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.

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:

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!!!