Should YOU decide if you get baptised?

oscarBravo · 13-04-2004 12:55PM

Originally posted by Syth
Talking to your children about religion and acting as if your religion is the only correct one, is like doing the same to other people. If one went around all day acting as if your religion was the only correct one, you'd be labeled as a bit of an idiot.

I don't accept that. If you're not sure that your religion is more valid than another, why subscribe to that religion? The whole point of religious faith is a belief that the faith you subscribe to is the "right" one. [1]

Why not treat your children like other people? They have the freedom to religion.

That's a naive perspective. One of the explicit responsibilities of a Catholic parent is to make sure the children are raised in the faith. It's such a serious responsibility that a spare pair of parents are drafted in at baptism to make sure that it is fulfilled.

[1]From my limited understanding of Buddhism, I understand that this is not necessarily the case; it may also be untrue of other religions. I'm pretty sure it's valid for all Judaeo-Christian faiths though.

Syth · 13-04-2004 04:05PM

If you're not sure that your religion is more valid than another, why subscribe to that religion? The whole point of religious faith is a belief that the faith you subscribe to is the "right" one.

This raises the question "Can one both be tolerant of other religions and a strong believer in your own?". An interesating (and off-topic) subject.

One of the explicit responsibilities of a Catholic parent is to make sure the children are raised in the faith.

Does that mean that if a child turns away from Catholothism, then the parent has failed, and will be going to hell? Any church worth it's salt will have a similar rule. It ensures the next generation are members.

Also what about the child's freedom of religion? The laws of this land give every citizen freedom of religion. The rules of Catholothism say that a parent must ensure that the children are Catholic, but that doesn't mean that parents can use the whole 'It's what my religion tells me to do' argument to infringe on their childs (or anyones) rights. For example, if I was a believer in an extreme form of christianity that permitted a husband to beat his wife if he felt fit and if I was married, would that give me the right to beat my wife? No. Irish law supercedes religious rules. As it should.

oscarBravo · 13-04-2004 04:39PM

Originally posted by Syth
This raises the question "Can one both be tolerant of other religions and a strong believer in your own?". An interesating (and off-topic) subject.

Of course one can. As an analogy, suppose I'm a strong believer in vegetarianism: I don't care what you eat; I just know I'm not putting that meat crap in my mouth.

Does that mean that if a child turns away from Catholothism, then the parent has failed, and will be going to hell?

Not if they've made a sincere effort.

Any church worth it's salt will have a similar rule. It ensures the next generation are members.

Quite - but we're talking about the application of rules here, rather than the rationale for those rules.

Also what about the child's freedom of religion?

It's an interesting question. It seems to me that many of the rights we take for granted are conditional upon adulthood. For example, preventing a child from leaving the house ("grounding") is a common sanction for misbehaviour. Do that to an adult and it becomes false imprisonment.

Syth · 13-04-2004 09:12PM

As an analogy, suppose I'm a strong believer in vegetarianism: I don't care what you eat; I just know I'm not putting that meat crap in my mouth.

But some vegatariean think anyone who eats meat is a murderer, and think no-one should eat meat. The tolerence seems to depend on the person.

Not if they've made a sincere effort.

So children don't actually have to be baptised, the children can just be instructed in Catholothims and the parents have done their bit. There is no need for baptism as babies.

It's an interesting question. It seems to me that many of the rights we take for granted are conditional upon adulthood.

But children do have som rights. For example one cannot legally kill one's child, or sell your child into slavery.

Do children have the right to freedom of religion? Well Article 44-2-1 of the consititution states : "Freedom of conscience and the free profession and practice of religion are, subject to public order and morality, guaranteed to every citizen." , are children citizens? Either way I think children have freedom of religion, if not then who does? Do your parent legally have to right to decide your religion until your are 18? Ridiculus. If people have the right to freedom of religion, then they should have it for all their life. It's like haveing freedom of life (ie murdering you is a crime). It's pointless if you can legally kill anyone under 7 years old. Freedom of religion should come from when you are born.

If you think freedom of religion starts from birth then one cannot allow parents to make that choice. It amount to nno freedom of religion.

oscarBravo · 13-04-2004 09:40PM

Originally posted by Syth
But some vegatariean think anyone who eats meat is a murderer, and think no-one should eat meat. The tolerence seems to depend on the person.

Absolutely. The answer to your question remains "yes".

So children don't actually have to be baptised, the children can just be instructed in Catholothims and the parents have done their bit. There is no need for baptism as babies.

I'm not sure where you're getting this from. Catholic doctrine is that baptism is a prerequisite for salvation. Catholic parents have a duty to baptise their children, and to raise them in the faith.

But children do have som rights. For example one cannot legally kill one's child, or sell your child into slavery.

Baptising a child is hardly in the same league as murder or human trafficking.

If you think freedom of religion starts from birth then one cannot allow parents to make that choice. It amount to nno freedom of religion.

Parents are placed in the position of making all sorts of decisions for their children until such time as the children can be trusted to make such decisions for themselves. Religious freedom is meaningless until the mental capacity exists to make an informed choice.

oscarBravo · 13-04-2004 09:48PM

Replying to myself, tut tut.

Originally posted by oscarBravo
Parents are placed in the position of making all sorts of decisions for their children until such time as the children can be trusted to make such decisions for themselves. Religious freedom is meaningless until the mental capacity exists to make an informed choice.

From the Constitution, Article 40.1:

All citizens shall, as human persons, be held equal before the law.

This shall not be held to mean that the State shall not in its enactments have due regard to differences of capacity, physical and moral, and of social function.

Syth · 15-04-2004 06:07PM

Baptising a child is hardly in the same league as murder or human trafficking.

I was giving examples of rights all children have, irregardless of age, in responce to the quote : "many of the rights we take for granted are conditional upon adulthood"

So children don't actually have to be baptised, the children can just be instructed in Catholothims and the parents have done their bit. There is no need for baptism as babies.

I'm not sure where you're getting this from. Catholic doctrine is that baptism is a prerequisite for salvation. Catholic parents have a duty to baptise their children, and to raise them in the faith.

I wondered if a child who had turned away from Catholithism resulted in their parent's going to hell for not raising Catholic child, but you said the parents were ok so long as they made a sincere effort. Parent's could not baptise their babies and just make an effort to teach their children to be catholics later in life. That way the parents have done their duty to their god and there is less intolerence.

Religious freedom is meaningless until the mental capacity exists to make an informed choice.

So then why try to get children (who don't have the nessarcy mental faculties) to be members of that religion? If they don't have the mental abilities to correctly choose a religion then they aren't truly members of that religion, so they can't really be 'saved', can they?

loismustdie · 15-04-2004 06:24PM

your parents are giving and indication of how they want you to be raised when they have you baptised which i agree with and this stands until confirmation which i think should be 21 so people know what they are confirming. but aa lot of 21 year olds now have little interest in religion. at 21 they should decide as adults to accept or deny baptism

oscarBravo · 15-04-2004 07:43PM

Originally posted by Syth
I wondered if a child who had turned away from Catholithism resulted in their parent's going to hell for not raising Catholic child, but you said the parents were ok so long as they made a sincere effort.

I also didn't say that a sincere effort can exclude baptism. I explicitly said the opposite: "Catholic doctrine is that baptism is a prerequisite for salvation." If you read anything else into what I said, you're deliberately distorting my position.

Parent's could not baptise their babies and just make an effort to teach their children to be catholics later in life. That way the parents have done their duty to their god and there is less intolerence.

No, they haven't. Don't take my word for it - let's have another look at the Catechism:

1250 ... The Church and the parents would deny a child the priceless grace of becoming a child of God were they not to confer Baptism shortly after birth.

1257 The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation.

So then why try to get children (who don't have the nessarcy mental faculties) to be members of that religion? If they don't have the mental abilities to correctly choose a religion then they aren't truly members of that religion, so they can't really be 'saved', can they?

You're confusing the "rights" issue you brought up earlier with Catholic doctrine. Your point is that the child has the right to choose a religion. The Church's teaching is that the child should be baptised as soon as possible. A Catholic parent that chose not to baptise a child in case it was an infringement of the child's constitutional rights would be in direct conflict with Church teaching, merely for the sake of a right that the child has no way of being aware of.

Syth · 16-04-2004 06:46PM

If you read anything else into what I said, you're deliberately distorting my position.

Sorry.

A Catholic parent that chose not to baptise a child in case it was an infringement of the child's constitutional rights would be in direct conflict with Church teaching, merely for the sake of a right that the child has no way of being aware of.

So should we not (try to) change Catholic doctrine? It's been done before.

Also I'm sure that the child has no concept of medical treatments, so can we preform medical treatments on children?

Also do you think the right of freedom of religion should only apply once one hits a certain age, and if so what age do you think is appropriate?

oscarBravo · 16-04-2004 07:01PM

Originally posted by Syth
Sorry.

's cool!

So should we not (try to) change Catholic doctrine? It's been done before.

You can try, but it generally takes something on the order of a Vatican Council to effect those changes. The Church, as has been observed, is not noted for its democracy.

Also I'm sure that the child has no concept of medical treatments, so can we preform medical treatments on children?

Happens all the time. How often are children asked to sign consent forms for their own surgery? The parent accepts the responsibility of making decisions in the best interest of the child. What is perceived as "best interest" where religion is concerned is a personal choice.

Also do you think the right of freedom of religion should only apply once one hits a certain age, and if so what age do you think is appropriate?

I think freedom only becomes relevant when you're old enough to understand its implications.

The only way we'll be able to evaluate the real meaning of religious freedom will be for a minor to take a case against his/her parents for forcing him/her to participate in a religious ritual. Isn't it the role of the Supreme Court to interpret the Constitution?

Syth · 19-04-2004 05:13PM

The parent accepts the responsibility of making decisions in the best interest of the child.

But there are times when we know the parent didn't make a decision in the best interests of the child, for example in the case of female 'circumsision'. Also there are some religions which think blood transfusions are unethical, yet there are cases of courts ruling that the children be given blood transfusions to save their life, despite their parent's objection. The state recognises the right of all people to freedom of religion, so why can't we enforce that to the same degree.

old enough to understand its implications.

That is impossible to prove. Could you even prove to me that you are a thinking rational human being and not a complex robot? No. It's impossible. So how can we know if a child if able to understand the implications of saying they want to be in (or out of) a certain religion? If a child says they don't want to go to mass, then does that mean they are opting out of the religion? It's too much of a grey area.

Again the whole thing comes down to the issue of how much control parents should have. I think people should get to decide what religion is right for them, so you shouldn't force it on anyone. Do you not think people should deciede their own religion?

oscarBravo · 19-04-2004 06:38PM

Originally posted by Syth
But there are times when we know the parent didn't make a decision in the best interests of the child, for example in the case of female 'circumsision'. Also there are some religions which think blood transfusions are unethical, yet there are cases of courts ruling that the children be given blood transfusions to save their life, despite their parent's objection. The state recognises the right of all people to freedom of religion, so why can't we enforce that to the same degree.

The cases you cite involve a parent making a decision that affects the physical wellbeing of the child. Baptism doesn't fall into that category.

It seems to me you're taking an exclusively atheistic approach to the subject, which is not entirely practical in a country largely populated by Christians. Preventing parents from having their children baptised could easily be seen as encroaching on their freedom of religion.

That is impossible to prove. Could you even prove to me that you are a thinking rational human being and not a complex robot? No. It's impossible. So how can we know if a child if able to understand the implications of saying they want to be in (or out of) a certain religion? If a child says they don't want to go to mass, then does that mean they are opting out of the religion? It's too much of a grey area.

As with any grey area, it's tricky to try to impose a black and white solution to it. Preventing infant baptism strikes me as a pretty monochromatic approach.

Again the whole thing comes down to the issue of how much control parents should have. I think people should get to decide what religion is right for them, so you shouldn't force it on anyone. Do you not think people should deciede their own religion?

Absolutely, but I don't see a problem with a parent provisionally making that decision on a child's behalf in the meantime.

mosadit · 23-04-2004 01:52PM

I wasn't baptised and my parents always told me I was going to decide for myself whenever I felt ready. Of course it doesn't mean they didn't indoctrinated me but somehow it was more fair I think.
I remember my mum reading me the Vangel as it was a children story, giving me the different interpretations of events... what was historical and what was belived by somoene and I really appreciate this kind of transparence.

It seems so old fashion still giving a mark to people with the escuse of save them from the hell... whatever is up there can't have built a hell... it would be too jamed! And Paradise would be completely empty! Not even Saints since Psicology discovered that they were just psycotics with visions!:dunno:

Syth · 23-04-2004 05:07PM

Not even Saints since Psicology discovered that they were just psycotics with visions!

Well one intrepretation of this is that god(s) made the people's brains more seceptable to visions from god(s) by makeing them have seasures. Maybe that's the only way god(s) can talk to us mortals, through seasures. Or they could be crazy. It doesn't prove the existance (either way) of god(s).

Preventing parents from having their children baptised could easily be seen as encroaching on their freedom of religion.

That's a very weak point (think a wet napkin). Freedom of religion means freedom about yourself, it can't be used in relation to the religion of other people.

It seems to me you're taking an exclusively atheistic approach to the subject, which is not entirely practical in a country largely populated by Christians.

Well just cause everyone is doing it doesn't make it OK. In Muslim countries with $hit women's rights one could use a similar argument to deny rights to women. I supppose my atheistic approach to it is because I think the State should have no religion, like in the USA.

As with any grey area, it's tricky to try to impose a black and white solution to it. Preventing infant baptism strikes me as a pretty monochromatic approach.

True... but human rights should be pretty monocromatic, and you are supporting a (different) monocromatic point of view. At least with this way people have more freedom and more choices.

Absolutely, but I don't see a problem with a parent provisionally making that decision on a child's behalf in the meantime.

Interesting. Out of curiousity what other choices do you think parent's should be allowed to make provisionally? How about medical treatments (or the denial of)? Carrer? Sexuality? Gender (in case of intersex)?

article6 · 23-04-2004 09:01PM

I supppose my atheistic approach to it is because I think the State should have no religion, like in the USA.

The State has no official religion - despite the optional morning prayers said in the Dáil, etc., clerics probably have as much power in the USA as they do here. Perhaps some laws reflect Christian influence, but as oscarBravo said, you can often get that in a democracy populated by mostly Christians.

True... but human rights should be pretty monocromatic, and you are supporting a (different) monocromatic point of view. At least with this way people have more freedom and more choices.

Is it necessarily a human right to prohibit the baptism of children, setting aside religious indoctrination on this point? Is it always possible for a child to make mature choices with its freedom?

Interesting. Out of curiousity what other choices do you think parent's should be allowed to make provisionally? How about medical treatments (or the denial of)? Carrer? Sexuality? Gender (in case of intersex)?

Provisionally, most choices should be fine. Not if the parents/guardians make them on a permanent basis, mind you - just provisionally. In the case of child neglect, that is a crime on the statutes, I believe. Most children don't have a career or sexuality, so they're irrelevant, since any such decision would affect the child only on adulthood, and would not be provisional. Gender is quite a moral grey area.

Should YOU decide if you get baptised?

Comments