Forced baptism and torts

[sojourner]

I do not see it as being significantly important

I do see it as being significantly important. Now what do we do?

We have this life for certain to make better for ourselves and others

That’s what spirituality helps us do.

Afterlives are unsure and uncertain, and it seems doubtful the ego survives, and any other notions of spirituality are at best murky, muddled, amd utterly hopelessly confused given our condition as linear-thinking, 3 dimensional apes

I think the American religion has placed waaaay too much emphasis on the afterlife. Jesus certainly didn’t place much emphasis on it. He advocated, instead, fostering right relationship, loving justice, doing mercy, being compassionate, championing equity, feeding the hungry, and lifting the downtrodden, inviting the stranger and including everyone. Those are here-and-now things that advance us as a species.

I do acknowledge such things as a part of our experiences

That’s a start. However, you immediately dismiss it because you can’t immediately understand it. A scientist of the 1920s would have dismissed quantum theory too. Religion is supposed to provide us space to explore our spiritual dimension. Instead, pop-religion has turned itself into “Bible Jeopardy!” (I’ll take “sin” for $200, Alex.). The one who has the most “correct” answers wins the prize. What a crock!

I am forced to admit have no idea what such things really are (Ive even had a couple "spiritual experiences").

No one does. But I think we have to allow ourselves the space to explore and discover. Otherwise, we’re ignoring a significant part of our humanity — the part that loves, creates, is intuitive, and seeks to find meaning.

I do not see much purpose or point in investing much importance to it

Your limited perspective is just that, and not shared by a plethora of reasonable, thinking people. Our perspective may be just as limited, but we’re unwilling to slam the door shut just because we can’t “see it.”

 

[sojourner]

Parental sovereignty has zero respect for the rights and autonomy of children, especially into their adult lives.
Wisconsin v. Yoder - Significance

Parental sovereignty is a mountain of abused and dead children because their parents get legal shielding when the excuse is religiom. Even if its withholding medical treatment amd the kid dies (even Idaho Republicans are starting to turn against their state law)
Michigan Child's Death Puts Spotlight On Clash Between Medicine And Religion
Victims of religion-based medical neglect
Child Fatalities From Religion-motivated Medical Neglect
She Had a 'Grapefruit-Sized Tumor' on Her Shoulder. Her Mom Chose Prayer Over the E.R.
Idaho’s religious shield laws and tragic child deaths
Most states' child abuse and neglect laws have religious exemptions
An Idaho sheriff's daunting battle to investigate when children of a faith-healing sect die
As far as Im concerned, calls for "parental sovereignty" are really nothing nore than demands for shieldimg from child abuse laws and to not have to acknowledge the child as a human being fully entitled to thier rights. You cant hit someone who has all of those.

This stuff is all anecdotal. It does not address the value of human spiritual formation at all. It merely pulls out some anecdotes of questionable reason on the part of parents. Yes, these things are tragic. And I’m against the sort of religious engine that fosters this nonsense. AFAIC, the minute religion supersedes reason, it ceases to be wholly functional as it’s intended.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I can’t help your skepticism, nor am I responsible for it.

Those who need help are those who try to force squeeze my character and personality into a box labeled "libra." Those who need help are those with an agenda to hijack school agendas for their superstitious purposes.

Mainstream religion can say the very same things, though.

The Americam Protestants and Evangelicals, no. Catholicism, in some areas yes, in many areas no. Amd to extend the scope, yes, even neo-Pagand have serious issues and problems Such as their publishers, such as llewellyn, often allow for things such as the "Burning Times" to be protrayed in ways that are historically inaccurate and actually makes the church look more violent and bloodthirsty than it actually was during that time, especially in regards to those accused of witchcraft (and its typically assumed the were real witches, not regular women amd men who often got caught in the crossfire of social and political fighting.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I think the American religion has placed waaaay too much emphasis on the afterlife. Jesus certainly didn’t place much emphasis on it. He advocated, instead, fostering right relationship, loving justice, doing mercy, being compassionate, championing equity, feeding the hungry, and lifting the downtrodden, inviting the stranger and including everyone. Those are here-and-now things that advance us as a species.

All in the name of a violent, tyrannical, blood thirsty, genocidal Father.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

This stuff is all anecdotal. It does not address the value of human spiritual formation at all. It merely pulls out some anecdotes of questionable reason on the part of parents. Yes, these things are tragic. And I’m against the sort of religious engine that fosters this nonsense. AFAIC, the minute religion supersedes reason, it ceases to be wholly functional as it’s intended.

Im backing off here with this because it's getting way off topic. But I will continue this in ankther thread if you'd like. This topic quoted in this post especially.

 

[sojourner]

If the child doesn't consent to the baptism, then the baptism is forced... even if the religion has an expectation that the parents should subject their child to a forced baptism.

Not true. Does an infant “consent” to being diapered, changed, bathed? Shall we refrain from feeding our children, because they don’t understand nutrition? Children have parents because they are incapable of making informed decisions for themselves. Baptism isn’t “forced” any more than learning a language is “forced,” or eating a healthy diet is “forced.” It is no more “forced” than expanding a child’s socialization is seen as being “forced” into a particular society or culture. Children require guidance. Baptism is part of that guidance.

 

[sojourner]

All in the name of a violent, tyrannical, blood thirsty, genocidal Father.

I’m sorry you choose to couch it in those misplaced and misunderstood terms. If you’ll pardon me for saying so, your post displays the selfsame narrow, biased viewpoint as the wacko religionists you decry.

 

[sojourner]

Im backing off here with this because it's getting way off topic. But I will continue this in ankther thread if you'd like. This topic quoted in this post especially.

If you start a thread, I’m probably in.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Does an infant “consent” to being diapered, changed, bathed?

Those are needed. The child will become ill if not done. The child will be just fine without undergoing ancient superstitious water rituals. Yet it is forced upon them.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Or think about it like covid. Does the child need to be fed in order to be healthy? Yes. Does the child need to go to church and be baptised in order to be healthy and avoid deminished life quality? No. It's not essential.
Or, ask yourself, will not doing it require a mandatory reporter to report it?

 

[sojourner]

Those who need help are those who try to force squeeze my character and personality into a box labeled "libra." Those who need help are those with an agenda to hijack school agendas for their superstitious purposes

I agree. But that includes a surprisingly small cross-section of the religion.

The Americam Protestants and Evangelicals, no.

I disagree with your take on mainstream Protestants. Evangelicals? I agree.

 

[sojourner]

Those are needed. The child will become ill if not done. The child will be just fine without undergoing ancient superstitious water rituals. Yet it is forced upon them.

“Necessity” is not cogent to the argument of consent. Therefore, not “forced.”

 

[sojourner]

Or think about it like covid. Does the child need to be fed in order to be healthy? Yes. Does the child need to go to church and be baptised in order to be healthy and avoid deminished life quality? No. It's not essential.
Or, ask yourself, will not doing it require a mandatory reporter to report it?

Again, “mandated reporting” is not cogent to the argument of coercion.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I disagree with your take on mainstream Protestants.

At best they sweep the worst parts of the Bible under the rug and downplay it. Then it's all harmless. Until those taking it more seriously and ahereing closer to the words they arent ignoring or downplaying begin repressing rights, destroying education, amd promoting hatred just because their god is petty and insecure.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Again, “mandated reporting” is not cogent to the argument of coercion.

It is a way to think about it. If someone doesnt change their baby's diaper, if they arent feeding or bathig their children, there are numerous and many people who are legally required, obmigated, and mandated to report it to child services. If someone doesnt get their kid baptised, if they dont take them to any religious services at all, there is no harm, no foul, no reason to call child services.

“Necessity” is not cogent to the argument of consent. Therefore, not “forced.”

It is entirely. If something is not necessary for a child, then withiut consent it is forced.

I agree. But that includes a surprisingly small cross-section of the religion.

It's still large enough and powerful enough that it threatens, endangers, and cripples public educations. After a wave of us began leaving the Evangelical church in droves about 20 years ago, today millenials follow that trend but they have picked up New Age mumbo jumbo. They replaced a book that says pi is 3 for books that fail to realize there are 13 signs and their charts are very outdated and obsolete.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Again, “mandated reporting” is not cogent to the argument of coercion.

The point of using madated reporters in this example is to make ot clear you are comparing abusive behaviors that must be reported to them to a lack of behaviors that they will annoy them of you report them. Baptism is not necessary. You report someone to child services for not baptising their kids, if the rught/wrong one catches wind you might find yourself with a charge of filkng a false report. You report starved kids in dirty diapers then child services and police are required to investigate within 24 hours.
Now, relate this level of "what is essential" to infant baptism amd parental sovereignty. Baptisms are not important. Nothing bad will happen. Refusing to acknowledge a child as a human who is entitled to decide such things for themselves, that is problematic.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Not true. Does an infant “consent” to being diapered, changed, bathed?

A child who's too young to have the capacity for consent doesn't consent to anything.

Shall we refrain from feeding our children, because they don’t understand nutrition?

No, because feeding a child is clearly beneficial and necessary. Religion is clearly optional.

Children have parents because they are incapable of making informed decisions for themselves. Baptism isn’t “forced” any more than learning a language is “forced,” or eating a healthy diet is “forced.” It is no more “forced” than expanding a child’s socialization is seen as being “forced” into a particular society or culture. Children require guidance. Baptism is part of that guidance.

No, infant baptism is an attempt by the parents to deny a child - or rather, the adult the child will become - the freedom of religion that the parents demand for themselves. It's inherently hypocritical.

 

[sojourner]

At best they sweep the worst parts of the Bible under the rug and downplay it. Then it's all harmless. Until those taking it more seriously and ahereing closer to the words they arent ignoring or downplaying begin repressing rights, destroying education, amd promoting hatred just because their god is petty and insecure.

I disagree. That’s not what I do — or anyone Else in my circle.

 

[sojourner]

It is entirely. If something is not necessary for a child, then withiut consent it is forced

We believe it is necessary.

It's still large enough and powerful enough that it threatens, endangers, and cripples public educations. After a wave of us began leaving the Evangelical church in droves about 20 years ago

I see now. This explains everything. You’re a disgruntled Evangelical. So of course all religion must be bad and unnecessary.

 

[sojourner]

A child who's too young to have the capacity for consent doesn't consent to anything

Which is why I said they need parents to consent for them.

No, because feeding a child is clearly beneficial and necessary. Religion is clearly optional

It’s clearly not, or parents wouldn’t have their children baptized.

No, infant baptism is an attempt by the parents to deny a child - or rather, the adult the child will become - the freedom of religion that the parents demand for themselves. It's inherently hypocritical.

Wrong. ***MOD EDIT*** Your experience is not universal and does not apply to religion in general.