Did you baptise your kids? (Atheist parents poll)

Iwannahurl

I don't have time to read all of this thread, but imo the question "why" needs to be asked.

As non-Catholics we did not baptise our kids. There are no consequences to this of course, except for the issue of school choice.

We failed to get our child into the local school, an obvious choice because it's ten minutes' walk down the road. Our (at least nominally) Catholic relatives and neighbours did the whole christening thing, and as a result they are happily accessing the nearest school while we have to travel nearly four times further to a school that happened to have places available.

The irony is that it's also a Catholic school, so the upshot is that avoiding the sham of baptism has just required travelling further for the same indoctrination.

It's a sick system, imo. I would like to know why so many people baptise their kids. Is it because they are practising Catholics, because they caved in to pressure, or because they wanted to get into the nearest school?

kylith

Dades wrote: »

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.

I agree that the census is what matters, but baptising your child allows the RCC to say 'X amount of children were baptised last year (therefore catholicism is relevant)'.

lazygal

kylith wrote: »

I agree that the census is what matters, but baptising your child allows the RCC to say 'X amount of children were baptised last year (therefore catholicism is relevant)'.

And also sets children and relatives up for communions, confirmations and other stuff. Hard to opt out of communion when you've done the baptism, hard to opt out of confirmation when you've done the communion, hard to say no to being a godparent when you've done all the other catholic stuff, hard to opt out of a church wedding if you meet someone who's also done all the usual stuff and who's parents will be disappointed if there's not a church wedding.....repeat as needed.

gaynorvader

lazygal wrote: »

And also sets children and relatives up for communions, confirmations and other stuff. Hard to opt out of communion when you've done the baptism, hard to opt out of confirmation when you've done the communion, hard to say no to being a godparent when you've done all the other catholic stuff, hard to opt out of a church wedding if you meet someone who's also done all the usual stuff and who's parents will be disappointed if there's not a church wedding.....repeat as needed.

I don't agree with this line of reasoning. It's no more or less difficult to not have a communion after being baptised.

Obliq

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.

Point taken. Pretty clear to see how different we all are in our priorities, and I guess how important your atheism is to you will dictate all sorts, from choosing a life partner in the first place for some, to whether "going along with it" is of far less importance to you than causing strife in a relationship with others.

Interestingly, this thread has shown up how much more important my atheism is to me than I thought - surprisingly so, actually. People are often saying how atheism is just not believing in a deity, but I guess it's also important to me to have my disbelief respected by others, religious or not.

lazygal

gaynorvader wrote: »

I don't agree with this line of reasoning. It's no more or less difficult to not have a communion after being baptised.

Virtually every child I know who's baptized Catholic does communions/confirmations, despite the parents claiming they only baptised to get them into school/please the grannies/insert other reason here. Its not about it being more or less difficult, its that once one of the rituals is done, the others follow more often than not. I think its akin to a church wedding - when you've given in on that, you're less able to square up to arguments against baptising, and then the communions and whatnot naturally follow. I've seen it time and again in our peer group.

gaynorvader

lazygal wrote: »

Virtually every child I know who's baptized Catholic does communions/confirmations, despite the parents claiming they only baptised to get them into school/please the grannies/insert other reason here. Its not about it being more or less difficult, its that once one of the rituals is done, the others follow more often than not. I think its akin to a church wedding - when you've given in on that, you're less able to square up to arguments against baptising, and then the communions and whatnot naturally follow. I've seen it time and again in our peer group.

I think that it's more likely that parents who relent to social pressure to get their kids baptised are going to relent to social pressure to get their kids to do the other rituals.

kylith

gaynorvader wrote: »

I don't agree with this line of reasoning. It's no more or less difficult to not have a communion after being baptised.

If they're baptised you may well have meddling relatives who will push you towards communion with all the usual arguments we see here, and the parent may give in for the sake of a quiet life.

If the child hasn't been baptised then the child simply cannot be communed or confirmed, this is RCC law. The relatives can argue and cajole all they like but there's nothing can be done; the child simply won't be allowed to make communion, by the church.

lazygal

Obliq wrote: »

Interestingly, this thread has shown up how much more important my atheism is to me than I thought - surprisingly so, actually. People are often saying how atheism is just not believing in a deity, but I guess it's also important to me to have my disbelief respected by others, religious or not.

I feel a bit the same. Its also shown me how important it was for me and my husband to be in agreement on this before we got married and had children. I'd have been extremely upset if after thinking he was an atheist before we had children that he wanted to have any religious rituals for our children, even if it was dressed up as making his parents happy or to get them into a school. I'm actually not sure how I'd have dealt with that.

Obliq

lazygal wrote: »

I feel a bit the same. Its also shown me how important it was for me and my husband to be in agreement on this before we got married and had children. I'd have been extremely upset if after thinking he was an atheist before we had children that he wanted to have any religious rituals for our children, even if it was dressed up as making his parents happy or to get them into a school. I'm actually not sure how I'd have dealt with that.

I didn't deal well with it at all. I mentioned yesterday (or thereabouts) that both my children's fathers had a little go at that "ah, it's just to keep the folks happy" stuff. I think I said that not a word was mentioned about it again, but forgot that it came up again at communion year with my youngest's father. Had to say, well, good luck getting that little atheist baptised and indoctrinated within the year. Sure won't he be free to take it up whenever he wants in the future?

I was disgusted that the "atheists" I'd had long relationships with had sort of turned-tail and run back to the church as soon as the fear of death question had come up. Because that's what it boils down to really - I felt sorry each time that there was this element of just in case, and I could see what having the courage of your conviction actually means. In my case, I just don't require the same courage, because I never did believe in a god. Simpler for me I suppose.....

sbsquarepants

lazygal wrote: »

Virtually every child I know who's baptized Catholic does communions/confirmations, despite the parents claiming they only baptised to get them into school/please the grannies/insert other reason here.

Well i know one that will anyway, seeing as making her communion was the sole reason my missus wanted the kid baptised in the first place!
Apparently the crippling loneliness of not having a day out with her friends was too much to countenance.

kylith

Obliq wrote: »

I was disgusted that the "atheists" I'd had long relationships with had sort of turned-tail and run back to the church as soon as the fear of death question had come up. Because that's what it boils down to really - I felt sorry each time that there was this element of just in case, and I could see what having the courage of your conviction actually means. In my case, I just don't require the same courage, because I never did believe in a god. Simpler for me I suppose.....

I don't really get the 'fear of death' thing. Surely you can only fear death if you believe in an afterlife, and you think you'll be sent to the Bad Place? Having no belief in an afterlife has solved my worries on that front; I will stop breathing, my heart will stop beating, electrical activity in my brain will cease, and I will fall asleep. Sure, it's sad to think that I'll never wake up again, but hopefully I'll be old and tired enough that I'll be ready for it.

My only fear about death these days is of dying in pain. Even then Pterry helps:I TAKE AWAY THE PAIN AND END THE SUFFERING

Sarky

Sleep is one of the greatest pleasures available. Eternal sleep sounds quite nice, actually.

gaynorvader

kylith wrote: »

If they're baptised you may well have meddling relatives who will push you towards communion with all the usual arguments we see here, and the parent may give in for the sake of a quiet life.

If the child hasn't been baptised then the child simply cannot be communed or confirmed, this is RCC law. The relatives can argue and cajole all they like but there's nothing can be done; the child simply won't be allowed to make communion, by the church.

You mean they don't do the all-in-one baptirmatunion any more? It was such good value though!

smacl

gaynorvader wrote: »

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

True, but that still doesn't make them optional if you're an atheist.

kylith

gaynorvader wrote: »

You mean they don't do the all-in-one baptirmatunion any more? It was such good value though!

You can still get the Baptimunionmationedding, but it's not as good value as it was.

gaynorvader

smacl wrote: »

True, but that still doesn't make them optional if you're an atheist.

Where there's a will there's a way! It does usually mean going to a different country though

kylith

gaynorvader wrote: »

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

And many more of the traditions of the church have been rejected as a basis in law; leniancy for rapists, stonings, not being allowed to be a different religion, killing gay people.

Really, there are more laws and traditions in the bible that aren't laws than are. Not only are they not laws, they are totally repellent to modern, western, people.

gaynorvader

kylith wrote: »

And many more of the traditions of the church have been rejected as a basis in law; leniancy for rapists, stonings, not being allowed to be a different religion, killing gay people.

Really, there are more laws and traditions in the bible that aren't laws than are. Not only are they not laws, they are totally repellent to modern, western, people.

Agreed. Not sure why this is pertinent to the issue at hand though. There are laws, based in church tradition, that people follow because it's law instead of demanding to know why it's law.

drkpower

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.

It wasnt really an analogy; it was simply an illustration of how we all can bury our principles when it suits us.

But if we want to analogise, I would hazard a guess that maintaining marital and family relationships would be an even higher priority for most than obeying many laws of the land (and that the consequences of breaching the former will often far outweigh the latter....).

Bannasidhe

kylith wrote: »

I don't really get the 'fear of death' thing. Surely you can only fear death if you believe in an afterlife, and you think you'll be sent to the Bad Place? Having no belief in an afterlife has solved my worries on that front; I will stop breathing, my heart will stop beating, electrical activity in my brain will cease, and I will fall asleep. Sure, it's sad to think that I'll never wake up again, but hopefully I'll be old and tired enough that I'll be ready for it.

Was talking with OH about this the other night. When we met she was a typical Irish Catholic (i.e would announce with a straight face that she was a catlick while also being a non-Mass attending lesbian who is pro pretty much everything the RCC gets it's knickers in a twist about but she did make the hand signals while passing churches, grottos, funerals and some other things that I never bothered to see what they were so I guess that made up for the other stuff...).

She has now moved from Catlick (after having the tenets of the RCC outlined to her ) to simply calling herself a theist but admits this is based on two factors:
1) Fear. What if she said she didn't believe in God and it turned out she was wrong :eek:.
2) The comfort of believing she will meet those she loves again after death.

She finds my attitude terrifying - basically nobody knows what happens next or even if there is a next so there really is no point fretting about it but it would be lovely to meet those I love again (well...my Nan and my dog Gráinne anyway). However there is no guarantee that will happen and going along with a particular religion in hope of meeting me Nan again is akin to buying snake oil and hoping it cures what ails me as the reality is the religious don't know what happens either.

Plus - what if one choose the 'wrong' religion...:D

Did my Nan get to meet her Catholic mother but not her Anglican father????

So for me, it is a case of some day I will die. No one knows what happens next - if anything - if I 'meet' my Nan - that would be most cool. If there is nothing - well, I'll be dead so I won't be aware of the nothing.

And like sarky - I like being asleep. It's so restful.

kylith

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Was talking with OH about this the other night. When we met she was a typical Irish Catholic (i.e would announce with a straight face that she was a catlick while also being a non-Mass attending lesbian who is pro pretty much everything the RCC gets it's knickers in a twist about but she did make the hand signals while passing churches, grottos, funerals and some other things that I never bothered to see what they were so I guess that made up for the other stuff...).

She has now moved from Catlick (after having the tenets of the RCC outlined to her ) to simply calling herself a theist but admits this is based on two factors:
1) Fear. What if she said she didn't believe in God and it turned out she was wrong :eek:.
2) The comfort of believing she will meet those she loves again after death.

She finds my attitude terrifying - basically nobody knows what happens next or even if there is a next so there really is no point fretting about it but it would be lovely to meet those I love again (well...my Nan and my dog Gráinne anyway). However there is no guarantee that will happen and going along with a particular religion in hope of meeting me Nan again is akin to buying snake oil and hoping it cures what ails me as the reality is the religious don't know what happens either.

Plus - what if one choose the 'wrong' religion...:D

Did my Nan get to meet her Catholic mother but not her Anglican father????

So for me, it is a case of some day I will die. No one knows what happens next - if anything - if I 'meet' my Nan - that would be most cool. If there is nothing - well, I'll be dead so I won't be aware of the nothing.

And like sarky - I like being asleep. It's so restful.

I know we've been through all this before, but anyway:

What it I go to heaven and OH goes to hell, it can't be heaven for me then, can it? What if the people who want to be with you in heaven aren't the people you want to be with? It can't be heaven unless ye can both have what ye want and much as I loved my nanny she was a bit of a stingy racist. I had a Mormon tell me before that in heaven we'd want to spend time with these people. In which case, as I said, I wouldn't be me, I'd be some lobotomised Stepford version of me.

And what if you pick the wrong religion? At least if an atheist is wrong we can say 'Hey, I didn't see any evidence so I withheld belief' which I think would be easier for a deity to accept than just blindly following your parent's religion; at least atheists have put some thought into their faith.

recedite

Dades wrote: »

The thing is, I don't think someone baptising their kid actually affects anyone else....The census is what matters.

Technically, in terms of school patronage anyway, what matters is the votes of local parents who have kids of the right age to attend the particular school. Dept. of Education organises the surveys.

A couple of reasons given so far for allowing kids to be baptised have included marital harmony, access to schools, and a fun day out.
I'd venture to suggest that for many the split is not so much between militant atheists and blasé atheists, its more the split between those who have abandoned the culture of the religion and those who have only abandoned the belief. In Ireland particularly, culture and religion have been intertwined for so long, that it takes more than one generation of atheism for a person to become comfortable in leaving behind the culture of a family religion.

Bannasidhe

recedite wrote: »

Technically, in terms of school patronage anyway, what matters is the votes of local parents who have kids of the right age to attend the particular school. Dept. of Education organises the surveys.

A couple of reasons given so far for allowing kids to be baptised have included marital harmony, access to schools, and a fun day out.
I'd venture to suggest that for many the split is not so much between militant atheists and blasé atheists, its more the split between those who have abandoned the culture of the religion and those who have only abandoned the belief. In Ireland particularly, culture and religion have been intertwined for so long, that it takes more than one generation of atheism for a person to become comfortable in leaving behind the culture of a family religion.

Spot On.

smacl

I think of life as a short one shot subjective experience. You live then you die, nothing before or after only during. Possibly comes from also having atheist folks, but heaven, hell, nirvana and the rest sound just as ridiculous as a deity. An afterlife would be fine, but wishing for it to be true isn't going to make it happen (as I found out after many hours trying to use the force following my first viewing of Star Wars).

IMHO, dead friends do live on in the mind as and when we remember them. I've lost a few friends in recent years, one of whom was a very creative cook and I tend to think of him when I'm cooking certain dishes. I actually tend to think of him slagging the ass off me for making such a bollocks of the seasoning. Gone but not forgotten.

kylith

smacl wrote: »

IMHO, dead friends do live on in the mind as and when we remember them. I've lost a few friends in recent years, one of whom was a very creative cook and I tend to think of him when I'm cooking certain dishes. I actually tend to think of him slagging the ass off me for making such a bollocks of the seasoning. Gone but not forgotten.

It's ok...just something in my eye....

Sarky

Ow, my feels

Dades

recedite wrote: »

Technically, in terms of school patronage anyway, what matters is the votes of local parents who have kids of the right age to attend the particular school. Dept. of Education organises the surveys.

Interesting, thanks. Though I've never been asked, myself.

Liamario

I'm happy to say that I didn't bend to the wishes of certain family members and at almost 17 months old, Fionn is still irreligious.
I have to say that I am disappointed with the current poll results. With all the comments I read from people taking the piss out of religion, showing their disgust at what religion teaches; to then ignore their principles and set your child down the road of indoctrination is disheartening.
Of course there are circumstances beyond the control of some parents and then there are some who are all talk.

Turtwig

I'd have preferred if the poll was public that way we'd have an idea of how the regulars here reflect.

Obliq

Never thought to look!

redfacedbear

Obliq wrote: »

no change towards secularism will happen unless people actually get counted for what they believe/do not believe.

lazygal wrote: »

I'm getting mighty sick of people taking the talk but not walking the walk.
It just makes the status quo even more entrenched and people will continue to go along rather than kick up a fuss, or not even kick up a fuss, just not do the religious stuff.

On every single issue to do with secularisation and the separation of church and state I am walking the walk though. Even with respect to my kids - I've made sure they were counted when ET was looking to get up and running here in Wexford even though both were years away from starting. I've lobbied politicians and made clear I'm very unhappy that come secondary their choice is between the tech and some rank hypocrasy on my part. They've gone on the census and any other form that has asked (hospitals etc) as no religion - I agree with Dades that these are more important than any stats the church itself is likely to produce. But I'm not going to compromise their educational prospects on a point of princple either.

As I said the driving force for their baptism was their mother and my concession to this was motivated by worries about deep inadequacies in the educational system here in Ireland. Yes it stinks and yes I'm doing all I can to change it but for me there is no way I'm going make my daughters be the ones to suffer for the state's inadequacies

Liamario

I assume they're not going to have their communion or confirmation then?

Hotblack Desiato

Obliq wrote: »

The state has mandated that you must be Catholic to be guaranteed a school place in your locality. It's a little more insidious than telling you to go to church, but amounts to much the same thing.

That's pretty much as close as you can get to mandating a state religion, without mandating a state religion :mad:

Dades wrote: »

Census figures are the figures that you hear from either Ruari Quinn or the Church using to back up their positions regarding schools.

True but there's still a pretty large gap between numbers of non-RCs in the census (16%) and number of non-RC primary schools (about 4%)

recedite wrote: »

Technically, in terms of school patronage anyway, what matters is the votes of local parents who have kids of the right age to attend the particular school. Dept. of Education organises the surveys.

There have only been a handful, and promotion of them has been very poor anyway. Most parents who desire change don't live in the very few areas where change is being offered :rolleyes:

It's a mirage of reform, really. Quinn should as a very minimum be forcing RC schools down to 84% of places. Actually, many of those 84% RC box-tickers are too old to have school-age kids so Quinn should be aiming at a figure well below that, and give them no more than 5 years at the most to do it.

There will still be huge problems with oversubscription of the non-RC schools though, as well as their geographic spread. Complete secularism in state-funded education is the only way to treat everyone fairly - but could that ever really happen here?

Banbh

It might be helpful to parents who feel they must sign their children up to the Catholic Church for the sake of a school place, if they were to contact the Dept of Education first.

We did this and asked where the nearest non-religious school was or if the Dept would prefer and finance home-schooling. We got a letter directing us to our local school (the only one within 12 miles) which is Catholic controlled.

We didn't have to produce our Dept letter as the principal and teacher were only too happy to accommodate us but it might be a solution for others.

Ghost Buster

Didnt have either of my two watered.
Wife is of Proddy background and I am of Cafflick background so that would have been an issue if either of us were still playing dress-up for our parents.
But as Im an atheist of more years than I care to remember and herself has nothing more than vague Wiccany/hippy spiritual notions we really had no thought of any watering of our kids.

Chattastrophe!

I wonder how schools get away with giving students priority based on their religion - perhaps in private schools I'd understand, but it's supposed to be a free public education system? Has anyone whose child was refused a place attempted to appeal it on basis of religious discrimination?

My preference will be an Educate Together school anyways, and we're lucky that there are a couple in the area (although several Catholic schools are much closer.) I've heard so many stories though of non-Catholic parents having no option but to send their kids to a school miles away ... and it's often a school with a poor reputation, since they still have places left for non-Catholics after everyone else has been accommodated.

It's completely unjust. How can schools teach children that everyone's equal, if they're discriminating based on religion before the kids even start school!

lazygal

Tlachtga wrote: »

I wonder how schools get away with giving students priority based on their religion - perhaps in private schools I'd understand, but it's supposed to be a free public education system? Has anyone whose child was refused a place attempted to appeal it on basis of religious discrimination?

My preference will be an Educate Together school anyways, and we're lucky that there are a couple in the area (although several Catholic schools are much closer.) I've heard so many stories though of non-Catholic parents having no option but to send their kids to a school miles away ... and it's often a school with a poor reputation, since they still have places left for non-Catholics after everyone else has been accommodated.

It's completely unjust. How can schools teach children that everyone's equal, if they're discriminating based on religion before the kids even start school!

Schools are exempt from the Equal Status Act. They can legally discriminate against staff and prospective students due to that nebulous concept known as 'ethos'.

I used to work in early education and on the grapevine I know of parents who secured places for children despite there being none available and no baptism certs. They asked the principle to put in writing the exact reason for their children being refused a place (as they knew children further from the school secured places on religious grounds) and places were found. I can only speak for the few cases I know where this strategy worked, and I don't think its a general rule.

Catholicism doesn't teach equality or anything close to it, just look at how women in the church are viewed, i.e. not worthy of the priesthood or any top level jobs. Just one of the many, many reasons I don't want my children associated with them in any way.

Banbh

The truly outrageous thing about religious control of our schools is that the Minister for Education, Ruairi Quinn, is doing nothing about it.

The Taoiseach has stood up to the Church over the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Bill and over the closing of the embassy in the Vatican and more and yet our avowedly pro-secular Minister has done blip all. He may very well soon be out of office and god knows who (just an expression of my mothers) we will get next.

lazygal

The Dept of Education is the most conservative of all government departments in my experience. I wouldn't be surprised if every conceivable roadblock is being put in front of Quinn, be it 'legal advice' or 'funding' as to why the status quo must be maintained for now and for ever. Just look at the mess made of the VECs in terms of how the religious were allowed to get their fingers into the pie of education in what should be totally state schools.

Beruthiel

lazygal wrote: »

I wouldn't be surprised if every conceivable roadblock is being put in front of Quinn, be it 'legal advice' or 'funding' as to why the status quo must be maintained for now and for ever.

Without a doubt that is probably very much the case.
He must have a strong heart and an abundance of patience.

Banbh

I have no doubt that he has a strong heart and an abundance of patience but he is the Minister and bears the responsibility for the inaction of his department. If he is not up to the job, he should resign.

smacl

Banbh wrote: »

I have no doubt that he has a strong heart and an abundance of patience but he is the Minister and bears the responsibility for the inaction of his department. If he is not up to the job, he should resign.

I think he's at least as strong willed as any of his present colleagues, so I don't see him resigning helping the status quo in any way. Put an FF or SF type in there and they'll doubtless further promote the favoured position catholicism enjoys in education.

Unfortunately, most politicians are entirely reactive rather than proactive. Change will only come once demand among the voters if sufficient.

Banbh

I think he's at least as strong willed as any of his present colleagues, so I don't see him resigning helping the status quo in any way.

We should be grateful that he's filling the position because someone else might be worse. That's a good definition of a waste of space.
The popular mood was sufficiently behind this government to support it in facing down the Catholic Church. There is public anger at the way the religious orders have refused to pay their meagre share of the compensation for child abuse and now is the time to secularise our schools or a good portion of them. What's he waiting for?

PopePalpatine

My hypothesis for Quinn's lack of action on secularising schools is that there may be a large conservative lobby within the Department of Education's civil servants.

Bannasidhe

Did I imagine there was something on the News at One on radio 1 about schools and transferring some to ET?

I only caught the words 'Quinn', 'schools' and 'ET' - did anyone hear it?

eyescreamcone

PopePalpatine wrote: »

My hypothesis for Quinn's lack of action on secularising schools is that there may be a large conservative lobby within the Department of Education's civil servants.

Opus Dei are everywhere!

lazygal

eyescreamcone wrote: »

Opus Dei has are everywhere!

And the Knights of Columbanus. There's a reason the church wants to maintain those elite private schools and turn out business and political leaders from a select sector of all male religious schools. All with the support of the state of course, who nicely pay for the teachers in said schools.

smacl

Banbh wrote: »

What's he waiting for?

Possibly waiting for the bruising incurred while repeatedly bashing his head off a brick wall to subside somewhat. Whether or not you like labour, they are the most secularly inclined of the large parties, and they are in power (to some extent at least). I think promotion of ET is about as far up the agenda as it's likely to get for many years at present. If this is an item of immediate concern to you, I'd tend to contact and/or lobby Quinn directly. I had some dealings with him first hand some years ago, and found him both responsive and genuinely helpful. YMMV.

Banbh

It is a matter of concern to me and I have been in touch with him and found him ineffective.