Did you baptise your kids? (Atheist parents poll)

Obliq

pwurple wrote: »

You're talking about actively converting people to a faith / non-faith. The desire to convert others is a good example of fundamentalism ideals.

You got that totally wrong mate. I have no problem with what people believe, so long as what they believe doesn't actively translate into discrimination against me. It's the discrimination I'm trying to change, not the belief.

pwurple

kylith wrote: »

But the Catholic church does.

You didn't say The North Pole though, you said Santa-ists. There is a difference.

Like I said; atheists seem to take the rules of a religion more seriously than people who would claim to be adherents to that religion.

Some atheists do.... some don't. It's apparant from this thread at least.

It would be a dealbreaker for me also. I couldn't be in a relationship with someone whose opinion differed so greatly from mine on something so fundamental. Luckily OH is one of us, and my family has now gone through 4 children not being baptised so my parents are used to it. OH's mum will probably be a bit of a row, but we'll cross that bridge when we come to it.

I think that's very severe. To limit your partners to only non-religious is bordering on bigotry for me. I would have had no issue marrying someone of a different faith. No more than I would of a different skin or hair colour, or nationality.

Rev Hellfire

lazygal wrote: »

It's not about getting people to convert - there's many self described atheists who will agree to a church wedding, baptism, godparent role etc - its about getting them to actually follow through on what they describe themselves as rather than retreating behind excuses like 'making the parents happy' or 'the misses really wanted it'.

Just because someone is an atheist doesn't mean they're required to take a stance for or against religion. If it's not effecting them or tagging along for an easy life works why would they bother?

Just because you don't believe doesn't imply you're in anyway passionate about the subject.

lazygal

pwurple wrote: »

I think that's very severe. To limit your partners to only non-religious is bordering on bigotry for me. I would have had no issue marrying someone of a different faith. No more than I would of a different skin or hair colour, or nationality.

Not severe at all. I don't want my children raised in any faith until they're old enough to decide themselves what they want to do - how's that different from people who want their children to be raised in one faith and indoctrinate them from infancy? Luckily my husband is on exactly the same page. I'd find it far more severe to be expected to go along with religious rituals for my children that I didn't want because my partner expected me to.
Plenty of people want to marry someone of the same faith, or have other deal breakers. I know some Muslims who won't marry outside the faith, is that bigotry? i'd say life might be easier all around if you and your partner agree on things like faith before getting married - I wouldn't be compatible with a religious person, the same way a religious person mightn't be compatible with me.

lazygal

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

Just because someone is an atheist doesn't mean they're required to take a stance for or against religion. If it's not effecting them or tagging along for an easy life works why would they bother?

Just because you don't believe doesn't imply you're in anyway passionate about the subject.

The 'easy life' brigade make life difficult for those who don't partake in the bits of religion their partners or parents insist on and maintain inequality in schooling, medical services and numerous other aspects of irish life.

kylith

pwurple wrote: »

kylith wrote: »

But the Catholic church does.

You didn't say The North Pole though, you said Santa-ists. There is a difference.

Fair point. I will go back and edit to clarify that Santaists are The Church of Santa

I think that's very severe. To limit your partners to only non-religious is bordering on bigotry for me. I would have had no issue marrying someone of a different faith. No more than I would of a different skin or hair colour, or nationality.

I don't believe in gods. I think that an adult believing in gods is the same as an adult believing in fairies or ghosts; it's a level of irrationality that I would not be comfortable with in a partner being, as it is, a complete denial of rational evidence. To suggest that differing beliefs in deities would be akin to hair and eye colour is ridiculous; someone's hair and eye colour do not influence their beliefs on an afterlife or their morality.

Would you be happy in a relationship where the other person thought that you were delusional? Would you be happy in a relationship where the other person's beliefs dictated that you do something against your morality, such as circumcise children? Someone who believed that you were going to burn in hellfire for all eternity just because you believed differently to them?

Obliq

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

Just because someone is an atheist doesn't mean they're required to take a stance for or against religion. If it's not effecting them or tagging along for an easy life works why would they bother?

Just because you don't believe doesn't imply you're in anyway passionate about the subject.

This is as true for a la carte catholics as it is for atheists. However, those of us who are passionate enough to wish to see change for the better of other people, not just ourselves, are understandably frustrated by the apathy.

gaynorvader

lazygal wrote: »

The 'easy life' brigade make life difficult for those who partake in the bits of religion their partners or parents insist on and maintain inequality in schooling, medical services and numerous other aspects of irish life.

Is there supposed to be a don't before partake here? I would say that it's more down to our crappy constitution than anything that's at fault.

Bannasidhe

lazygal wrote: »

Not severe at all. I don't want my children raised in any faith until they're old enough to decide themselves what they want to do - how's that different from people who want their children to be raised in one faith and indoctrinate them from infancy? Luckily my husband is on exactly the same page. I'd find it far more severe to be expected to go along with religious rituals for my children that I didn't want because my partner expected me to.
Plenty of people want to marry someone of the same faith, or have other deal breakers. I know some Muslims who won't marry outside the faith, is that bigotry? i'd say life might be easier all around if you and your partner agree on things like faith before getting married - I wouldn't be compatible with a religious person, the same way a religious person mightn't be compatible with me.

Agreed.

Just to pick up on this point:
'No more than I would of a different skin or hair colour, or nationality'

What if that person insisted that all children must be of one colour (I love you darling but our children have to be white), or blond ('any gingers and there will be trouble ahead!') or Mono-cultural ('Yes, hurling is an interesting game my love, my sweet but it's not French so put down that sliotar and play with these boules or else!')

lazygal

gaynorvader wrote: »

Is there supposed to be a don't before partake here? I would say that it's more down to our crappy constitution than anything that's at fault.

Yes! *rushes off to edit*.

Dades

The thing about not getting your kids baptized to change the system is not as relevant as it's being made out to be, imo.

My kids were baptised, but both were clearly labelled as having "No Religion" in the census. This was one decision I was making.

Certainly, if more and more parents don't baptise their kids, then eventually the more in-demand schools will see some places will open up for unbaptised children. They will however still be down the pecking order from the children with that bit of paper (and their siblings) until the schools change their enrollment policies. Census figures are the figures that you hear from either Ruari Quinn or the Church using to back up their positions regarding schools.

My point is that it will be the census figures, and perhaps media exposure of the discrimination that will bring about change, and not baptismal figures.

(Side note - I had a text re schools read out on Newstalk last week to counter some humanist talking utter shite. (Here - starts about 31m 30s in. I nearly burst a blood vessel at the response to my text, btw).

lazygal

Dades, what would have happened if you'd refused to allow your children to be baptized? Just curious, because you said marriage is about compromise, was the compromise putting down no religion on the census? If the children are baptized regardless, how's that a compromise?

Bannasidhe

Dades wrote: »

(Side note - I had a text re schools read out on Newstalk last week to counter some humanist talking utter shite. (Here - starts about 31m 30s in. I nearly burst a blood vessel at the response to my text, btw).

Now I have 'Never met a girl like you before' stuck in my head.

Damn you Dades - Damn you to Hell! :mad:

Obliq

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Now I have 'Never met a girl like you before' stuck in my head.

Damn you Dades - Damn you to Hell! :mad:

Feckit, yes, me too. Missed 30 and hit 25 in the middle of song

Bannasidhe

Ah Dades - you didn't tell him what, as an atheist, you have faith in which, apparently we must do.

Yes, I can see how your blood vessels came under strain - not wanting your child in a faith based school is obviously intolerant (Bad Dades!) so send them to a non-faith based....oh.....hmmmm....lack of non-faith based schools wasn't mentioned...funny that.

I'm not able for this crap today.

Dades

lazygal wrote: »

Dades, what would have happened if you'd refused to allow your children to be baptized? Just curious, because you said marriage is about compromise, was the compromise putting down no religion on the census? If the children are baptized regardless, how's that a compromise?

If I'm honest, I don't really feel compelled to justify it any more than I have, by revisiting old disagreements online. Regarding compromise it should be noted there's always more than one battlefront in a marriage. Religion is a footnote to the main storyline.

Obliq

Dades wrote: »

The thing about not getting your kids baptized to change the system is not as relevant as it's being made out to be, imo.

My kids were baptised, but both were clearly labelled as having "No Religion" in the census. This was one decision I was making.

Still listening to the show, but just on this bit - yes, I'm sure you're right about the census being so much more meaningful, but I take the point of a previous poster who mentioned that it would be progressively harder not to compromise on communion/confirmation if you have already compromised on baptism. I have seen that time and again as something that happens regularly.

But how and ever, I guess I'm one of those "New (shrill) Atheists" that eejit was banging on about on the show. Heard the response to your text - he sounds more theist than atheist

Obliq

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Ah Dades - you didn't tell him what, as an atheist, you have faith in which, apparently we must do.

Is there something wrong with me that I'm NOT searching for the meaning of life? Sigh.

Bannasidhe

Obliq wrote: »

Is there something wrong with me that I'm NOT searching for the meaning of life? Sigh.

I'm only here to see what happens next. It's all been terribly interesting so far...

Dades

Obliq wrote: »

I take the point of a previous poster who mentioned that it would be progressively harder not to compromise on communion/confirmation if you have already compromised on baptism. I have seen that time and again as something that happens regularly. (

I don't disagree with that. That is something the "ah sure it's only one day" people should bear in mind.

Again, I'm hoping down the line to steer the victim subject away from communion. The battle of science over myth began long ago and my daughter is a willing and eager sponge. My mother in law was rebuked in no uncertain terms last week in that "Holy God" did not make the earth, it was a huge explosion long ago. Bless. Funny thing is I've never said anything about Holy God to her either way.

Dades

Obliq wrote: »

Is there something wrong with me that I'm NOT searching for the meaning of life? Sigh.

The bit where he talks about Dawkins not saying what he believes in. He says incredulously, "I'm a Humanist, and I can't see any Humanism in what he says."

So you can't see your belief system in what Dawkins says - so therefore he's wrong?

Aaaaaarrrrrgggggghhhh :pac:

smacl

kylith wrote: »

Would you be happy in a relationship where the other person thought that you were delusional?

Depends on the context. If I was living in a mental asylum surrounded by sexy nutters, I might risk it for a biscuit

kylith

smacl wrote: »

Depends on the context. If I was living in a mental asylum surrounded by sexy nutters, I might risk it for a biscuit

Nutters do tend to be freak-ay alright.

Obliq

Dades wrote: »

The bit where he talks about Dawkins not saying what he believes in. He says incredulously, "I'm a Humanist, and I can't see any Humanism in what he says."

So you can't see your belief system in what Dawkins says - so therefore he's wrong?

Aaaaaarrrrrgggggghhhh :pac:

He seemed to completely subscribe to morality and therefore humanism having sprung directly from religion. Even my kids know better than that - you only have to ask a child "What made you help your friend when he was in trouble?" to get "I wanted to" as an answer. No belief system required.

smacl

Dades wrote: »

The bit where he talks about Dawkins not saying what he believes in. He says incredulously, "I'm a Humanist, and I can't see any Humanism in what he says."

So you can't see your belief system in what Dawkins says - so therefore he's wrong?

Aaaaaarrrrrgggggghhhh :pac:

What got me riled was that he was complaining about 'those atheists' being smug. Pot? Kettle? Hello?

sbsquarepants

lazygal wrote: »

The 'easy life' brigade make life difficult for those who don't partake in the bits of religion their partners or parents insist on and maintain inequality in schooling, medical services and numerous other aspects of irish life.

The mistake you seem to be making is assuming that because you feel strongly about something, others should too. It's no different to any other "problem" or issue - some people will care and some will not. I see all the points the anti baptising group are making and i basically agree with them all, but that doesn't mean i'm going to endure any hardship over it. This is what i think will work best for me, so this is what i'm doing - i don't care what anyone else does.

Obliq wrote: »

This is as true for a la carte catholics as it is for atheists. However, those of us who are passionate enough to wish to see change for the better of other people, not just ourselves, are understandably frustrated by the apathy.

As above, one mans crusade is another mans meh!
It's a non issue for me. I'm sure i care strongly about things you couldn't give a toss about, that's just the way it goes.

Also going through with the water splashing in no way means bringing a child up in any faith. People are enormously overstating it's impact and relevance, bordering on the hysterical at times.

sbsquarepants

kylith wrote: »

Nutters do tend to be freak-ay alright.

Jesus do you people know nothing - you never fúck crazy. NEVER!

swampgas

sbsquarepants wrote: »

The mistake you seem to be making is assuming that because you feel strongly about something, others should too. It's no different to any other "problem" or issue - some people will care and some will not. I see all the points the anti baptising group are making and i basically agree with them all, but that doesn't mean i'm going to endure any hardship over it. This is what i think will work best for me, so this is what i'm doing - i don't care what anyone else does.

That sounds very much like "I'm alright Jack" to me. Fair enough though.

As above, one mans crusade is another mans meh!
It's a non issue for me. I'm sure i care strongly about things you couldn't give a toss about, that's just the way it goes.

Also going through with the water splashing in no way means bringing a child up in any faith. People are enormously overstating it's impact and relevance, bordering on the hysterical at times.

It's not the splashy-water bit that matters. You can turn on the tap to do that.

It's the standing in a church of a religion you don't follow, in front of a priest you don't respect, to make a vow you don't intend to fulfil, for something that is allegedly irrelevant, that makes me scratch my head.

Bannasidhe

sbsquarepants wrote: »

Jesus do you people know nothing - you never fúck crazy. NEVER!

Well now is a fine time to bloody well tell us!

Bannasidhe

swampgas wrote: »

It's the standing in a church of a religion you don't follow, in front of a priest you don't respect, to make a vow you don't intend to fulfil, for something that is allegedly irrelevant, that makes me scratch my head.

and eyes twitch.

kylith

sbsquarepants wrote: »

Jesus do you people know nothing - you never fúck crazy. NEVER!

No, no! It's 'never stick your dick in crazy'. I have no penis, so therefore it's fine.


Right?

kylith

swampgas wrote: »

It's the standing in a church of a religion you don't follow, in front of a priest you don't respect, to make a vow you don't intend to fulfil, for something that is allegedly irrelevant, that makes me scratch my head.

Hear, hear!

Bannasidhe

kylith wrote: »

No, no! It's 'never stick your dick in crazy'. I have no penis, so therefore it's fine.


Right?

*awaiting reply with interest*







*wondering if strap-on counts as penis...if so, some people I know may be in for an interesting ride time.*

Obliq

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Well now is a fine time to bloody well tell us!

Yes, if only "the crazy one" had come with a label that said "as soon as you get pregnant, I will suddenly wish you wore the hijab and stopped speaking to men without my permission".

sbsquarepants

swampgas wrote: »

That sounds very much like "I'm alright Jack" to me. Fair enough though..

That's basically what it is. I don't mean to sound flippant or anything but it's the truth. Everyday you'll walk past dozens of collections for this that and the other, odds are you'll walk past most if not all - simple fact is you can't care about everyting, if you did you wouldn't be able to function. Certain issues or causes will resonate with you and the rest just fall by the way side, i'm sure if you bothered to check they all have their merits.

swampgas wrote: »

It's not the splashy-water bit that matters. You can turn on the tap to do that.

It's the standing in a church of a religion you don't follow, in front of a priest you don't respect, to make a vow you don't intend to fulfil, for something that is allegedly irrelevant, that makes me scratch my head.

I agree it's total nonsense.
You make a promise you have no intention of keeping to a being that doesn't exist, for entry into a club you don't want to join - it's bat shít crazy, although it does have a certain surreal humour to it also.:D

Bannasidhe

Obliq wrote: »

Yes, if only "the crazy one" had come with a label that said "as soon as you get pregnant, I will suddenly wish you wore the hijab and stopped speaking to men without my permission".

Or one that says 'Even though we agreed this was a casual thang I am now going to go all bunny boiler on your ass because you won't move in with me and put all your stuff in storage as I am a bit control freaky about interior decor'.

sbsquarepants

kylith wrote: »

No, no! It's 'never stick your dick in crazy'. I have no penis, so therefore it's fine.


Right?

Oh, yeah - you'll be fine. It's not "don't let crazy stick it's dick in you" afterall.


Although when you say it out loud like that......you probably shouldn't.

kylith

sbsquarepants wrote: »

Oh, yeah - you'll be fine. It's not "don't let crazy stick it's dick in you" afterall.

Hmmm, when you put it like that it does sound like advice that might be wise to take. I don't generally like crazies sticking things in me, whether it be penises, knives, or longswords.

Although when you say it out loud like that......you probably shouldn't.

Lol, probably not.

Obliq

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Or one that says 'Even though we agreed this was a casual thang I am now going to go all bunny boiler on your ass because you won't move in with me and put all your stuff in storage as I am a bit control freaky about interior decor'.

With my OH, I measured his amount of "crazy" as acceptable when he was sane enough not to want to live with me

sbsquarepants

kylith wrote: »

Hmmm, when you put it like that it does sound like advice that might be wise to take. I don't generally like crazies sticking things in me, whether it be penises, knives, or longswords.
.

Although of the 3 choices, it's probably the one i'd go for and i'm a bloke:eek:

smacl

sbsquarepants wrote: »

Jesus do you people know nothing - you never fúck crazy. NEVER!

Ah c'mon.....

kylith

sbsquarepants wrote: »

Although of the 3 choices, it's probably the one i'd go for and i'm a bloke:eek:

It can land you in long-term trouble though. At least with the others you get it all over and done with relatively quickly.

lazygal

Biscuits, anyone?

Bannasidhe

lazygal wrote: »

Biscuits, anyone?

As long as they're not wafers.

lazygal

Bannasidhe wrote: »

As long as they're not wafers.

But I love a pink wafer biscuit.:(

drkpower

Obliq wrote: »

I don't see that at all though. It seems pretty legitimate to me to think that no change towards secularism will happen unless people actually get counted for what they believe/do not believe.

Yet many cannot accept that some of us believe that familial and marital harmony takes precedence over a lack of belief in god.

We are all capable of prioritising; for me, my 'atheism' is low on the list. That may - in a very small way - slow the progress of the dismantling of church influence but, you know what, that's fine with me.

There are also cultural reasons why some of us atheists might like to avail of church-provided services. I got married in my local church. It's a beautiful building, it holds special memories for me, it was the location of some very significant family occasions occurred. Was I wrong to avail of the building because I am an atheist? When the only skin of my nose was that I had to utter a few meaningless platitudes? I didnt think so myself.

We all prioritise and maintain a somewhat flexible approach to our principles, depending on how important that principle is to us. Dont agree with [insert law here], but you obey it, right? Yes, because you have made the assessment that that particular principle it is not worth getting sued/fined/jailed for. But if everyone did as you do, we will never repeal [insert law here], shame on you......

swampgas

drkpower wrote: »

Yet many cannot accept that some of us believe that familial and marital harmony takes precedence over a lack of belief in god.

We are all capable of prioritising; for me, my 'atheism' is low on the list. That may - in a very small way - slow the progress of the dismantling of church influence but, you know what, that's fine with me.

There are also cultural reasons why some of us atheists might like to avail of church-provided services. I got married in my local church. It's a beautiful building, it holds special memories for me, it was the location of some very significant family occasions occurred. Was I wrong to avail of the building because I am an atheist? When the only skin of my nose was that I had to utter a few meaningless platitudes? I didnt think so myself.

We all prioritise and maintain a somewhat flexible approach to our principles, depending on how important that principle is to us. Dont agree with [insert law here], but you obey it, right? Yes, because you have made the assessment that that particular principle it is not worth getting sued/fined/jailed for. But if everyone did as you do, we will never repeal [insert law here], shame on you......

I think this is worth a thread all of its own.

smacl

drkpower wrote: »

We all prioritise and maintain a somewhat flexible approach to our principles, depending on how important that principle is to us. Dont agree with [insert law here], but you obey it, right? Yes, because you have made the assessment that that particular principle it is not worth getting sued/fined/jailed for. But if everyone did as you do, we will never repeal [insert law here], shame on you......

I'm not sure that obeying the law of the land, an obligation, is analogous to following the traditions of a church, which is a matter of choice.

gaynorvader

smacl wrote: »

I'm not sure that obeying the law of the land, an obligation, is analogous to following the traditions of a church, which is a matter of choice.

Many of those laws have arisen from the traditions of the church.

Dades

swampgas wrote: »

That sounds very much like "I'm alright Jack" to me. Fair enough though.

The thing is, I don't think someone baptising their kid actually affects anyone else. No more than calling your child Moongarden, it shouldn't be anything other than an annoyance as to daft things parents do. The census is what matters.

smacl wrote: »

Ah c'mon.....

As a schoolboy I had this Betty Blue poster on my wall for years.
If Jebus was really watching I'm in trouble.