NationStates Jolt Archive

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7941817.stm

Atheists call for 'debaptism'
By Robert Pigott
Religious Affairs correspondent

John Hunt was baptised in the parish church of St Jude with St Aidan in Thornton Heath in south-east London. But 50 years later he stands outside and regards its brick facade without much affection.

Mr Hunt was then sent to Sunday school in west London and later to confirmation classes, but he decided early on that he had no place in what he felt was a hypocritical organisation.

He recalls that his mother had to get lunch ready early for him to attend the classes.

"One Sunday I came back home and said 'Mum, you needn't get lunch early next Sunday because I'm not going to the class any more'. And she decided not to argue."

Now Mr Hunt has become the pioneer in a rejuvenated campaign for a way of cancelling baptisms given to children too young to decide for themselves whether they wanted this formal initiation into Christianity.

However, baptism is proving a difficult thing to undo.

The local Anglican diocese, Southwark, refused to amend the baptismal roll as Mr Hunt had wanted, on the grounds that it was a historical record.

"You can't remove from the record something that actually happened," said the Bishop of Croydon, the Right Reverend Nick Baines.

Expunging Trotsky

"Whether we agree whether it should have happened or not is a different matter.

"But it's a bit like trying to expunge Trotsky from the photos. Mr Hunt was baptised and that's a matter of public record."

Instead the diocese suggested that the best way for Mr Hunt to renounce his baptism was to advertise it in the London Gazette, a journal of record with an ancestry going back to the 17th Century.

“ I reject all its creeds and other such superstitions, in particular the perfidious belief that any baby needs to be cleansed of original sin...." ”
John Hunt

Bishop Baines is willing to see such notices inserted into the baptismal roll to indicate decisions such as Mr Hunt's, but the Church of England's national headquarters made clear that such a concession was not official policy.

A letter from the the Archbishops' Council said that the Church of England did not regard baptism as a sign of membership, so any amendment to the record would be unnecessary.

The Roman Catholic Church does view a person's baptism as incorporating them into the Church - and membership is later important to the Church if, for example, the same person wants to get married in a Catholic church.

It is willing to place an amendment in the record.

The National Secular Society would like the Church of England to devise a formal procedure for cancelling baptisms, with a change in the baptismal roll as part of it.

Debaptism certificate

In the face of resistance from the Church, the society has come up with a document of its own.

The "Certificate of Debaptism" has a deliberately home-made look, with its mock-official decoration and quasi-official language.

Sitting on a bench in the grounds of St Jude's Church, John Hunt intoned the opening lines.

"I, John Geoffrey Hunt, having been subjected to the rite of Christian baptism in infancy... hereby publicly revoke any implications of that rite. I reject all its creeds and other such superstitions in particular the perfidious belief that any baby needs to be cleansed of original sin."

The society's president, Terry Sanderson, says the certificate is not designed to be taken too seriously, and he suggests displaying it in the loo.

However, he says, it has now been downloaded more that 60,000 times, and has taken on a life of its own.

"The debaptism certificate started out as a kind of satirical comment on the idea that you could be enrolled in a church before you could talk, but it seems to have taken off from there.

"People are beginning to take it seriously.

"It was a comment originally, a rebuke to the Church if you like, but now it's become something else entirely."

Among those taking it seriously is a man whose son was baptised into the Roman Catholic Church by his former partner against his wishes.

"He now has custody of his son and wants to debaptise him", says Mr Sanderson.

The Church wonders aloud why, if atheists and secularists believe baptism is so meaningless, they are letting it upset them.

Mr Hunt supplies his own answer.

"Evangelical noises are getting louder and louder.

"The recent change in European legislation has led to religious beliefs not being challenged at all, and there's no limit at all on what anybody can claim as a valid religious belief.

"I think it's important that more people speak out and say they don't subscribe to the historic beliefs of the Church."
Sounds good to me.

While I understand the desire to eliminate your name from the list of church members, you can't exactly change history.

I saw this, and as an atheist could not understand it at all. If you believe baptism has some effect you must be a believer, surely as an atheist you know it is just mumbo jumbo and not something that needs to be somehow undone.

I saw this, and as an atheist could not understand it at all. If you believe baptism has some effect you must be a believer, surely as an atheist it you know it is just mumbo jumbo and not something that needs to be somehow undone.

If you're an atheist who really hates religion, it makes sense, because you're only doing it to pointedly insult religion. Otherwise, as you say, it makes no sense at all.

What an obnoxious, attention-seeking douche-bag.
Also, what Rhambutan said. If you don't believe in God, then you shouldn't care one way or another.

If you're an atheist who really hates religion, it makes sense, because you're only doing it to pointedly insult religion. Otherwise, as you say, it makes no sense at all.

I would see it as less to do with insulting religion and more to do with showing up the perceived faults within a church system.

:rolleyes: If he were born Jewish, would he be asking for his foreskin back?

My opinion of my religion, or lack thereof, is the only one that matters. If I were a Christian, I wouldn't need baptism to tell me that (I doubt that any deity would, either - that's only some unnecessary bookish symbolism). As an agnostic, I certainly don't need some ritual to tell me that I'm an agnostic.

Meh.

I'm on the baptismal roll in my hometown's church. I see no need to rectify the matter.

If you're an atheist who really hates religion, it makes sense, because you're only doing it to pointedly insult religion. Otherwise, as you say, it makes no sense at all.

Does that also mean that there is nothing wrong with posthumously baptising the Jews that died in WWII ?
I believe there was some outrage about that...

wouldn't he need to do is simply reject Jesus? that should do it. It doesn't have to be a public annoucement, just reject Him and that should take care of it.

I saw this, and as an atheist could not understand it at all. If you believe baptism has some effect you must be a believer, surely as an atheist you know it is just mumbo jumbo and not something that needs to be somehow undone.

maybe he's agnostic?

Does that also mean that there is nothing wrong with posthumously baptising the Jews that died in WWII ?
I believe there was some outrage about that...
There's a difference between leaving a document saying that a child was baptised, and going out of your way to 'claim' a person to your religion.

It's not as if the church is claiming that Mr. Hunt and others are still Christians.

:rolleyes: If he were born Jewish, would he be asking for his foreskin back?

eeeeeuuuw

There's a difference between leaving a document saying that a child was baptised, and going out of your way to 'claim' a person to your religion.

It's not as if the church is claiming that Mr. Hunt and others are still Christians.

see, here's my question, does the list contain ONLY those that were baptized, or is it more of a "members" list?

It's not as if the church is claiming that Mr. Hunt and others are still Christians.

Really ? It seems to me that Mr Hunt is asking the Church to "put that in writing" so to speak - and that the Church is refusing.

Of course, one can argue that his debaptism wish is a tad bit silly. Then again, baptism is a ceremony with great emotional significance to many other people. Maybe that is why he makes a big deal of it. It was done to him without his consent, and society attaches significance to the ceremony. That he himself does not believe that it was anything more than a splash of water is irrelevant: he is after all part of that society.

I could understand why. If I had been baptised and later converted to another religion, I might ask for this.

see, here's my question, does the list contain ONLY those that were baptized, or is it more of a "members" list?
I believe the RC Church views it more of a members list, so perhaps Mr. Hurt has more of a point.

EDIT: My mistake, Hunt was baptised by the CoE, and "the Archbishops' Council said that the Church of England did not regard baptism as a sign of membership, so any amendment to the record would be unnecessary."

The baptismal roll I'm on at my hometown's church is merely a list of those baptised, however.

I could understand why. If I had been baptised and later converted to another religion, I might ask for this.

I'm curious as to why changing to another belief rather than changing to non-belief makes a difference. Surely baptism would only matter to the Christian god and would have no significance in another religion

see, here's my question, does the list contain ONLY those that were baptized, or is it more of a "members" list?

That's a very good question. I know that there's a list of members of individual Roman Catholic Churches. My parents, my brother and his wife are on the list for the local Catholic Church. If you go from one Church to another, then you send a request from the old church to fax your records over to the new church.

Personally I just stopped going, I didn't take my name off of any list, I just...simply stopped going.

I'm curious as to why changing to another belief rather than changing to non-belief makes a difference. Surely baptism would only matter to the Christian god and would have no significance in another religion

To show that I reject the teachings of my former religion.

To show that I reject the teachings of my former religion.

Why do you need to do so?

Are there any religions out there that require such an act in this way

Really ? It seems to me that Mr Hunt is asking the Church to "put that in writing" so to speak - and that the Church is refusing.

Of course, one can argue that his debaptism wish is a tad bit silly. Then again, baptism is a ceremony with great emotional significance to many other people. Maybe that is why he makes a big deal of it. It was done to him without his consent, and society attaches significance to the ceremony. That he himself does not believe that it was anything more than a splash of water is irrelevant: he is after all part of that society.

really?
It is willing to place an amendment in the record.

so along with the note saying He was baptised, they are willing, it seems, to amend that and say he's no longer baptised

Thank you for our daily dose of Christophobia. :rolleyes:

really?


so along with the note saying He was baptised, they are willing, it seems, to amend that and say he's no longer baptised

can you be "no longer baptized"? It seems to me to be a bit of an on/off switch. Either you were or you weren't.

Thank you for our daily dose of Christophobia. :rolleyes:

well, if they stopped being so fucking scary that might improve.

so along with the note saying He was baptised, they are willing, it seems, to amend that and say he's no longer baptised

My bad. Then asking for a debaptism ceremony is indeed merely silly.
Asking if it was right that the Church did it to him in the first place is another debate, which could be more interesting.

My bad. Then asking for a debaptism ceremony is indeed merely silly.
Asking if it was right that the Church did it to him in the first place is another debate, which could be more interesting.

Isn't this just a way to publicise the debate

If youre an atheist, you shouldnt need some "debaptism", because you dont believe your soul has been promised to God. You just realized that all they did was dump water on your head.

Thank you for our daily dose of Christophobia. :rolleyes:

Whose Christophiba? I have fundies-who-hold-power-aphobia, but the average Christian or the nutty fundie yelling "Gawd hatez fags!" does not frighten me.

I have fundies-who-hold-power-aphobia...
You have an irrational fear of powerful fundamentalists?

You have an irrational fear of powerful fundamentalists?

Powerful? which fundies are "powerful"?

Powerful? which fundies are "powerful"?
Those in certain Middle Eastern states, I suppose.

But the existence or not of powerful fundies is not my point. I was objecting to the usage of 'phobia'.

can you be "no longer baptized"? It seems to me to be a bit of an on/off switch. Either you were or you weren't.

rejecting Christ as your savior and rejecting God would probably do it. and if he is an Athiest, then he should have no problem with that.

I'm curious as to why changing to another belief rather than changing to non-belief makes a difference. Surely baptism would only matter to the Christian god and would have no significance in another religion
Yeah. The pertinent issue is more of membership, rather than symbolism; at least to me.

I believe I still might be counted by the Kirk as a member, because I officially joined when I was about 13 or so.

*goes to check*

You know, this does bring up a good point. Should infant be baptized at all, or should Churches wait until the child is old enough to make an informed decision?

You know, this does bring up a good point. Should infant be baptized at all, or should Churches wait until the child is old enough to make an informed decision?

Some churches won't baptize infants for that reason.

I saw this, and as an atheist could not understand it at all. If you believe baptism has some effect you must be a believer, surely as an atheist you know it is just mumbo jumbo and not something that needs to be somehow undone.
I dunno, this seems kind of similar to how the Mormons will perform "baptisms for the dead," and how there was this massive outcry when they started posthumously baptizing Jews who died in the Holocaust.

My first reaction when I heard about that was, "Who the hell cares? It's not like the Mormon ritual will actually do anything." But then I talked to somebody who had family members being "baptized" in this manner. He was horrified because it meant that generations from now there would be a written record saying that his relatives were Mormon, and the idea that maybe THAT document would be all that survives about his relatives was sickening to him. History would record that his relatives, who were murdered for being Jews, were actually Mormon. It was really important to him to make sure that the written lie was destroyed.

I can see somebody wanting to do the same regarding their own baptism. The Church has been very good at keeping records, after all. If you strongly disagree with the church in which you were baptized, then it makes sense to want to make sure there is a clear record of your rejection of their beliefs.

I also think it is valid to want your name taken off those records if you were baptized as a baby. In my eyes, baptizing an infant is morally yucky, in the same sort of way that it's morally yucky to baptize somebody after they died without their express permission.

You know, this does bring up a good point. Should infant be baptized at all, or should Churches wait until the child is old enough to make an informed decision?

That is for the parents and the particular church involved to decide.

You know, this does bring up a good point. Should infant be baptized at all, or should Churches wait until the child is old enough to make an informed decision?
I don't think infant baptism has any actual power, I just think it makes the religion look trashy.

To debaptize himself, wouldn't he have to immerse himself in fire?

Or maybe if he believes the purpose of baptism is to cleanse away Original Sin, he ought to immerse himself in mud to become dirty again. :)

I dunno, this seems kind of similar to how the Mormons will perform "baptisms for the dead," and how there was this massive outcry when they started posthumously baptizing Jews who died in the Holocaust.

My first reaction when I heard about that was, "Who the hell cares? It's not like the Mormon ritual will actually do anything." But then I talked to somebody who had family members being "baptized" in this manner. He was horrified because it meant that generations from now there would be a written record saying that his relatives were Mormon, and the idea that maybe THAT document would be all that survives about his relatives was sickening to him. History would record that his relatives, who were murdered for being Jews, were actually Mormon. It was really important to him to make sure that the written lie was destroyed.

I can see somebody wanting to do the same regarding their own baptism. The Church has been very good at keeping records, after all. If you strongly disagree with the church in which you were baptized, then it makes sense to want to make sure there is a clear record of your rejection of their beliefs.

I also think it is valid to want your name taken off those records if you were baptized as a baby. In my eyes, baptizing an infant is morally yucky, in the same sort of way that it's morally yucky to baptize somebody after they died without their express permission.

I can see why someone whose relatives were believers would object to those relatives being re-baptised into another belief system, purely because they presumably believe baptism is meaningful. I am not sure if it is quite the same for atheists (though I am really only going on my own lack of feelings about the idea) - though I agree about baptising people against their will, either because they are dead or too young to be able to object, being morally dubious.

Powerful? which fundies are "powerful"?

Ones in the US government.

what a waste of time for any atheist.

I can see why someone whose relatives were believers would object to those relatives being re-baptised into another belief system, purely because they presumably believe baptism is meaningful. I am not sure if it is quite the same for atheists

Well, how about a parallel example. What if you found out that an organization you really don't like had put your name down as one of their members. Like, what if the KKK listed you as a member or something. Them putting your name on their lists wouldn't magically force you to be a member, yet it probably would still bug you, wouldn't it?

I AM NOT SAYING RELIGION = KKK. I'm just using that as an example because there are atheists whose feelings toward organized religion are the same kind of HELL NO that most people feel toward the KKK.

I AM NOT SAYING RELIGION = KKK. I'm just using that as an example because there are atheists whose feelings toward organized religion are the same kind of HELL NO that most people feel toward the KKK.

Christophobe.

:rolleyes: If he were born Jewish, would he be asking for his foreskin back?

I don't wanna think about the re-attachment operation... :eek:

That is for the parents and the particular church involved to decide.

So the child shouldn't get any say in it?

I don't think infant baptism has any actual power, I just think it makes the religion look trashy.

I wouldn't say it'd make them look trashy, I don't know what I would call it, but not trashy.

:rolleyes: If he were born Jewish, would he be asking for his foreskin back?
If he did, he wouldn't be the first.

http://www.cirp.org/library/restoration/hall1/

So the child shouldn't get any say in it?


This is the guy who said hed literally murder his child if he became Muslim.

Seems he's read this passage one too many times: If your own full brother, or your son or daughter, or your beloved wife, or you intimate friend, entices you secretly to serve other gods, whom you and your fathers have not known, gods of any other nations, near at hand or far away, from one end of the earth to the other: do not yield to him or listen to him, nor look with pity upon him, to spare or shield him, but kill him. (Deuteronomy 13:7-12 NAB)

So the child shouldn't get any say in it?
Seeing as many are baptised before they have the power of speech/cogent thought, this would be tricky.

I don't wanna think about the re-attachment operation... :eek:
Men who wish to reverse their circumcision don't usually have any tissue grafted on. Instead, skin expanders are used to stretch the existing skin on their penis.

Men who wish to reverse their circumcision don't usually have any tissue grafted on. Instead, skin expanders are used to stretch the existing skin on their penis.

*twitch*

Men who wish to reverse their circumcision don't usually have any tissue grafted on. Instead, skin expanders are used to stretch the existing skin on their penis.

I really wasn't expecting a serious reply bottle... but thanks... ;)

I really wasn't expecting a serious reply bottle... but thanks... ;)
Bottle:

Improving The Interwebs, One Unwanted Snippet Of Information At A Time!

Instead, skin expanders are used to stretch the existing skin on their penis.
I once watched a documentary on this.

The weights they use don't look comfy...

This is the guy who said hed literally murder his child if he became Muslim.

Seems he's read this passage one too many times: If your own full brother, or your son or daughter, or your beloved wife, or you intimate friend, entices you secretly to serve other gods, whom you and your fathers have not known, gods of any other nations, near at hand or far away, from one end of the earth to the other: do not yield to him or listen to him, nor look with pity upon him, to spare or shield him, but kill him. (Deuteronomy 13:7-12 NAB)

Ahh Fantastic....

*twitch*

Ditto on the twitch. There are just some things you don't want to know.

Well, how about a parallel example. What if you found out that an organization you really don't like had put your name down as one of their members. Like, what if the KKK listed you as a member or something. Them putting your name on their lists wouldn't magically force you to be a member, yet it probably would still bug you, wouldn't it?

I AM NOT SAYING RELIGION = KKK. I'm just using that as an example because there are atheists whose feelings toward organized religion are the same kind of HELL NO that most people feel toward the KKK.

Yes you are right I would be annoyed, because I would not want anyone to think I was associated with them. Perhaps if it was the Westboro Baptists Church I would be more offended than I am by of the Church of England which I was baptised into. So I concede the point.

I once watched a documentary on this.

The weights they use don't look comfy...

Isn't Brian Sewell , the art critic, their spokesperson?

Yes you are right I would be annoyed, because I would not want anyone to think I was associated with them. Perhaps if it was the Westboro Baptists Church I would be more offended than I am by of the Church of England which I was baptised into. So I concede the point.

*pushes you into the mud and converts you to Goofballianism*

*pushes you into the mud and converts you to Goofballianism*
Mental image:

A solemn-faced priest, wearing robes and a rainbow afro wig, holding a banana-creme pie in one hand and using the other hand to anoint an infant's forehead with pie filling.

Mental image:

A solemn-faced priest, wearing robes and a rainbow afro wig, holding a banana-creme pie in one hand and using the other hand to anoint an infant's forehead with pie filling.

*writes this down* Oh yeah, that's going into the holy scripture.

*writes this down* Oh yeah, that's going into the holy scripture.

The ceremony concludes when the priest intones, "I hereby name thee a Goofball, forever and ever, amen," and then smashes the remaining pie into his own face.

The basis of "debaptism" is highly flawed; baptism is a Christian ritual, which only holds any significance if one subscribes to Christian doctrine. Thus, to be "de-baptised" would be immaterial for the atheist, other than as a somewhat immaure rejection of Christianity, which might be better made in theological debate.

The basis of "debaptism" is highly flawed; baptism is a Christian ritual, which only holds any significance if one subscribes to Christian doctrine. Thus, to be "de-baptised" would be immaterial for the atheist, other than as a somewhat immaure rejection of Christianity, which might be better made in theological debate.
Hey guys, I don't think he read the thread!

The ceremony concludes when the priest intones, "I hereby name thee a Goofball, forever and ever, amen," and then smashes the remaining pie into his own face.

Far superior to bland crackers and cheap wine. *nod*

Far superior to bland crackers and cheap wine. *nod*

Hell, I'd tithe if I knew for sure that at least 50% of that money would be spent on pies.

Hell, I'd tithe if I knew for sure that at least 50% of that money would be spent on pies.

Pies and tacos. Oh, and ice packs for the annual Day of Atonement which includes Roshambo contests. *nod*

Bottle:

Improving The Interwebs, One Snippet Of Information At A Time!

fixed.

no snippet of information is ever unwanted (by me) it may come in handy at some conversation in the future... :p

Pies and tacos. Oh, and ice packs for the annual Day of Atonement which includes Roshambo contests. *nod*
Your church intrigues me. Have you a poorly-xeroxed flier or pamphlet of some kind?

*pushes you into the mud and converts /you to Goofballianism*

I am not going to have to do mime am I?

The basis of "debaptism" is highly flawed; baptism is a Christian ritual, which only holds any significance if one subscribes to Christian doctrine. Thus, to be "de-baptised" would be immaterial for the atheist, other than as a somewhat immaure rejection of Christianity, which might be better made in theological debate.

I do find it funny to see that so many people think that atheists should not give a damn about how other humans see baptism.

Pies and tacos. Oh, and ice packs for the annual Day of Atonement which includes Roshambo contests. *nod*

where do the Scrotum seeking attack weasles fit in?

I am not going to have to do mime am I?

You don't have to do anything. It would be ungoofball-like to expect conformity for conformity's sake. However, the best performance wins free tacos. *nod*

where do the Scrotum seeking attack weasles fit in?

Under your boot of course ;)

Weasel stomping day ! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jEOAh9RDIfI)

Your church intrigues me. Have you a poorly-xeroxed flier or pamphlet of some kind?

We used to hang around airports, but they kept confiscating our pies. :(

where do the Scrotum seeking attack weasles fit in?

That's just to pay the bills. :)

Wait, if baptism is just a bunch of made-up superstition, who cares? It's not like it changed you in any way, and certainly doesn't require a certificate of exorcism, er, "debaptism" to show you've been cleansed of that evil holy water. Actually, it sounds a bit like a ritual in and of itself.

Wait, if baptism is just a bunch of made-up superstition, who cares? It's not like it changed you in any way, and certainly doesn't require a certificate of exorcism, er, "debaptism" to show you've been cleansed of that evil holy water. Actually, it sounds a bit like a ritual in and of itself.

How do you get that stuff?

EDIT: More to the point, if you throw it on a priest, will he burn?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7941817.stm


Sounds good to me.

Does it actually matter?

That is for the parents and the particular church involved to decide.

Which is the problem, no?

The basis of "debaptism" is highly flawed; baptism is a Christian ritual, which only holds any significance if one subscribes to Christian doctrine. Thus, to be "de-baptised" would be immaterial for the atheist, other than as a somewhat immaure rejection of Christianity, which might be better made in theological debate.

No, it's not flawed.

The Christian Church performs a ceremony on you, without your consent - which THEY believe has significance. If someone is willing to take the time and effort (and, no doubt, financial inconvenience, a well) to have that 'significance' altered in - as the article says -a PUBLIC record, they should be allowed to.

The 'debaptism' itself only exists because those maintaining the records have refused to allow alteration.

Actually, it sounds a bit like a ritual in and of itself.

That seems like it would be kind of the point. The 'ritual' of baptism is just a mechanism, and there is no extant debaptism mechanism - the church has a 'ritual' to make a certain claim, but not a 'ritual' to admit it made a mistake, or acted inappropriately.

I do not see a problem with this. if for whatever reason these people feel the need to do this in order to move on or whatever, then let them do it.

Personally, I think that infant baptisms mean little. If I had been baptized as an infant, I most likely would still have been baptized again later because I don't think it really means anything unless it is your own choice.

I also think that, as a matter of principle, parents shouldn't have infants baptized. I don't think it's for anyone but the individual himself to decide his religious beliefs - not even his parents.

That said, if it bothers someone, they absolutely should be able to have the record amended as such.

Well, how about a parallel example. What if you found out that an organization you really don't like had put your name down as one of their members. Like, what if the KKK listed you as a member or something. Them putting your name on their lists wouldn't magically force you to be a member, yet it probably would still bug you, wouldn't it?

I AM NOT SAYING RELIGION = KKK. I'm just using that as an example because there are atheists whose feelings toward organized religion are the same kind of HELL NO that most people feel toward the KKK.
The problem with your comparison though is that, in this case (Not the case with all churches of course) is that baptism was just a ceremony and does not mean that said person is a member of the church. I would be pissed off if some group was claiming me as a member when I am not, but to say that I didn't do something when I in fact did...

Makes no sense to baptize infants anyway.


Moroni 5:14

14 Behold I say unto you, that he that supposeth that little children need baptism is in the gall of bitterness and in the bonds of iniquity; for he hath neither faith, hope nor charity; wherefore, should he be cut off while in the thought, he must go down to hell.

The problem with your comparison though is that, in this case (Not the case with all churches of course) is that baptism was just a ceremony and does not mean that said person is a member of the church. I would be pissed off if some group was claiming me as a member when I am not, but to say that I didn't do something when I in fact did...

However, consider:
Some day, after our civilization has disappeared, a future society may come across our records. If they come across the baptism records, they will likely assume that all those listed were Christians. In effect, the baptism roll will leave a false impression. If only for this sake, I think it'd be great if they would at least put a footnote in the list saying that said person had renounced their Christianity if said person requested it.

That said, I don't particularly care much about baptism. It's just water.

It doesn't bother me terribly that my name's on the baptismal roll. And the records for confirmation, if they have such things. But I approve of this issue being raised in the public consciousness a little. I don't like the idea of inducting infants into a religion. Maybe if parents realise that their child might just drop the whole god thing as soon as they're old enough to properly decide will have them reconsider having the baptism at all.

wouldn't he need to do is simply reject Jesus? that should do it. It doesn't have to be a public annoucement, just reject Him and that should take care of it.
Apostasy and heresy, among other things, are automatically punished by excommunication in the catholic church. So in theory, wanting to be debaptised gets you kicked out.

Still, a certificate to that effect might be an amusing novelty.
You know, this does bring up a good point. Should infant be baptized at all, or should Churches wait until the child is old enough to make an informed decision?

They shouldn't but they will be.
However, consider:
Some day, after our civilization has disappeared, a future society may come across our records. If they come across the baptism records, they will likely assume that all those listed were Christians. In effect, the baptism roll will leave a false impression. If only for this sake, I think it'd be great if they would at least put a footnote in the list saying that said person had renounced their Christianity if said person requested it.

That said, I don't particularly care much about baptism. It's just water.
If we're nice about our record keeping for future historians, maybe they'll gloss over whatever shit we get up to between now and then.

I am very much of the opinion that if someone wants to be removed from the baptismal rolls or have an addendum, that this should happen if they were baptised as young children with no say.

While for me, my christening holds significance as a naming day and special moment in my life, I do understand the views of atheists and agnostics or people who have converted to another faith that they may want it quite clear that they have no association with the Church. Particularly if it has been a struggle to have their new belief or lack thereof respected by friends and family.

And I see no difference between baptising young children and baptising the dead. Neither has a say or a choice in the matter. It's wrong for both.

If youre an atheist, you shouldnt need some "debaptism", because you dont believe your soul has been promised to God. You just realized that all they did was dump water on your head.

^This, surely this man has something better to do than try and change a record of him being baptised when he was younger when it really did happen.

Whose Christophiba? I have fundies-who-hold-power-aphobia, but the average Christian or the nutty fundie yelling "Gawd hatez fags!" does not frighten me.

Don't you have an aversion to them? :p

^Don't you have an aversion to them? :p

You mistake "growing tired of their constant moral preaching in all of its tiresome immensity" with "aversion":p

You mistake "growing tired of their constant moral preaching in all of its tiresome immensity" with "aversion":p

Touche.

Isn't Brian Sewell , the art critic, their spokesperson?
I dearly hope so.

He is a funny little man.


The 'ritual' of baptism is just a mechanism, and there is no extant debaptism mechanism - the church has a 'ritual' to make a certain claim, but not a 'ritual' to admit it made a mistake, or acted inappropriately.
You don't seriously expect any church to do such a thing?

However, baptism is proving a difficult thing to undo.
The local Anglican diocese, Southwark, refused to amend the baptismal roll as Mr Hunt had wanted, on the grounds that it was a historical record.
"You can't remove from the record something that actually happened," said the Bishop of Croydon, the Right Reverend Nick Baines.
"Whether we agree whether it should have happened or not is a different matter.
"But it's a bit like trying to expunge Trotsky from the photos. Mr Hunt was baptised and that's a matter of public record."

Dunno about the Anglican Church (after all it's the official religion of England, ain't it).

Anyway here in Italy, if you want to expunge yourself from the list of the baptised, you have to send a letter to the local Diocese telling that you aren't a member of the Catholic Church anymore and therefore, according to the laws on privacy, they are to remove your name from their records and never to retain or use your data anymore - if they don't the Italian Episcopal Conference can be charged with violation of privacy, which is a felony.
This is because any religious organisation in Italy is a private institution - it's not the State.

The UAAR (italian Union of the Atheists and Rational Agnosticists) recommends that former Catholics debaptise themselves, because the number of the baptised people is used by the Catholic Church as the number of actual followers: this gives them access to a larger part of the funds given by the State to religious organisations (the so-called "otto per mille": 8/1000 of the tax on personal incomes).

The UAAR (italian Union of the Atheists and Rational Agnosticists) recommends that former Catholics debaptise themselves, because the number of the baptised people is used by the Catholic Church as the number of actual followers: this gives them access to a larger part of the funds given by the State to religious organisations (the so-called "otto per mille": 8/1000 of the tax on personal incomes).

What on Earth is the money used for?

What on Earth is the money used for?

Drugs and hookers

Drugs and hookers

Glad to see they're not wasting it.

What on Earth is the money used for?

Everything the italian branch of the Church wants to.
Including: paying a sort of wage to priests and monks, paying for charities and missions, supporting hotels owned by the church (*silly me, it's "places for meditative pilgrims" for the revenue agency*), paying for the expenses of bishops, maintaining museums owned by the Church, etc etc.

Iam all for just a naming ceremony when they are Babies, as babies do they understand importance or siginifcance of Baptism. I prefer them to wait till they old enough to form their own desicion or choice to to be baptisied, though why should he have his name removed form what is just a historical record or edited is he wanting to puff his chest out beracuse hes had it removed or edited.

“ I reject all its creeds and other such superstitions, in particular the perfidious belief that any baby needs to be cleansed of original sin...." ”

Exactly, so there's no reason to give a shit about a non existent cleansing of sins, just like there's no reason to give a shit if Tom hits Jerry over the head with a giant hammer. Because it doesn't exist, no need to undo something that never happened.

You don't seriously expect any church to do such a thing?

Expect? No, obviously not. And certainly not without a buttload of externally applied pressure.

Which is as good a reason as any to back the play.

Expect? No, obviously not. And certainly not without a buttload of externally applied pressure.

Which is as good a reason as any to back the play.
I just think it's foolish to go after a church which holds that infant baptism is an integral part of their belief structure in an attempt to make it "admit it made a mistake, or acted inappropriately" when baptising infants.

It's as useful as attempting to make it 'admit' that their God doesn't exist.

I just think it's foolish to go after a church which holds that infant baptism is an integral part of their belief structure in an attempt to make it "admit it made a mistake, or acted inappropriately" when baptising infants.

It's as useful as attempting to make it 'admit' that their God doesn't exist.

Not really. They can prove the existence of the baptism, if not their god - and that's the whole issue, in a nutshell. It's the proof of existence of your participation in a ritual to which you hold no affiliation or sympathy, and yet your non-consenting participation is a matter of public record for as long as such records can last.

I don't hold with any kind of compelled religious observance.

am i the only who keeps reading the title thread as a call for debate.

am i the only who keeps reading the title thread as a call for debate.

For a while, I kept reading it as decapitation.

It's the proof of existence of your participation in a ritual to which you hold no affiliation or sympathy, and yet your non-consenting participation is a matter of public record for as long as such records can last.
The problem being?

My parents took me to be baptised when I was a non-consenting child. Whether or not this was a good move (I happen to agree with you that it wasn't), it happened. The church I used to be a part of does not hold the infant baptismal roll up as proof positive of a Christian faith I in reality do not have, they hold it up as a historical document of my baptism. As you say yourself, it's a matter of public record of non-consenting participation; no-one's arguing that it is a record of my 'faith'.

If the church was doing such a thing, I'd have a problem with it.

I don't hold with any kind of compelled religious observance.
Neither do I.

Nor do I hold with strange attempts to deny the past.

if you concerned about the records just ask them to remove you from the records.

The problem being?

My parents took me to be baptised when I was a non-consenting child. Whether or not this was a good move (I happen to agree with you that it wasn't), it happened. The church I used to be a part of does not hold the infant baptismal roll up as proof positive of a Christian faith I in reality do not have, they hold it up as a historical document of my baptism. As you say yourself, it's a matter of public record of non-consenting participation;


Your consent isn't recorded, from what I recall.

Thus, the assumption is, that you are/were okay with it.


no-one's arguing that it is a record of my 'faith'.

If the church was doing such a thing, I'd have a problem with it.


Neither do I.

Nor do I hold with strange attempts to deny the past.

I didn't say 'deny'?

If a newspaper says you are a necrophiliac, and you have reason to believe you are not, by whatever means or mechanism, that newspaper will (eventually) be forced to print a retraction. If they even implied you liked a bit of the old dead-body-sex, they'd be the instrument of correction.

The baptismal record is the 'official' record of your baptism. The idea that someone who feels their baptism was an abuse, should consider self-publicising as their only recourse, is frankly ridiculous - if for no other reason than it leaves that 'newspaper story' effectively unchallenged in the 'official record'.

Church orgainsations should have a mechanism to address challenges to the 'baptised' status.

if you concerned about the records just ask them to remove you from the records.

Isn't this what this is all about? The churched refusing to remove them?

Your consent isn't recorded, from what I recall.

Thus, the assumption is, that you are/were okay with it.
It's an infant baptismal roll.

Unless you're suggesting that the norm is to assume infants can consent to things, I think most would assume my consent had no part to play in my baptism at the age of less than one year.

I agree, however, there are different problems associated with adult or teen baptism.

I didn't say 'deny'?

If a newspaper says you are a necrophiliac, and you have reason to believe you are not, by whatever means or mechanism, that newspaper will (eventually) be forced to print a retraction. If they even implied you liked a bit of the old dead-body-sex, they'd be the instrument of correction.
Your analogy doesn't fit though.

The church isn't making a claim with the baptismal roll that I am a Christian, it is making the true claim that I was, as an infant, baptised.

Why would I want to 'retract' a historical incident; indeed how could I, in all honesty? Should I demand that my local Cub Scouts print a 'retraction' of my once-member status? Lambast my primary school for its records saying I was once a member of the school?

Of course not.

I didn't say 'deny'?

If a newspaper says you are a necrophiliac, and you have reason to believe you are not, by whatever means or mechanism, that newspaper will (eventually) be forced to print a retraction. If they even implied you liked a bit of the old dead-body-sex, they'd be the instrument of correction.

But in this case, the person really did have sex with a dead body, just as the atheist really had some holy water sprinkled on his infant head.

As far as I can tell, there are several issues floating around:


The historical record as to whether or not the ritual occurred.
The roster or list of membership in that religious community.
The misappropriation of claiming someone's membership when they cannot consent.


And it's all based, as far as I can tell, on the social aspect of religion, as opposed to the individual. By that I mean that it doesn't matter to the individual atheist because the individual doesn't believe in the ritual, but it does have implications on other people when looking at people claiming membership numbers for tax purposes or other things that affect the wider community.

Ideally, the different religious institutions would be mandated to keep some sort of public record that showed clearly which rituals occurred, the age of the participant, and whether or not the person considered themselves as part of the religious community served by said institution.

As far as I can tell, there are several issues floating around:


The historical record as to whether or not the ritual occurred.
The roster or list of membership in that religious community.
The misappropriation of claiming someone's membership when they cannot consent.


And it's all based, as far as I can tell, on the social aspect of religion, as opposed to the individual. By that I mean that it doesn't matter to the individual atheist because the individual doesn't believe in the ritual, but it does have implications on other people when looking at people claiming membership numbers for tax purposes or other things that affect the wider community.

Ideally, the different religious institutions would be mandated to keep some sort of public record that showed clearly which rituals occurred, the age of the participant, and whether or not the person considered themselves as part of the religious community served by said institution.

It is also similar to the case in the argument of homosexual marriages.

And it's all based, as far as I can tell, on the social aspect of religion, as opposed to the individual. By that I mean that it doesn't matter to the individual atheist because the individual doesn't believe in the ritual, but it does have implications on other people when looking at people claiming membership numbers for tax purposes or other things that affect the wider community.

What if the atheist were to become a politician whose proposed policies are based on irreligiosity, and an opponent digs up baptismal records on the atheist and claims that he is a closet Christian?

It is also similar to the case in the argument of homosexual marriages.

I'm sorry, but that totally confused me.

What if the atheist were to become a politician whose proposed policies are based on irreligiosity, and an opponent digs up baptismal records on the atheist and claims that he is a closet Christian?

That would be a good example of what I was discussing in that paragraph. My proposed solution would allow for the public to verify for themselves that the candidate is not actually a crypto-Christian, in the exceedingly unlikely scenario that someone would get more votes campaigning as an atheist.

...but it does have implications on other people when looking at people claiming membership numbers for tax purposes or other things that affect the wider community.

Ideally, the different religious institutions would be mandated to keep some sort of public record that showed clearly which rituals occurred, the age of the participant, and whether or not the person considered themselves as part of the religious community served by said institution.
This is the important issue, I feel.

I have no qualms with the Kirk stating that, as a baby, I was baptised. If, however, I am counted as one of its current members, then something should be rectified. But this seems to be a purely clerical matter, not a spiritual one.

Or, as Father Jack would say:

"That would be an ecumenical matter."

EDIT: Perhaps an important point would be to stress that different churches regard bapatism differently. Though the Roman Catholics regard baptism as a sign of membersip for the rest of that person's life, neither the Anglican church nor the Church of Scotland does so.

http://www.secularism.org.uk/debaptism.html

For those of you wishing to order one of your own.

And from the OP article:

The society's president, Terry Sanderson, says the certificate is not designed to be taken too seriously, and he suggests displaying it in the loo.

I'm sorry, but that totally confused me.

What I mean is that religious persons and secular persons have a different idea of what the social meaning of marriage has. If the arguing religious/conservative party does no believe in gayness, they would claim that marriage is a union under the mandate of the religion's God who opposes gayness, while secularists have a secular idea of marriages as a civil union that has the same cultural effect as a Christian marriage.

This is the important issue, I feel.

I have no qualms with the Kirk stating that, as a baby, I was baptised. If, however, I am counted as one of its current members, then something should be rectified. But this seems to be a purely clerical matter, not a spiritual one.

Or, as Father Jack would say:

"That would be an ecumenical matter."

EDIT: Perhaps an important point would be to stress that different churches regard bapatism differently. Though the Roman Catholics regard baptism as a sign of membersip for the rest of that person's life, neither the Anglican church nor the Church of Scotland does so.

Ok, as I understood it, the Catholic Church used baptism as a means of protecting a child from evil, not as a declaration of membership in the Church. The time from Baptism to Confirmation was a period given to instruction and indoctrination in the Church. Confirmation, supposedly done at an age when the person could understand what he/she was doing, was the ritual that initiated the person into actual membership, with all the rights and responsibilities involved.

And from the OP article:The society's president, Terry Sanderson, says the certificate is not designed to be taken too seriously, and he suggests displaying it in the loo.
And also:

Obviously, our irreverent certficate of debaptism is a bit of fun. After all, the concept of baptism is a complete fantasy that has no meaning outside the heads of the religious. However, many people do wish to make an official break from the church.

It's an infant baptismal roll.

Unless you're suggesting that the norm is to assume infants can consent to things, I think most would assume my consent had no part to play in my baptism at the age of less than one year.

I agree, however, there are different problems associated with adult or teen baptism.


Your analogy doesn't fit though.


It's not really an analogy, per se - it's a diversion to illustrate that the instrument of the perpetuation of the story, is usually required to also convey the negation of the story.


The church isn't making a claim with the baptismal roll that I am a Christian, it is making the true claim that I was, as an infant, baptised.


The two things are one - unless you attend a church where 'baptism' literally means 'wet baby', and has no religious significance, at all.


Why would I want to 'retract' a historical incident; indeed how could I, in all honesty? Should I demand that my local Cub Scouts print a 'retraction' of my once-member status? Lambast my primary school for its records saying I was once a member of the school?

Of course not.

I assume that there was a degree of voluntary participation in your attendance at both your school, and your Cub Scouts?

It's not really an analogy, per se - it's a diversion to illustrate that the instrument of the perpetuation of the story, is usually required to also convey the negation of the story.
Well, it is a poor diversion then.

The two things are one - unless you attend a church where 'baptism' literally means 'wet baby', and has no religious significance, at all.
The Church of Scotland does not take baptism of infants to mean they are (a) confirmed Christians, for there is a further ceremony that one takes when one is of an age eligible to give consent, nor (b) members of the CoS.

I assume that there was a degree of voluntary participation in your attendance at both your school, and your Cub Scouts?
Not particularly.

Well, it is a poor diversion then.


Which wasn't the point.

I'm trying to describe a helicopter to you, and you OWN a helicopter, but you're arguing over the colour of the helicopter in my story.


The Church of Scotland does not take baptism of infants to mean they are (a) confirmed Christians, for there is a further ceremony that one takes when one is of an age eligible to give consent, nor (b) members of the CoS.


Again, not the point. Does the Church of Scotland hold to the biblical symbolism of water for 'spirit', and thus consider the infant baptism to be annointing in Christ?

If they don't, it's a pretty peculiar ritual to maintain, once shed of spiritual significance.


Not particularly.

More or less volition than, say, infant baptism, would you say?

Which wasn't the point.

I'm trying to describe a helicopter to you, and you OWN a helicopter, but you're arguing over the colour of the helicopter in my story.
Oooookaaaay.

What's your beef with the baptismal roll, beyond that of the act of baptism being non-consensual? The fact that I don't see it as any problem has nothing to do with the act of infant baptism being non-consensual; that's not what I'm arguing against here. I agree with you that non-consensual baptism is A Bad Thing, but, as it's non-consensual (and thus I don't see it as a valid 'proof' of any faith I don't actually have) and not held by the CoS as a sign of membership of the Church, nor held to be a sign of a committed Christian, I have no problems being listed as being baptised; for I was baptised, like it or not, as an infant.

I don't want the document of my past to be expunged, for that would be historical revisionism. Thus, I have no problem of being on the baptismal roll, nor do I wish the Church to pretend as if I was never baptised.

What's your problem with it?

Again, not the point. Does the Church of Scotland hold to the biblical symbolism of water for 'spirit', and thus consider the infant baptism to be annointing in Christ?
Baptism, in the CoS, is seen as a commitment by the parents that their child will be brought up in the church, along with it being a celebration of a new life.

Doctrinally, infant baptism is not seen as a sign that one is either a confirmed Christian, nor a member of the CoS, unlike the teachings of the Roman Catholic church. For this to be the case, one must also go through confirmation, when one is of an age to make an informed choice. The CoS, in the tradition of Presbyterian Protestantism, stresses that individuals must come to Christ of their own volition.

The following extract from this (http://wesley.nnu.edu/wesleyan_theology/theojrnl/01-05/05-2.htm) page chimes well with what the CoS believes:

If infant baptism, in spite of the biblical evidence, is practiced, it should be followed by the Sacrament of Confirmation at which time the baptized child can intelligently and responsibly reaffirm, as his personal commitment, that repentance, faith and new birth to which baptism bears witness...

Most Christians agree that the sacrament of baptism is important, that it is commanded in the New Testament and is mandatory for disciples of Christ. It has been shown that it has often been regarded as a magical rite that contains intrinsic merit and that this borders on superstition. It is also evident that when regarded simply as an initiatory rite it has more in common with pagan practices and with the Old Testament than with New Testament teachings. The central thrust of the New Testament, whether in the words of the Baptist, of St. John, or of St. Paul Is to associate it with regeneration -- a departure from the ways of death to a new life.

In order therefore to give to baptism Its maximum significance it should be administered, as in the New Testament, in situations where this spiritual change actually occurs. It follows from this that its fullest meaning occurs only when persons capable of grasping Its significance are the candidates. Such cannot be said of infant baptism.

Parents should still consider it their privilege and obligation to dedicate their infants to the Lord and accept the obligations implicit therein. In any case baptism should not be administered to infants unless it is followed in due time with the equally Important rite of confirmation.

More or less volition than, say, infant baptism, would you say?
Certainly not an amount of volition that would be regarded as legal in a court of law, say.

Even if I did give my, eligible, 100%, fully conformed consent, I still don't see what the issue is. I would hate to be in the Cubs now, and I disagree strongly with much of the views held by the Scout organisation. Yet I was, at one stage, a part of the gang.

Why would I want to deny this?

Oooookaaaay.

What's your beef with the baptismal roll, beyond that of the act of baptism being non-consensual?


I don't actually see that anything more than 'non-consensual' should be needed.


The fact that I don't see it as any problem has nothing to do with the act of infant baptism being non-consensual; that's not what I'm arguing against here. I agree with you that non-consensual baptism is A Bad Thing, but, as it's non-consensual (and thus I don't see it as a valid 'proof' of any faith I don't actually have) and not held by the CoS as a sign of membership of the Church, nor held to be a sign of a committed Christian, I have no problems being listed as being baptised; for I was baptised, like it or not, as an infant.

I don't want the document of my past to be expunged, for that would be historical revisionism.


I didn't ask for anything to be expunged. My argument has been that the document should be 'corrected'.


Thus, I have no problem of being on the baptismal roll, nor do I wish the Church to pretend as if I was never baptised.

What's your problem with it?


With your straw friend, there? Not a thing.


Baptism, in the CoS, is seen as a commitment by the parents that their child will be brought up in the church, along with it being a celebration of a new life.

Doctrinally, infant baptism is not seen as a sign that one is either a confirmed Christian, nor a member of the CoS, unlike the teachings of the Roman Catholic church. For this to be the case, one must also go through confirmation, when one is of an age to make an informed choice. The CoS, in the tradition of Presbyterian Protestantism, stresses that individuals must come to Christ of their own volition.

The following extract from this (http://wesley.nnu.edu/wesleyan_theology/theojrnl/01-05/05-2.htm) page chimes well with what the CoS believes:

If infant baptism, in spite of the biblical evidence, is practiced, it should be followed by the Sacrament of Confirmation at which time the baptized child can intelligently and responsibly reaffirm, as his personal commitment, that repentance, faith and new birth to which baptism bears witness...

Most Christians agree that the sacrament of baptism is important, that it is commanded in the New Testament and is mandatory for disciples of Christ. It has been shown that it has often been regarded as a magical rite that contains intrinsic merit and that this borders on superstition. It is also evident that when regarded simply as an initiatory rite it has more in common with pagan practices and with the Old Testament than with New Testament teachings. The central thrust of the New Testament, whether in the words of the Baptist, of St. John, or of St. Paul Is to associate it with regeneration -- a departure from the ways of death to a new life.

In order therefore to give to baptism Its maximum significance it should be administered, as in the New Testament, in situations where this spiritual change actually occurs. It follows from this that its fullest meaning occurs only when persons capable of grasping Its significance are the candidates. Such cannot be said of infant baptism.

Parents should still consider it their privilege and obligation to dedicate their infants to the Lord and accept the obligations implicit therein. In any case baptism should not be administered to infants unless it is followed in due time with the equally Important rite of confirmation.



Neither you, nor your source, actually answered the question of whether or not it is spiritually significant. You source prevaricated - effectively suggesting that it IS spiritually significant... IF you later do it again, but somehow WASN'T spiritually significant if you don't... which seems like a cop-out answer, to me.

The point of BIBLICAL baptism, is to immerse the flesh in the spirit, through symbolic immersion in water.


Certainly not an amount of volition that would be regarded as legal in a court of law, say.

Even if I did give my, eligible, 100%, fully conformed consent, I still don't see what the issue is. I would hate to be in the Cubs now, and I disagree strongly with much of the views held by the Scout organisation. Yet I was, at one stage, a part of the gang.

Why would I want to deny this?

The argument can be made that you - to some extent - chose to be a pupil at your school, or a Cub in your troupe. Thus, there's really little or no parallel. No such argument can be legitimately made for infant baptism.

And, again... who said 'deny'?

I don't actually see that anything more than 'non-consensual' should be needed.
And I agree with you, as I have said so from the start of this thread; non-consensual baptism is pooey. But then why say:

My argument has been that the document should be 'corrected'.
'Corrected' to what?

It is a document merely recording the historical fact that an infant has been baptised. How can this be 'corrected'?

Neither you, nor your source, actually answered the question of whether or not it is spiritually significant. You source prevaricated - effectively suggesting that it IS spiritually significant... IF you later do it again, but somehow WASN'T spiritually significant if you don't... which seems like a cop-out answer, to me.
Well, sucks to be you.

That's the answer; I'm not saying it makes any sense. You asked what the CoS thought of infant baptism, I told you.

The point of BIBLICAL baptism, is to immerse the flesh in the spirit, through symbolic immersion in water.
Yes, and the CoS holds that this cannot happen unless one is fully aware and consensual to the spirit.

I don't see what's so hard to grasp here.

No such argument can be legitimately made for infant baptism.
I. Fully. Agree.

Is that clear enough?

^This, surely this man has something better to do than try and change a record of him being baptised when he was younger when it really did happen.
I hate arguments of the class "Surely X has something better to do that [something]". What the general you thinks the general I should be doing with my time is completely irrelevant to the argument I have made.
Ok, as I understood it, the Catholic Church used baptism as a means of protecting a child from evil, not as a declaration of membership in the Church. The time from Baptism to Confirmation was a period given to instruction and indoctrination in the Church. Confirmation, supposedly done at an age when the person could understand what he/she was doing, was the ritual that initiated the person into actual membership, with all the rights and responsibilities involved.

Seconded. I've heard tell of girls a few decades ago being taught how to give a baby an emergency baptism in case it was seriously sick in their care or something. In theory any christian can baptise anyone else, with any kind of water, or no water at all.

'Corrected' to what?


I believe we're looking at 'debaptised', here.


It is a document merely recording the historical fact that an infant has been baptised. How can this be 'corrected'?


By a parallel amendment that similalry records the debaptism.

I'm not seeing how this is confusing.


Well, sucks to be you.

That's the answer; I'm not saying it makes any sense. You asked what the CoS thought of infant baptism, I told you.


If that is the be all and end all of CoS thought on the subject, then it does 'suck to be me', because I'm really none the wiser. What you presented seems to suggest that 'they' consider infant baptism to be a pagan practise - but they do it anyway.


Yes, and the CoS holds that this cannot happen unless one is fully aware and consensual to the spirit.


Which seems reasonable. The significance, then, of the infant baptism?


I. Fully. Agree.

Is that clear enough?

This would make more sense if it weren't at the conclusion of a little excursion into Cubs and schools... that you created. If you agree... why argue it?

Seconded. I've heard tell of girls a few decades ago being taught how to give a baby an emergency baptism in case it was seriously sick in their care or something. In theory any christian can baptise anyone else, with any kind of water, or no water at all.

My brother was 'emergency baptised' by the nurses at the hospital where he was born.

I believe we're looking at 'debaptised', here.

By a parallel amendment that similalry records the debaptism.
But that's not what the baptismal roll is for. It's like demanding an old school register be amended to say "is not a pupil anymore" next to every person's name (or, as I said earlier, it's like demanding that old registers of who went to Cubs be 'corrected' to state that these people now do not go to Cubs).

It's pointless and redundant. As I said at the start, unlike some churches, the CoS baptismal roll isn't a list of members, or even a list of Christians. It's just an historical document. If someone wants to get debaptised, then they can produce their own document. Asking the Kirk to do so, unless they are maintaining that the person is still a member of the church -- which they are not -- is farcical.

If that is the be all and end all of CoS thought on the subject, then it does 'suck to be me', because I'm really none the wiser. What you presented seems to suggest that 'they' consider infant baptism to be a pagan practise - but they do it anyway.
Then you must have missed (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=14611609#post14611609):
Baptism, in the CoS, is seen as a commitment by the parents that their child will be brought up in the church, along with it being a celebration of a new life.

Doctrinally, infant baptism is not seen as a sign that one is either a confirmed Christian, nor a member of the CoS, unlike the teachings of the Roman Catholic church. For this to be the case, one must also go through confirmation, when one is of an age to make an informed choice. The CoS, in the tradition of Presbyterian Protestantism, stresses that individuals must come to Christ of their own volition.
I forgot to add 'infant' at the start of the first sentence, but I thought the meaning was clear.

[I]If you agree... why argue it?
I never have.

But that's not what the baptismal roll is for. It's like demanding an old school register be amended to say "is not a pupil anymore" next to every person's name (or, as I said earlier, it's like demanding that old registers of who went to Cubs be 'corrected' to state that these people now do not go to Cubs).


It's not 'like' that, at all - because of the issue of consent, if for no other reason.


It's pointless and redundant.


For you. Which is probably why no one is talking about making it mandatory.


As I said at the start, unlike some churches, the CoS baptismal roll isn't a list of members, or even a list of Christians. It's just an historical document.


I think that's a half-truth, along the lines of the prevarication you posted earlier.


If someone wants to get debaptised, then they can produce their own document. Asking the Kirk to do so, unless they are maintaining that the person is still a member of the church -- which they are not -- is farcical.


Holding the record keepers accountable for keeping the records is not farcical.


Then you must have missed:
Infant Baptism, in the CoS, is seen as a commitment by the parents that their child will be brought up in the church, along with it being a celebration of a new life.


I didn't miss that - it seems to be suggesting that they don't consider it linked with the BIBLICAL justification for baptism. In conjunction with the passage of the same citation, that reads: "...It is also evident that when regarded simply as an initiatory rite it has more in common with pagan practices...", I don't think I 'missed' anything.

While I understand the desire to eliminate your name from the list of church members, you can't exactly change history.

you can't change it, but you can definitely add a sidenote..

It's not 'like' that, at all - because of the issue of consent, if for no other reason.
Consent makes no change whatsoever.

If I consented or not, I was still baptised. That is a historical fact, and that is all the baptismal roll is.

For you.
It's pointless and redundant for anyone brought up in the Presbyterian tradition, along with those brought up in the Anglican tradition who, I believe, hold similar doctrine.

I think that's a half-truth...
And I don't think you have a leg to stand on.

I am telling you a truth here: baptismal rolls are nothing more than historical documents showing which infants were baptised and when. If you don't believe me, then you can read the Consolodating Act Anent the Sacraments (http://www.churchofscotland.org.uk/extranet/xchurchlaw/downloads/xchurchlaw2000act05.txt), enacted by the General Assembly (the governing body of the CoS) in 2003:

3. Baptism signifies the action and love of God in Christ, through the Holy Spirit, and is a seal upon the gift of grace and the response of faith.
...

6. Baptism may be administered to a child:
(a) where at least one parent, or other family member (with parental consent), having been baptised and being on the communion roll of the congregation, will undertake the Christian upbringing of the child;
(b) where at least one parent, or other family member (with parental consent), having been baptised but not on the communion roll of the congregation, satisfies the minister and Kirk Session that he or she is an adherent of the congregation and will undertake the Christian upbringing of the child;
(c) where at least one parent, or other family member (with parental consent), having been baptised, professes the Christian faith, undertakes to ensure that the child grows up in the life and worship of the Church and expresses the desire to seek admission to the communion roll of the congregation;
(d) where the child is under legal guardianship, and the minister and Kirk Session are satisfied that the child shall be nurtured within the life and worship of the congregation;

and, in each of the above cases, only after the parent(s), or other family member, has received such instruction in its meaning as the minister and Kirk Session consider necessary, according to such basis of instruction as may be authorised by the General Assembly.

...

8. In all cases, an entry shall be made in the Kirk Session’s Baptismal Register and a Certificate of Baptism given by the minister.
Note two things: Firstly, the bolded in section 3. This is the idea that a child cannot be a member or a committed Christian till they have, of their own volition, accepted the Spirit; 'responded in faith'.

Secondly, note the term 'communion roll'. This is the list of committed Christians/members of the CoS; those who partake in Communion. Baptised children are not enrolled onto the communion roll.

A legitimate argument would be for the CoS to amend the communion roll, not the baptismal.

Holding the record keepers accountable for keeping the records is not farcical.
They've kept their records perfectly; it's not a living document that must be, nor should be, updated to keep track of the current status of people's beliefs.

See above.

Sounds good to me.

So... they are trying to officially undo a bath? Infant baptism isn't Biblical, of course I do understand the religious significance in general, but it's not like infant baptism actually means anything unless the bathed later decides it does.

I was baptised as an infant and then again later, when I decided to become a Christian... which did not happen during the first official ceremony, despite what the Lutheran Church would say.

^This, surely this man has something better to do than try and change a record of him being baptised when he was younger when it really did happen.

This pathetic non-argument never makes any sense.

Are you actually suggesting that the man in question should never have any free time of his own? Because that's the only possible explanation for your statement.

This fellow, like most of us who are POSTING RIGHT NOW, has recreation time available to him. He decided to spend it doing something that he wants to do. You seem to think that he should be doing "something better" than what he wants to do. What's better than him using his own free time to address something that is important to him? I guess "something better" must mean something that YOU, personally, think is cool? But why the fuck would it be better for this other fellow to spend his free time doing what you think is cool, rather than what he thinks is cool? Wouldn't that, you know, kind of defeat the entire point of having free personal time?

So... they are trying to officially undo a bath? Infant baptism isn't Biblical, of course I do understand the religious significance in general, but it's not like infant baptism actually means anything unless the bathed later decides it does.

As said before in this topic: it means something to the people who performed the ceremony on the baby. Asking them to admit that was wrong of them, or at least to devise a ceremony that undoes the meaning in their eyes is not that odd a request.

Assuming you care about what others think of course - which seems to be a difficult concept to grasp for quite a few people here.

-snip-

The only thing that is worth while talking about in this uncalled for rant is that it is a non argument, it isn't a rebuttal of him going on about this it is an observation of him wasting his time trying to change what happened in the past.

The only thing that is worth while talking about in this uncalled for rant is that it is a non argument, it isn't a rebuttal of him going on about this it is an observation of him wasting his time trying to change what happened in the past.

He's not trying to change the past. If he was this thread would be called "Atheists call for time travel"

He's not trying to change the past. If he was this thread would be called "Atheists call for time travel"

He wants his name taken off the list of people baptised at the church.

He's not trying to change the past. If he was this thread would be called "Atheists call for time travel"

Yeah, I really have to wonder why so many people are getting stuck on that stupid idea. "Hur hur the atheist can't change the past, hur hur, he so stoopid!" Yawn.

He wants his name taken off the list of people baptised at the church.

No, he doesn't. He wants his baptism cancelled.
"Now Mr Hunt has become the pioneer in a rejuvenated campaign for a way of cancelling baptisms given to children too young to decide for themselves whether they wanted this formal initiation into Christianity.
.....
The National Secular Society would like the Church of England to devise a formal procedure for cancelling baptisms, with a change in the baptismal roll as part of it."

Change =/= remove. The Southwark diocese are the ones that seem to think they are the same.
Yeah, I really have to wonder why so many people are getting stuck on that stupid idea. "Hur hur the atheist can't change the past, hur hur, he so stoopid!" Yawn.

Maybe people think the only way you can undo a baptism is to go back in time and prevent it from ever happening.

He wants his name taken off the list of people baptised at the church.

No, he wants the church to perform an actual ceremony, that would be considered meaningful to the church itself, that de-baptises him. A fair request.

Now, what the church could do if it wanted to be mean is sprinkling him with the blood of freshly slaughtered hens, while he stands in the middle of a pentagram.

So, if baptism involves using holy water to cleanse someone of earthly sins, presumably de-baptism would involve the application of sinly earth to decleanse someone of holy water.

Can we think of anyone with the required expertise to oversee such a ceremony?

Seconded. I've heard tell of girls a few decades ago being taught how to give a baby an emergency baptism in case it was seriously sick in their care or something. In theory any christian can baptise anyone else, with any kind of water, or no water at all.

The idea in some faiths is that, since you are born with Original Sin, you have to be baptized before you die or you're going to hell. They apply this even to infants - who have no concept of sin.

My grandfather was so worried about me going to hell that he tried to get my aunt to sneak me out of the house and take me to a church (since my parents weren't going to do it). When that didn't work, they caught him trying to do his own baptism with me in the kitchen sink. He was utterly convinced that, if I died prior to baptism, I was going to some sort of fiery hell.


I was baptised as an infant and then again later, when I decided to become a Christian... which did not happen during the first official ceremony, despite what the Lutheran Church would say.

Anabaptist!

You know, in another time, you could have been executed for that. *nodnod*

If a person has graduated from religion (i.e. become an atheist) then they should be able to get that recorded, just like if a person graduates from school such that they are no longer there would be recorded on the official record of the school. Even if a person were expelled from school or moved to another one there would be a mention in the records indicating that happened.

There is also the fact that the largest Christian denomination does consider baptism to be joining the religion and that many other denominations do as well which means that a lot of people consider infant baptism to be joining the religion even when they are reading records of, for example, the Church of Scotland. I could easily see sloppy scholars just using the baptism records of churches when they want to find out how many people were in a religion which wouldn't even require the destruction of other records to happen.

I saw this, and as an atheist could not understand it at all. If you believe baptism has some effect you must be a believer, surely as an atheist you know it is just mumbo jumbo and not something that needs to be somehow undone.

Yeah thats my take on it too.

At the risk of grave digging I'd like to quickly explain the main motivation behind this 'debaptism drive'.

Well, how about a parallel example. What if you found out that an organization you really don't like had put your name down as one of their members. Like, what if the KKK listed you as a member or something. Them putting your name on their lists wouldn't magically force you to be a member, yet it probably would still bug you, wouldn't it?

To extend Bottle's example, suppose the KKK then took this bogus list of members to Washington and demanded that, since they had half of the US population on their membership role, they should be given legal privileges including unelected positions in the US senate from which they could vote and influence policy.

Sound far-fetched? The CofE claim that they don't use baptismal records to measure membership, but even if this is true it's undeniable that those records are used by others including the most recent commission on House of Lords Reform. The fact that 50% of the UK are 'baptised members' of the CofE was the main argument given for the continued prescence of the Lords Spiritual (the 26 most senior Anglican bishops) in the House of Lords.

It's demonstrable that these records are being used to shape policy in favour of the churches. Maybe those UK atheists who've stated how unconcerned they are by their baptismal records should be.

I saw this, and as an atheist could not understand it at all. If you believe baptism has some effect you must be a believer, surely as an atheist you know it is just mumbo jumbo and not something that needs to be somehow undone.So now he wants to give Atheism its own rites? So that means it would become a religion right?:p

So now he wants to give Atheism its own rites?

No, he wants the Churches to devise a rite to let people go. Something that means something to the churches.

No, he wants the church to perform an actual ceremony, that would be considered meaningful to the church itself, that de-baptises him. A fair request.
Except that there is no such ceremony that would be considered meaningful to the church itself.

Except that there is no such ceremony that would be considered meaningful to the church itself.

Perhaps more meaningful than the current "If you don't think it applies, you have to publish your lack of faith yourself" approach.

Perhaps more meaningful than the current "If you don't think it applies, you have to publish your lack of faith yourself" approach.Meaningful TO THE CHURCH? Their teachings are that once you're baptized, you're baptized. Nothing whatsoever that they do would be meaningful to the church.

Meaningful TO THE CHURCH? Their teachings are that once you're baptized, you're baptized. Nothing whatsoever that they do would be meaningful to the church.

Exactly. And THAT is what should change - because it is a repugnant attitude.

Meaningful TO THE CHURCH? Their teachings are that once you're baptized, you're baptized. Nothing whatsoever that they do would be meaningful to the church.

"Once saved, always saved"? How very Southern Baptist of you.

Unfortunately, it means you clearly haven't been keeping up - since a large part of this thread has dealt with the fact that the churches in question (tend to) alledge that these 'baptisms' aren't significant rituals in terms of spiritual meaning or the path to salvation.

Thus - if the baptism is 'meaningful' despite having no spiritual significance, the DE-baptism could have just the SAME degree of meaning, to the church - which would be enough, I suspect.

Exactly. And THAT is what should change - because it is a repugnant attitude.But... "The church" consists of those who do have that attitude and consider it the opposite of repugnant. As soon as somebody changes that attitude, they are no longer "the church". There is no way of making anything meaningful to "the church". You may wish for "the church" to cease to exist, but that is a different issue entirely.

If you're an atheist who really hates religion, it makes sense, because you're only doing it to pointedly insult religion. Otherwise, as you say, it makes no sense at all.

I dont know ... the idea of a debaptism just for debaptism I would agree ... but much of this drive seems to be a wish to remove the record of an act that he did not willingly participate in ... that is a little more reasonable


Personally I would not bother but i guess I can at least understand the wish to expunge his record

But... "The church" consists of those who do have that attitude and consider it the opposite of repugnant. As soon as somebody changes that attitude, they are no longer "the church". There is no way of making anything meaningful to "the church". You may wish for "the church" to cease to exist, but that is a different issue entirely.

Don't be silly. The rituals, opinions and place in society of the Church(es) are not some static given. Things change. Rituals are added. Opinions on what is dogma change 180 degrees on a regular basis. Churches can adapt, add rituals and change existing ones, all with meaning.

The problem is that in this case they don't seem to want to. Or at least require quite a bit of nudging.

Not an issue here since we don't have a national church, but I can see where the guy's coming from. On the other hand, if there's no god and the church's activities are meaningless, as they probably are, the significance of them having your name on some dusty old list in their archives isn't too great. Your great-grandkids might even want to look you up some day, and there may be no other record of your existence. :p

The problem is that in this case they don't seem to want to.
They believe what they believe. They can't just DECIDE to believe what you would rather have them believe.

They believe what they believe. They can't just DECIDE to believe what you would rather have them believe.

Why? You can't imagine how many times I've been told I 'decided' to be an Atheist...

They believe what they believe. They can't just DECIDE to believe what you would rather have them believe.

They can listen to what you have to say and determine whether or not it is convincing enough to make a change.

My beliefs have certainly changed over the years as a result of discussions with people who did not agree with me.

They can listen to what you have to say and determine whether or not it is convincing enough to make a change.

My beliefs have certainly changed over the years as a result of discussions with people who did not agree with me.

This. ^^

The (apparent?) idea that beliefs can't change in the face of compelling arguments? I can't comprehend it.

But here's the situation: they believe that baptism has some kind of effect. They don't believe that anything exists which has the opposite kind of effect. You don't believe in any such thing either, since you don't believe in the effectiveness of baptism in the first place. You don't have any arguments in favor of the existence of an anti-baptism, and they have no reason to believe that anti-baptism exists. But you not only want them to do an anti-baptism, you want them to be SINCERE about it. Well that's just not possible.

But here's the situation: they believe that baptism has some kind of effect. They don't believe that anything exists which has the opposite kind of effect. You don't believe in any such thing either, since you don't believe in the effectiveness of baptism in the first place. You don't have any arguments in favor of the existence of an anti-baptism, and they have no reason to believe that anti-baptism exists. But you not only want them to do an anti-baptism, you want them to be SINCERE about it. Well that's just not possible.

Who are all these yous and theys?

I believe that baptism exists. I don't believe it's meaningful. I believe that some kind of religious ceremony should exist that 'counters' baptism. I don't believe THAT would be meaningful, either.

The best argument that churches have for NOT accomodating this meaningless symbol, is that they consider it meaningless. Unfortunately, many of the same churches have said they consider the infant bapstisms that CAUSED the controversy in the first place, to be meaningless, too.

So - either they're lying... or they're being selective about which meaningless rituals they feel like accomodating.

I believe that baptism exists. I don't believe it's meaningful. I believe that some kind of religious ceremony should exist that 'counters' baptism. I don't believe THAT would be meaningful, either.

Then you are not taking Alma's side of the argument. He was demanding an anti-baptism ceremony that was "meaningful to the church". That was an absurdity.

So - either they're lying... or they're being selective about which meaningless rituals they feel like accomodating.
But why should they accommodate a religious ceremony that they don't hold with/believe in?

I understand a need for a ceremony, a detail of administration rather, that marks a past-believer as no longer a member of the church. However, if the ceremony marks that the person is now a non-believer, an atheist in particular, in a religious sense, why should the churches perform it?

They wouldn't, and shouldn't have to, perform a ceremony marking a past-believer as a Buddhist, Muslim, etc., why should they have a religious ceremony that marks someone as an atheist?

Then you are not taking Alma's side of the argument. He was demanding an anti-baptism ceremony that was "meaningful to the church". That was an absurdity.

Again - these churches are trapped in their own deceptions.

If they have stated that the baptisms are not meaningful in any spiritual fashion, then they are hypocritical to deny a de-baptism on grounds of lack of meaning.

If they have stated that the baptisms are not meaningful in any spiritual fashion, then they are hypocritical to deny a de-baptism on grounds of lack of meaning.
Are they hypocritical to deny jam sandwiches on grounds of lack of meaning?

But why should they accommodate a religious ceremony that they don't hold with/believe in?


Your own source earlier said they don't 'believe' in infant baptism to start with.


I understand a need for a ceremony, a detail of administration rather, that marks a past-believer as no longer a member of the church. However, if the ceremony marks that the person is now a non-believer, an atheist in particular, in a religious sense, why should the churches perform it?


Why shouldn't they - you seem to be arguing it both ways... that the original ceremony is meaningless AND that it marks you as a believer.


They wouldn't, and shouldn't have to, perform a ceremony marking a past-believer as a Buddhist, Muslim, etc., why should they have a religious ceremony that marks someone as an atheist?

False dichotomy - the ceremony doesn't have to say you're an atheist - it simply has to revoke your baptism.

Are they hypocritical to deny jam sandwiches on grounds of lack of meaning?

Are jam sandwiches a ritual? Or connected in any way?

Your own source earlier said they don't 'believe' in infant baptism to start with.
Many denominations who practice infant baptism don't believe that the ritual is a sign that the baptised infant is a committed Christian, but this doesn't mean the ceremony is devoid of meaning for those churches; spiritually or otherwise.

Why shouldn't they - you seem to be arguing it both ways... that the original ceremony is meaningless AND that it marks you as a believer.
No, you miss my point.

In a purely administrative sense, churches shouldn't be listing non-members as members; especially if they're getting tax-benefits from counting non-members as members. Nor should they, in a spiritual sense, insist that ex-believers still follow the faith; that is simple foolishness.

But if someone doesn't believe in God anymore, or believes in a different faith now, why should a church perform a religious ceremony to mark this? It's not the churches' remit to mark their conversion to another faith or none.

Not an issue here since we don't have a national church, but I can see where the guy's coming from. On the other hand, if there's no god and the church's activities are meaningless, as they probably are, the significance of them having your name on some dusty old list in their archives isn't too great. Your great-grandkids might even want to look you up some day, and there may be no other record of your existence. :pIf the only record left implied that you believed some nonsense you don't believe you might rather there be no record at all of your existence.

It is unlikely that all records other than baptism records will be lost but it is very likely that sloppy scholars will use baptism records as indicating that all the people on the list were Christians even if the church doesn't regard it as a membership list.

Oh and would the idiots who are talking about having the church do a de-baptism ceremony please realise that what is being asked for is a removal from the records, or an amendment that notes that the person is no longer a member of the church. Changing the records does not under any circumstances require a ceremony.

If the only record left implied that you believed some nonsense you don't believe you might rather there be no record at all of your existence.

It is unlikely that all records other than baptism records will be lost but it is very likely that sloppy scholars will use baptism records as indicating that all the people on the list were Christians even if the church doesn't regard it as a membership list.

Oh and would the idiots who are talking about having the church do a de-baptism ceremony please realise that what is being asked for is a removal from the records, or an amendment that notes that the person is no longer a member of the church. Changing the records does not under any circumstances require a ceremony.
You know, this thread's a little elderly (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8784641&postcount=3).:p