• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Forced baptism and torts

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber
We believe it is necessary.
Daiper change, without there irritation and illness.
No food. There is illness, malnutrition, starvation, death.
No healthcare? Needless suffering. Needless illness. Needless death.
No religion? No problem.
No baptism? No problem.
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber
Wrong. Stop lying about others’ motives and putting things in a biased light just because you were hurt. Your experience is not universal and does not apply to religion in general.
It is exactly what is going on. The parents demand their right (or "sovereignty" as you put it) even though this does create a conflict of interests as it forces upon a human being things we normally--for an adult--consider an infringement of a fundamental right of religion, it creates a legal shield from child abuse, and denies the child many of what we consider their most basic rights and legal protections. Like parental sovereignty being an excuse to commit assault and battery against a child.
 

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
Daiper change, without there irritation and illness.
No food. There is illness, malnutrition, starvation, death.
No healthcare? Needless suffering. Needless illness. Needless death.
No religion? No problem.
No baptism? No problem.
Define “no problem.” Lack of wholeness is a problem.
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber
I disagree. That’s not what I do — or anyone Else in my circle.
Then how do you explain the command that homosexual males are to be put to death, and that their blood is on their hands? How do you explain the mandate to kill apostates? What about "a woman should be quiet in church, hamg her head in humility, and if she has a question ask her husband at home"?
I see now. This explains everything. You’re a disgruntled Evangelical. So of course all religion must be bad and unnecessary.
I am most definitely not an evangelical. Not even a disgruntled one. I am, however, unpleased over the legal exemptions religion gets to have just because it is religon. Even if the actions are criminal, religion gets a shield in many areas. Ultimately, children pay the price more often and more heavily than anyone else, because it's always about the parent, not the human being child who will become a human being adult.
We believe it is necessary.
Of course you do. But claiming a lack of it would be detrimental is not something science would support. Saying it is necessary for development, functioning, adjustment, or coping, it's just not. If you said you weren't feeding your kids, I'd have to report you. If you dont batize them, i call it in and im going to have some crapy people on the phone for such an absurd thing to call over.
 

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
It is exactly what is going on. The parents demand their right (or "sovereignty" as you put it) even though this does create a conflict of interests as it forces upon a human being things we normally--for an adult--consider an infringement of a fundamental right of religion, it creates a legal shield from child abuse, and denies the child many of what we consider their most basic rights and legal protections. Like parental sovereignty being an excuse to commit assault and battery against a child.
No. You’re obfuscating several things. Parents don’t have to “demand a right.” it is their duty to rear their child and make decisions for them. When they grow up, they can leave the church if they wish.
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber
Define “no problem.” Lack of wholeness is a problem.
This "lack of wholeness" is not something you can demonstrate. It is a question of metaphysics. Such things are not sufficient for overriding the rights to determination of a human being. If metapbysics is it, rhe child should choose for themselves.
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber
No. You’re obfuscating several things. Parents don’t have to “demand a right.” it is their duty to rear their child and make decisions for them. When they grow up, they can leave the church if they wish.
They demand rights to not vaccinate. To make permanent and non necessary body modifications. Deny them education. Deny them healthcare so it will rear a "god fearing" adult. And when they leave they are ill prepared for the world. Because their rights were forfeit to the rights of selfish parents.
 

Curious George

Veteran Member
Daiper change, without there irritation and illness.
No food. There is illness, malnutrition, starvation, death.
No healthcare? Needless suffering. Needless illness. Needless death.
No religion? No problem.
No baptism? No problem.
No car rides? No problem
No grounding? No problem
No sex ed? No problem
No vaccines? No problem
No braces? Most the time no problem
No dietary restrictions such as vegertiasm or veganism? No problem
No daily bath? No problem
No daily teeth brushing? No problem

Parents make choices for children. This is okay. Restricting choices to what refraining from constitutes the low level bar of negligence is silly.

Legal standards of harm are a good place to draw the line. If your actions are unreasonably harmful, then you shouldn't do it. We assume that parents have the children's best interests in mind. For this reason parents can consent for a child.

Parents choosing to baptise their infants...not harmful.

However if it was the parents instead of the big brother/sister i am not sure the child should be denied remedy. However, i can accept that such a remedy would have a higher burden to overcome, specifically the presumption that the parents were acting in the child's best interests.
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
Which is why I said they need parents to consent for them.
This seems to be another way of putting what I said: the parents force baptism on the child, who can't consent.

It’s clearly not, or parents wouldn’t have their children baptized.
There are countless people all over the world who have never been baptized but are just fine.

Show me a child who was never fed who did just fine.



Wrong. Stop lying about others’ motives and putting things in a biased light just because you were hurt. Your experience is not universal and does not apply to religion in general.
This has nothing to do with me, and it's not a lie.

I'm sure you know full well that - depending on the specific denomination - baptism is at least the declaration that the child will be raised to be a Christian, and at worst, it's considered the act that makes the child irrevocably Christian for life.

Either way, it's effectively flipping the bird at the idea that the child should be free to follow their conscience when it comes to religion when they're old enough to do so.
 

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
Then how do you explain the command that homosexual males are to be put to death, and that their blood is on their hands? How do you explain the mandate to kill apostates? What about "a woman should be quiet in church, hamg her head in humility, and if she has a question ask her husband at home"?
1) my church is in the mainstream. We don’t do any of these things. I don’t know why your feel this is germane to the topic. Unless you’e making demands or assumptions that we implicitly and without thought see the texts as infallible, immutable, and absolutely binding upon us. We don’t.
2) I explain it as ancient circumstances born out of a particular culture and particular morals.
3) I think you’re misapprehending the bit about women.

I am most definitely not an evangelical. Not even a disgruntled one
You mentioned above that you. Left an evangelical church 20 years ago...

Of course you do. But claiming a lack of it would be detrimental is not something science would support
Science supports the position that meditation, yoga, contemplation, and other spiritual practices are physically beneficial.
 
Last edited:

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
This "lack of wholeness" is not something you can demonstrate. It is a question of metaphysics. Such things are not sufficient for overriding the rights to determination of a human being. If metapbysics is it, rhe child should choose for themselves.
I think it is something that can be demonstrable, both from a physiological and psychological standpoint. Nonetheless, metaphysics is one area in which parents should make choices on behalf of their children. Here’s an example: I have a very dear friend who’s atheist. Their son wanted to play soccer in an Upward (faith-based) program. They made the decision for him not to participate. Are you saying that he should have just been allowed to do whatever he wanted, when his parents felt it was not good for him? If a parent feels a spiritual upbringing is best, that’s the parent’s decision to make, not the child’s. Any any court in the land would uphold that as part of legal, parental oversight.
 

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
They demand rights to not vaccinate. To make permanent and non necessary body modifications. Deny them education. Deny them healthcare so it will rear a "god fearing" adult. And when they leave they are ill prepared for the world. Because their rights were forfeit to the rights of selfish parents.
None of this in the mainstream, though, and the mainstream is the “norm.”
 

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
This seems to be another way of putting what I said: the parents force baptism on the child, who can't consent.
You’re making this a circular argument. You’re use of the word “force” is what’s at issue here. It isn’t “force” if the child is unable to consent for her/himself, anymore than diapering that same child is “forcing” her/his bathroom habits.

There are countless people all over the world who have never been baptized but are just fine.
It’s not baptism per se at issue. What’s really at issue is your objection to parents rearing a child with a particular spiritual foundation.

And I disagree that those who have no spiritual foundation have the same opportunities for wholeness as those who do.

This has nothing to do with me, and it's not a lie
I think it does, and it is a lie.

I'm sure you know full well that - depending on the specific denomination - baptism is at least the declaration that the child will be raised to be a Christian, and at worst, it's considered the act that makes the child irrevocably Christian for life
Your point? You think this is a bad thing? Let’s all wring our hands and throw ourselves off a cliff because a child was reared in the church “against her/his will.” That’s such BS. Children grow up and leave the church All. The. Time.

Either way, it's effectively flipping the bird at the idea that the child should be free to follow their conscience when it comes to religion when they're old enough to do so.
See above. Mainstream Xy doesn’t hold people hostage to faith, and if they do, they need to reevaluate their ethics.

If you're trying to say that unbaptized people are deficient, you may want to check your bigotry
That’s not what I’m saying. I’m saying that people who are not reared with a spiritual foundation don’t have the same opportunities to explore that aspect of themselves.
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber
None of this in the mainstream, though, and the mainstream is the “norm.”
Is thay why measles is making a comeback? Why school boards threaten education? Is this why states make religous exemptions for child abuse? Ask some mainstream denominations, and many will tell you it is there right to attack amd physically strike their children. It's only allowed because of religion and this absurd "parental sovereignty" that neglects to accept the rights of the child (such as not having their body hacked at or forced to undergo religious rituals without consenting to any of it).
Define “no problem.” Lack of wholeness is a problem.
No illness, no disease, there is nothing detrimental that will happen if you dont get your kid baptised or take them to religious services.
Or, clinically, they will be jusy fine and there will be no problems.

1) my church is in the mainstream. We don’t do any of these things. I don’t know why your feel this is germane to the topic. Unless you’e making demands or assumptions that we implicitly and without thought see the texts as infallible, immutable, and absolutely binding upon us. We don’t.
Then you are ignoring the commands and instructions in the book of your god. You are told to dp these things, yet you do not. Your sense of morality is better than Jehovah's. But you still are not following a commandment of his. It is an abomination you are accepting.
2) I explain it as ancient circumstances born out of a particular culture and particular morals.
Why does that not apply to the entire religion, including its god? By what standard is that prevented, averting the entire religion being dismissed as such?
3) I think you’re misapprehensions the bit about women.
Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.
1 Corinthians 14:34-35
A womana should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man she must be quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve.
1 Timothy 2:11-13
That is straight from the Bible.
You mentioned above that you. Left an evangelical church 20 years ago...
Yes. 20 years ago.I am no longer that now.
Science supports the position that meditation, yoga, contemplation, and other spiritual practices are physically beneficial.
Amd without them requiring religion spirituality. As an entirely secular appication, it works just as well.
And if rhe parents dont introduce their children to it? There are no associations with detrimental outcomes.

t isn’t “force” if the child is unable to consent for her/himself,
Then is rape the use of "force" if a woman is unable to give sexual consent?
 
Last edited:

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber
And I disagree that those who have no spiritual foundation have the same opportunities for wholeness as those who do.
You can not objectively demonstrate this. That makes it an unsuitable excuse to violate the rights of others as well as look down upon others. Or, arrogance to use common lingo.
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber
They made the decision for him not to participate. Are you saying that he should have just been allowed to do whatever he wanted, when his parents felt it was not good for him?
Why did they decline?
Any any court in the land would uphold that as part of legal, parental oversight.
Indiana has actually had a judge who ordered two divorcing parents, both who were Wicca, to not expose their child to "non mainstream religions," meaning Wicca.
The arguments about spirituality and religion and wholeness, the judge said the same things and he was legitimately concerned for the child's upbringing.
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber
No car rides? No problem
It is of it deprives the child of needs. Such as to school or doctors appointments.
No sex ed? No problem
That leads to teen pregnancy and the spread of STIs.
No vaccines? No problem
That is why things like measles are makimg a comeback. Without the snowflake special exemptions and privileges, withholding medical treatment is child abuse.
No braces? Most the time no problem
That can lead to dental problems as an adult.
No dietary restrictions such as vegertiasm or veganism? No problem
If you let your kid eat sugar and fat all day, and feed them protions that are too large, you are harming your child. There is no real benefits to going vegan or vegetarian, but it is a parents duty and responsibility to teach their children healthy eating. When the diet is bad enough, legally it can be child abuse.
No daily bath? No problem
No daily teeth brushing? No problem
If you consider a visit from child services because of your childs poor hygiene no problem.
 

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
clinically, they will be jusy fine and there will be no problems
”Clinically” is not the be-all-end-all determiner of human well-being.

Then you are ignoring the commands and instructions in the book of your god
A) It’s not “the book of my god.” It’s the collection of spiritual tradition of the Judaic and Christian faiths.
B) Those commandments have to be tempered by reason. Hence, why Jesus said it was OK for his disciples to pluck grain on the Sabbath.

You are told to dp these things, yet you do not
That’s because I’m not an Iron Age Jew.
But you still are not following a commandment of his. It is an abomination you are accepting
Jesus said to love God and love neighbor. All other commandments depend on those two.

Why does that not apply to the entire religion, including its god?
Because the entire religion isn’t just ancient, Palestinian Christians.
That is straight from the Bible
Is it? Or is it a later interpolation? What is the original Greek? What are the circumstances believed to precipitate the injunction? Very little in the Bible is “plain and obvious.” I think you’re misapprehending it.

Amd without them requiring religion spirituality
A narrow distinction of your own choosing. I don’t care to draw that distinction. Spiritual is spiritual.

Then is rape the use of "force" if a woman is unable to give sexual consent
Violence and parental oversight are two separate issues.
You can not objectively demonstrate this
I don’t have to. Can you objectively demonstrate that you love your significant other?
Why did they decline?
It was not in accord with their sincerely-held religious beliefs.

Indiana has actually had a judge who ordered two divorcing parents, both who were Wicca, to not expose their child to "non mainstream religions," meaning Wicca.
The arguments about spirituality and religion and wholeness, the judge said the same things and he was legitimately concerned for the child's upbringing
Yeah that s*** happens when parental sovereignty is eschewed.
 

Curious George

Veteran Member
It is of it deprives the child of needs. Such as to school or doctors appointments.

Not necessarily, and exceptions could be made for essentials

That leads to teen pregnancy and the spread of STIs.
Not necessarily.
That is why things like measles are makimg a comeback. Without the snowflake special exemptions and privileges, withholding medical treatment is child abuse.
Withholding necessary medical treatment can be child neglect, vaccines are not considered necessary medical treatment
That can lead to dental problems as an adult.
Can being the operative word. As i think you must see, this is not necessarily so
If you let your kid eat sugar and fat all day, and feed them protions that are too large, you are harming your child. There is no real benefits to going vegan or vegetarian, but it is a parents duty and responsibility to teach their children healthy eating. When the diet is bad enough, legally it can be child abuse.
Shame on all those parents for forcing their beliefs on children!
If you consider a visit from child services because of your childs poor hygiene no problem.
Child services are not going to come knocking because your child skipped a bath. Give me a break!
 
Top