Would you get your child baptised?

Jaxxy

partyatmygaff wrote: »

You were born and you were given a birth cert. and placed on the register of births. You were baptised and were also given a baptismal cert. and placed on the register of baptisms. You can't reverse your birth nor your baptism and as such your presence on both registers is perfectly valid.

I never said my presence on such a register was invalid. I said that if a person no longer wishes to be a member of the Catholic church they should have the right to have this acknowledged officially and from source.

Why would they strike you off? That would skew the statistics. It is a baptismal register of all those baptised. Not of all those who are practicing Catholics. To a Catholic, baptism is an irreversible process the same way that communion and confirmation are irreversible processes. They cannot make them reversible as that would go against the faith. You however are presumably not of this same faith and are at perfect liberty to identify yourself with any religion or lack thereof.

Why wouldn't they strike me off? Tell me, are there separate lists for those who have been baptised and those who have defected (or no longer wish to be a part of) the Catholic church? There should be, because from my understanding of these figures the Catholic church includes all of those names having received a baptising as members of the organisation, whether they're practicing or not.

It's not a matter of removing yourself from a piece of paper. To a Catholic Priest or even lay person, even considering something as "undoing" a baptism would be an act of extreme evil.

Much of this I've already responded to above, and to be honest I don't really care what is considered evil or not, or the minutiae of matters of Christian faith. No offense to you if this is your chosen religion.

I don't need to be taken from the baptismal register, I just don't want to be counted as an active and practicing Catholic.

philologos

JaxxYChicK wrote: »

I never said my presence on such a register was invalid. I said that if a person no longer wishes to be a member of the Catholic church they should have the right to have this acknowledged officially and from source.

If you're leaving you're leaving. Why concern yourself if your name happens to be down in some book to describe a historical event?

I think the defection change in that RCC is unnecessary, but your desire to remove your name from every single church document you come across just shows how much you do care.

Why not just use the census wisely, eventually the discrepancy will become so large that people will have to wonder which is right.

positron

My daughter is 4 months old last week, and we have decided to not to baptise her. We are getting some shock and suprise as responses from relatives, but we are trying our best to keep it all casual, low profile and have learned to shrug off the hints and remarks.

Whenever the topic of school admission is being brought up as a reason, we are buying time saying we will either baptise her if we absolutely had to for school admission and can't find a ET nearby. I would rather spend her to the ET a few miles away rather than to a religion based school that's across the road.

PS: Also in Drogheda, so probably same ET in future, Biggins.

Jaxxy

philologos wrote: »

If you're leaving you're leaving. Why concern yourself if your name happens to be down in some book to describe a historical event?

I think the defection change in that RCC is unnecessary, but your desire to remove your name from every single church document you come across just shows how much you do care.

Why not just use the census wisely, eventually the discrepancy will become so large that people will have to wonder which is right.

I just think it is something you should be able to do if you so choose. I can absolutely appreciate the attitudes of yourself and partyatmygaff but I believe as a non-Catholic I should have that officially recognised if I want it to be. No, it's not something I'd lose sleep over, but it is something I have a strong opinion about.

And on that note, I'm off to drink my weight in Heineken, dance like a brazen hussy and engage in a little pre-marital sex begin my Jedi training.

Knight who says Meh

Tis_yer_woman wrote: »

So what if the Catholic church no longer allows defection?
If you no longer regard yourself as a Catholic, then so be it. Religion is a personal choice.
Okay, from a statistical perspective there are false numbers being held somewhere. But as far as I was aware, there have been a large number of
people who were recorded as Catholics (cos they were baptised) but would not regard themselves as RC anymore but they didn't officially 'defect' at
a time when they could. Finally, who would take these statistics seriously if they have been suspended at a time when there is a serious falloff in followers?

The very reason many want to defect, and the reason i did is to stop that screwy uber-powerful and uber facked-up organisation using false stats to bolster their world position. The very reason they changed the defection i reckon. And still folk support them

partyatmygaff

robinph wrote: »

Correct, but if they then make a claim that there are X million catholics in Ireland based on numbers taken from baptismal certs then they must be in breach of how they are allowed to use that information?

I never hear claims of exact numbers. Even if they did make such claims they would more than likely be backed up by the results of the most recent census.

JaxxYChicK wrote: »

Why wouldn't they strike me off? Tell me, are there separate lists for those who have been baptised and those who have defected (or no longer wish to be a part of) the Catholic church? There should be, because from my understanding of these figures the Catholic church includes all of those names having received a baptising as members of the organisation, whether they're practicing or not.

That's because they view baptised but not practicing members of the church as having strayed from the path. They do not boot people out of the Church for not attending mass. They also view those who wish to defect in the same manner. At the end of the day, if you are not a Catholic you are not a Catholic.

Much of this I've already responded to above, and to be honest I don't really care what is considered evil or not, or the minutiae of matters of Christian faith. No offense to you if this is your chosen religion.

It doesn't matter whether you care about it or not. This is not a minute technicality of Catholicism or indeed Christianity. There's no such thing as "reversing" a baptism. That would be unthinkable act for any practicing Catholic. There are two parties in this "conflict". You and the the Catholic Church. They cannot "reverse" your baptism and view you as a Catholic who has strayed from the path. That is their view. You more than likely do not take heed of the RCC's views on many other matters. If it matters so much to you then simply do the same for this situation.

I don't need to be taken from the baptismal register, I just don't want to be counted as an active and practicing Catholic.

You are not being counted as an active or practicing Catholic unless you indicated such in the Census of Ireland carried out in April. The RCC's internal statistics have no bearing whatsoever on you providing you do identify as a Catholic.

philologos

JaxxYChicK wrote: »

I just think it is something you should be able to do if you so choose. I can absolutely appreciate the attitudes of yourself and partyatmygaff but I believe as a non-Catholic I should have that officially recognised if I want it to be. No, it's not something I'd lose sleep over, but it is something I have a strong opinion about.

And on that note, I'm off to drink my weight in Heineken, dance like a brazen hussy and engage in a little pre-marital sex begin my Jedi training.

I've never been involved in the Roman Catholic Church. From an outside perspective it's pretty peculiar that you care so much about the church that you don't want to be a part of.

LighterGuy

Biggins wrote: »

No.
Have four children and none of them have been subjected involuntary to that process.
If they want to when they are old enough to decide as mature teens or adults, so be it.
Until then, who am I to force any one individual religious indoctrination and process upon them.
Presently some attend (and others shortly will) also "Educate Together" schools to in also to aid further freer thinking and openness.

interesting. that is fair as when they grow up its their choice.
But you say who are you to force any religion (again very fair) ... but isnt not getting them baptised indirectly forcing your non-religious beliefs on them too?

Knight who says Meh

krudler wrote: »

sweet.
zombie.
jesus.

when you're unable to leave a church because THEY say you can't, its no longer a personal choice. you may not believe, but they still count you as a member, thats the bigger issue.

LighterGuy wrote: »

interesting. that is fair as when they grow up its their choice.
But you say who are you to force any religion (again very fair) ... but isnt not getting them baptised indirectly forcing your non-religious beliefs on them too?

No. Thats dumb.
Isnt not getting them circumsized the same?

partyatmygaff

LighterGuy wrote: »

interesting. that is fair as when they grow up its their choice.
But you say who are you to force any religion (again very fair) ... but isnt not getting them baptised indirectly forcing your non-religious beliefs on them too?

It is.

Parents make decisions on behalf of their children all the time. Whether you baptise your child or do not baptise your child you are still basing the decision on your own views and not that of your child. A parent may be a diehard atheist and their child may grow to be very religious and vice-verse.

Knight who says Meh

partyatmygaff wrote: »

It is.

Parents make decisions on behalf of their children all the time. Whether you baptise your child or do not baptise your child you are still basing the decision on your own views and not that of your child. A parent may be a diehard atheist and their child may grow to be very religious and vice-verse.

Ah so "Not collecting Stamps" is a hobby and bald IS a hair colour.
Thanks:rolleyes:

Im gonna get my kid a big f*ck off hammer so as not to force my non Thor belief upon him...

Biggins

LighterGuy wrote: »

interesting. that is fair as when they grow up its their choice.
But you say who are you to force any religion (again very fair) ... but isnt not getting them baptised indirectly forcing your non-religious beliefs on them too?

No.
How is my saying nothing in regards to religions, on an average day, 'forcing' something upon them?
Your premises is based upon the assumption that instead indoctrinating them about any one religion on a regular daily/weekly basis, I must be indoctrinating them daily/weekly on non-religious ideas.
I do neither. I do nothing, I say nothing.

I let them see, quietly look, explore and think for themselves while I in pacifism and as a parent, stand back and just make sure they are healthy, watered and fed.
If they come to me with a question, I answer it in my utmost honesty and with true accuracy. Nothing added to any one topic and nothing taken away as if to hide something.
Nothing less, nothing more.

HUNK

Oh Catholic Church yoo so Krayzeeeeeeeeee

Knight who says Meh

LighterGuy wrote: »

interesting. that is fair as when they grow up its their choice.
But you say who are you to force any religion (again very fair) ... but isnt not getting them baptised indirectly forcing your non-CATHOLIC beliefs on them too?

Baptism is not a part of all religions and since we are talking about catholicism here i decided to ....FYP

byhookorbycrook

Posy wrote: »

Apparently yes, if you live in Ireland!
If there's a Gaelscoil that accepts non-Catholics I'd be very happy because I really don't want to force any children I have into this backwards archaic religion that they're stuck with for life.
I'm considering converting to Church of Ireland at this stage, I think the Catholic Church has to release you if you join someone else!

We have plenty non-Catholics in our school. Many of the Gaelscoileanna are also multi-denom.

tallaghtmick

Ghost Buster wrote: »

Ummmm. You made his choice AND pushed religion on him AND came to his conclusion!!!

hes 2 he has no idea about religion yet so no conclusion has been made,if i kept him away from religion like you did well the you could say i made his choice and the conclusion has been made as far as i see it if you tell your child he or she cant have religion well the you are forcing athiesm on them.

Ghost Buster wrote: »

Yes he will as far as i know. My unbaptised child attends the local Catholic school and was never asked for a baptism cert. I also made it quite clear from the outset that he van stay in class for all the prayers and witch-craft but would not be attending Communion and Confirmation rituals.

i didnt mean it in the sense that he wont get an education and your witchcraft statement really shows your lack of understanding of religion,as a non believer i couldnt care less about religion but i simply want my child to make his own choice,so when hes old enough he will more than likely be a non believer as i predict 90% of ireland will be in 20 years.

byhookorbycrook

cherub rock wrote: »

An Foras Patrunacha. But most still have communion and confirmation.

Gaelscoilanna are **** hard to get your child into nowadays. They're the new choice for little Saoirse and Fionn because they won't be associating with foreign kids in there... :mad:

You have been listening too much to David McWilliams.We have a number of international students.

partyatmygaff

Knight who says Meh wrote: »

Ah so "Not collecting Stamps" is a hobby and bald IS a hair colour.
Thanks:rolleyes:

Im gonna get my kid a big f*ck off hammer so as not to force my non Thor belief upon him...

Belief in a God is a major life question.

Take Biggins for example. He wants to let his children decide for themselves. Very honourable but unfortunately not very realistic.

His children are not shielded from his views. His view is that there is no God and as such if his children asked for his view on the matter he would presumably claim that there is no God. As we all know, Children at a young age look to their parents as a guide in their lives. They instruct them and for the first few years of their lives indirectly dictate the views of their children.

If a parent does not believe in God then they will tell the child that they do not believe in God and as such the child will more than likely parrot their parent without thinking. The same holds true for parents who do believe in God. The child will believe what their parents believe as they trust their parents and their judgement. There is nothing wrong with that. I don't know why certain people only find it acceptable when the parents of the child are of the same opinion as them.

Mike 1972

Not really planning on having kids but I voted no

Although in reality given the process of procreation usually involves at least two people its possible that the decision might not entirely be mine.

Incidentally on a point of order............

Yes (practising catholic)

arent the poll options rather presumptuous ?

robinph wrote: »

Correct, but if they then make a claim that there are X million catholics in Ireland based on numbers taken from baptismal certs then they must be in breach of how they are allowed to use that information?

Sue them for libel !

dvpower

tallaghtmick wrote: »

hes 2 he has no idea about religion yet so no conclusion has been made,if i kept him away from religion like you did well the you could say i made his choice and the conclusion has been made as far as i see it if you tell your child he or she cant have religion well the you are forcing athiesm on them.

So when did you first decide to force non buddism on your child?

Biggins

partyatmygaff wrote: »

Belief in a God is a major life question.

Take Biggins for example. He wants to let his children decide for themselves. Very honourable but unfortunately not very realistic.

His children are not shielded from his views. His view is that there is no God and as such if his children asked for his view on the matter he would presumably claim that there is no God. As we all know, Children at a young age look to their parents as a guide in their lives. They instruct them and for the first few years of their lives indirectly dictate the views of their children.

If a parent does not believe in God then they will tell the child that they do not believe in God and as such the child will more than likely parrot their parent without thinking. The same holds true for parents who do believe in God. The child will believe what their parents believe as they trust their parents and their judgement. There is nothing wrong with that. I don't know why certain people only find it acceptable when the parents of the child are of the same opinion as them.

So the position is that one is damned if we do and one is damned if we don't?
Parents can't win with that thinking!

My children are not blocked from my pacifism in regards religion (again, how is doing nothing - forcing?) BUT EQUALLY they are also not blocked from others that are equally of a religious nature background (outside school buildings) hearing others, be it friends or in other media, seeing others speaking of alternative views either beyond my arms reach!

We as parents have chosen not to be biased and force a non-escapable religious membership upon a innocent child who as of yet cannot formulate independent thought and further differentiate at its birth.

If that makes us bad parents, so be it.
I'm willing to be seen in that light and thus allow my children later at a time of their own choosing, by their own initiative and under their own speed and steam, the later continued ability to have greater freedoms from outside - than have restricted abilities from inside of one forced upon them already!

End of story - and a lot more realistic than some here!
We are not stopping them from asking lifes big questions - we are also not slapping one possible answer upon them before they even have a chance to have a say!

partyatmygaff

Biggins wrote: »

So the position is that one is damned if we do and one is damned if we don't?
Parents can't win with that thinking!

There is no such thing as not influencing your children. Hypothetically it may be possible but that would involve you ignoring any questions from your children and never expressing your own opinion in front of them. You don't necessarily have to sit down and tell your children what to think explicitly for them to parrot your beliefs. Children observe their parents and they parrot them until they are old enough to have their own opinions.

We as parents have chosen not to be biased and force a non-escapable religious membership upon a innocent child who as of yet cannot formulate independent thought and further differentiate at its birth.

If your child asks you "Daddy, do you believe in God?" what will you tell them? If they are very young and you say yes they will parrot your beliefs and likewise if you say no. They trust you and will believe anything you say.

robinph

partyatmygaff wrote: »

If your child asks you "Daddy, do you believe in God?" what will you tell them? If they are very young and you say yes they will parrot your beliefs and likewise if you say no. They trust you and will believe anything you say.

So is it better to say "No" and then leave them to question further about various gods or lack of them?

Or do you say "I believe in god version A" and they then become part of god A's followers with no way of them becoming a follower of god B at a later time if they so decide?

Biggins

partyatmygaff wrote: »

There is no such thing as not influencing your children. Hypothetically it may be possible but that would involve you ignoring any questions from your children and never expressing your own opinion in front of them. You don't necessarily have to sit down and tell your children what to think explicitly for them to parrot your beliefs. Children observe their parents and they parrot them until they are old enough to have their own opinions.

Certainly in some cases - as they will with their friends and other relatives who go a different path.
Kids will parrot many things what they see when young - but hey guess what!
When they do get older and are able to formulate questions better with better cognitive and differentiation abilities, increase their independent thought and analysis abilities, they will then drop the parroting and do what they want to do - don't believe me?
Simple easy quick example: ask any teen if they always do what their parents tell them or want them to do - and thats just to start with!

partyatmygaff wrote: »

If your child asks you "Daddy, do you believe in God?" what will you tell them? If they are very young and you say yes they will parrot your beliefs and likewise if you say no. They trust you and will believe anything you say.

They have yet to ask that question and in the coming years SO FAR I cannot see it coming but it might - and if it does, I will give them MY honest answer and with what they are learning via life experiences, contacts and self searching, they will go forth and decided for themselves what way they wish to continue to lead their lives in.

...But no, some here would rather I stick my possible biased head in and stick them in an order (that they can't officially leave remember!) then later hypocritically tell them later "Hey you were always free to do what you want!"

Cobblers. I've no wish to be a hypocrite.

partyatmygaff

robinph wrote: »

So is it better to say "No" and then leave them to question further about various gods or lack of them?

Or do you say "I believe in god version A" and they then become part of god A's followers with no way of them becoming a follower of god B at a later time if they so decide?

Either way they will question further once they are older.

If a parent tells their child "I don't believe there is a God" then the child will take it at face value and will just assume it's true.

If a parent tells their child "Jesus is God" then the child will also take it simplistically.

In both cases once the child grows up they will begin to think further on it and they will either maintain their view or change their way.

partyatmygaff

Biggins wrote: »

Certainly in some cases - as they will with their friends and other relatives who go a different path.
Kids will parrot many things what they see when young - but hey guess what!
When they do get older and are able to formulate questions, increase their independent thought and analysis abilities, they will then drop the parroting and do what they want to do - don't believe me?
Simple easy quick example: ask any teen if they always do what their parents tell them or want them to do - and thats just to start with!

I know that children are influenced by many other people and sources. But it is the source that they trust the most that influences them the most. A child will naturally trust their parent above all others and it their opinion that the child will most readily assume.

Biggins

partyatmygaff wrote: »

I know that children are influenced by many other people and sources. But it is the source that they trust the most that influences them the most. A child will naturally trust their parent above all others and it their opinion that the child will most readily assume.

Well if my influence is additionally that I allow greater freedom to independently assess and come to their own conclusions upon their own life questioning - then so be it.
I would rather they have a more open field view and choice than one tried to be gained while forcibly stuck in any particular walled building.

partyatmygaff

Biggins wrote: »

Well if my influence is additionally that I allow greater freedom to independently assess and come to their own conclusions upon their own life questioning - then so be it.

I know it all sounds very nice but isn't that what the vast majority of parents do anyway? Whether they are religious or not they more than likely will not force their child to believe or disbelieve in anything. Case in point, look at all the lapsed Catholics here in Ireland. Just because you were born in an irreligious family does not mean you cannot grow to be religious and vice-verse. Giving young children "greater freedom to independently assess and come to their own conclusions upon their own life questioning" is meaningless. You are allowing them the freedom to do something they will not do until they are old enough that said provision of freedom becomes rather unnecessary in most families.

Biggins

partyatmygaff wrote: »

I know it all sounds very nice but isn't that what the vast majority of parents do anyway?

I cannot speak for many parents but will try at least, some say they give freedom of choice while ironically having ALREADY forced upon their kids immediate membership of any one of many orders out there.
That to me is hypocritical from the outset and a conflict with their very words.

partyatmygaff wrote: »

...Just because you were born in an irreligious family does not mean you cannot grow to be religious and vice-verse...

Sorry what!!! Have you read my previous posts?
I was NOT born in an irreligious family and I have made that quite clear already.

partyatmygaff wrote: »

..Giving young children "greater freedom to independently assess and come to their own conclusions upon their own life questioning" is meaningless.

Seriously?
Will you PLEASE read my posts right?
Post 6.

If they want to when they are old enough to decide as mature teens or adults, so be it.

I have said nothing about young children and at that stage allowing or dis-allowing them to come to any decided outcome.

partyatmygaff wrote: »

...You are allowing them the freedom to do something they will not do until they are old enough that said provision of freedom becomes rather unnecessary in most families.

I've no idea what your trying to say here. Sorry, its confusing to me.

partyatmygaff

Biggins wrote: »

Sorry what!!! Have you read my previous posts?
I was NOT born in an irreligious family and I have made that quite clear already.

I was not talking about you in particular I was talking in general. Replace "you" with "one".

Seriously?
Will you PLEASE read my posts right?

I'm afraid I will have to ask the same of you. You completely misinterpreted my post.

I was speaking about how your provision of "freedom to independently assess..." is meaningless at such a young age.

I've no idea what your trying to say here. Sorry, its confusing to me.

Giving young children "greater freedom to independently assess and come to their own conclusions upon their own life questioning" is meaningless. You are allowing them the freedom to do something they will not do until they are old enough that said provision of freedom becomes rather unnecessary in most families.

What I am saying here essentially is that this "greater freedom to independently assess e.t.c." is meaningless. At such a young age very few if any children would be inclined let alone able to "independently assess and come to their own conclusions" about something such as religion. They won't even think about it until they're at an age where such provision of freedom by their parents is completely meaningless. A crude analogy would be you telling your children that the moon landing was faked. If you told that to your child at five years of age they will accept it. They will not independently assess the moon landing and come to their own conclusion. If you told the same to a child of thirteen years of age they will more than likely challenge you and not accept your position without some form of independent assessment. Even if you forbade the thirteen year old from believing in the moon landing they would be obstinate and will not hesitate to continue believing in the moon landing.

You are allowing your children the "freedom to independently asses and come to their own conclusions" but they are at such an age where such freedom is largely wasted. By the time they begin to actually independently assess questions and come to their own conclusions your provision of freedom will be irrelevant.