wrote: »

Atheists aren't going into your school telling children to stop praying, they're going into your schools to tell the teachers not to force prayers into their children's faces.

It's one and the same thing ... this is the "I'm not going to stop you eating ... I'm just not going to provide you with food" ... type of tomfoolery!!!

Sarky

How very intolerant of us!

Nollog

philologos: I was just being overly frank. I don't believe in writing essays for posts so I just give highlights in an ovrly frank way.
It's my gimmick.

jc: If you don't give me food, I can walk to a lake, or eat a bug, or even find and plant some potatoes and hope they don't get the blight.

ed2hands

Sarky wrote: »

[...] rant deleted [...]

For what it's worth, i think JC's point is very valid, and he has a right to fight his corner and react how he sees fit without stupid insults when these type of ideas are being bandied around.

There's a disgraceful amount of demonisation and misrepresentation of faiths existent in new athiesm/anti-theism in general.
I see it on here occasionally.

It seems at times only a blurry line separates these two positions and the spectre of religious intolerence.

Oh, just as another point, and contrary to some opinions, IMO there is plenty of attempted conversion going on. The myth of some sort of binign new atheism without conversion techniques is just that.

Peregrinus

muppeteer wrote: »

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?

Family law is heavily fact-and-circumstance based. The question before the court is always what is in the interests of this particular child at this time in these circumstances, so in a later case the fact that it wasn't in the interest of this child to be baptised at this time and in these circumstances doesn't mean that it couldn't be in the interests of a different child at a different time and in different circumstances.

If you're trying to draw a precedent out of this case, you'll have to draw it fairly narrowly, e.g. it is not in the interests of a seven-year old to be baptised against the wishes of one of her parents when the motivation is to help her "fit in" at her school.

muppeteer wrote: »

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

I think if the mother had been religious she would have said so as part of her argument to the court, and that fact would then have made it into the report. If, on the other hand, she's not religious, she wouldn't have felt it in her interests to make that point, so she'd pass over it, and nothing would be said in the report. And in fact nothing is said in the report about it.

If the mother had offered a religious motivation for wanting the child baptised, the judgment would certainly have mentioned it. Apart from anything else, one of the few personal rights the Australian constitution confers is the right to practice religion freely, so if the mother had claimed a religous purpose the constitutional issue would have been raised, and the judgment - particularly a judgment on appeal - would have to deal with it. (I doubt the mother would have succeeded, but the judge would at least have to explain why he didn't think the mother had a constitutional right to baptise her child.)

Everything in this report points to the mother not being religious.

Galvasean

ed2hands wrote: »

Oh, just as another point, and contrary to some opinions, IMO there is plenty of attempted conversion going on. The myth of some sort of binign new atheism without conversion techniques is just that.

I've seen a few posters state this recently and am genuinely curious as to what constitutes atheist attempts at conversion? I have yet to encounter any atheists (or 'new atheists' for that matter) knocking on people's doors, handing out literature on busy streets etc. So in what way are they going about it?

philologos

Galvasean wrote: »

I've seen a few posters state this recently and am genuinely curious as to what constitutes atheist attempts at conversion? I have yet to encounter any atheists (or 'new atheists' for that matter) knocking on people's doors, handing out literature on busy streets etc. So in what way are they going about it?

I don't know - Jeremy Paxman and Richard Dawkins give it a very good go in this "interview" which was aired on Newsnight on the BBC a few months ago

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3t5y0bdpA_c

Sofiztikated

I'm sorry, but are you trying to advocate the BBC of spreading athiesm?

The very same BBC that, AFAIK, still has Songs of Praise on every Sunday?

philologos

More and more programming on the BBC is promoting the new-atheism I'm finding. That clip is a prominent example. Songs of Praise has seen its time steadily cut in the past few years, as welcome as it is in the BBC lineup.

Sarky

So... You don't think it has anything to do with wishing to balance things out and represent their audiences better, as opposed to a genuine effort to tempt religious folk from some path of righteousness?

philologos

Newsnight isn't an atheist show. It's a current affairs show. Usually Jeremy Paxman is a whole lot more incisive in terms of his questioning. It seems that he doesn't do this in respect to the new-atheism though. If you think there is any "balance" in that section, in the nicest way possible, you must be mad

My point was in response to Galvasean to simply point out that there are plenty of advocates of new-atheism in the media and in other areas of society.