Forced baptism and torts

[Shadow Wolf]

”Clinically” is not the be-all-end-all determiner of human well-being.

True, but its a great place to start when evaluating whether or not rights should be rescinded and denied, or what should or shouldnt be promoted. In this case, clinically, there is nothkng of detriment to not exposing your child to those things. Not forcing them through a baptism will not damage them. There is just not enough evidence to support a claim that it is necessary or even important, and when deciding social policy we must resort to secularism to be most far too all, lest your idea if whole gets promoted on scant evidence while someone elses idea of whole, also based on scant evidence, gets pushed aside. If you can't clinically demonstrate this harm and necessity of these rituals then you only have your beliefs. Beliefs are not suitable for policy. More of than not it tramples the rights of others. Such as forced baptisms of those who cannot understand or consent.

A) It’s not “the book of my god.” It’s the collection of spiritual tradition of the Judaic and Christian faiths.

Amd yet its a spiritual tradition where killing rebellious kids is the way.

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.

By what standards do you follow or ignore a rule?

That’s because I’m not an Iron Age Jew.

But you adhere to a religion that did appropriate the religion of those Iron Age Jews.

Jesus said to love God and love neighbor. All other commandments depend on those two.

Do you love your god by not following his commands and creating exceptions of your own devices on what and whem to follow them?

Because the entire religion isn’t just ancient, Palestinian Christians.

It is all based on their ancient superstitions, however, along with the even older superstitions and founding myths of the Hebrews.
That doesn't answer my question.

Is it? Or is it a later[/QUOTE
I pulled it straight from what is considered a canon part of the Bible.

A narrow distinction of your own choosing. I don’t care to draw that distinction. Spiritual is spiritual.

I have read the studies. You dont need religion or spirituality for those things.

Violence and parental oversight are two separate issues.

Forced is forced, consent is consent. If you cannot objectively demonstrate why your are forcing a child to do something, then it's not your right and you are being selfish and expecting your child to live your life, not theirs.

I don’t have to.

You do if you want to rescind the rights of another in issues that you cannot demonstrate an objective need to do so.

Can you objectively demonstrate that you love your significant other?

I do not have one.

It was not in accord with their sincerely-held religious beliefs.

Athiests do nit have a religion, thus it could have been of their "sincerely held religious beliefs."

Yeah that s*** happens when parental sovereignty is eschewed.

It still stands your point was wrong of "no court in tue land."
And when parental sovereignty is eschewed, abuse isnt protected. Children who want to leave the religious community as adults are ready for that step. Idaho wouldn't have a mountain of needlessly dead kids. Measles and polio don't make a comeback (this one especially revolves around selfish parents because not vaccinating their children puts their children and any who cannot be legitimately vaccinated at risk).

 

[sojourner]

True, but its a great place to start when evaluating whether or not rights should be rescinded and denied, or what should or shouldnt be promoted. In this case, clinically, there is nothkng of detriment to not exposing your child to those things. Not forcing them through a baptism will not damage them. There is just not enough evidence to support a claim that it is necessary or even important, and when deciding social policy we must resort to secularism to be most far too all, lest your idea if whole gets promoted on scant evidence while someone elses idea of whole, also based on scant evidence, gets pushed aside. If you can't clinically demonstrate this harm and necessity of these rituals then you only have your beliefs. Beliefs are not suitable for policy. More of than not it tramples the rights of others. Such as forced baptisms of those who cannot understand or consent

They don’t resist the baptism, therefore they’re not forced into it. The decision of what is necessary and important is, both by long-standing precedent and constitutional protection, granted to the parents.

Amd yet its a spiritual tradition where killing rebellious kids is the way

No one follows that tradition anymore.

By what standards do you follow or ignore a rule?

By the standard of what’s reasonable, appropriate, ethical, and beneficial in the current circumstance.

But you adhere to a religion that did appropriate the religion of those Iron Age Jews

No they didn’t.

Do you love your god by not following his commands and creating exceptions of your own devices on what and whem to follow them?

I love God by reflecting God.

It is all based on their ancient superstitions, however, along with the even older superstitions and founding myths of the Hebrews

It’s also expanded upon. Appropriately so.

 

[sojourner]

True, but its a great place to start when evaluating whether or not rights should be rescinded and denied, or what should or shouldnt be promoted. In this case, clinically, there is nothkng of detriment to not exposing your child to those things. Not forcing them through a baptism will not damage them. There is just not enough evidence to support a claim that it is necessary or even important, and when deciding social policy we must resort to secularism to be most far too all, lest your idea if whole gets promoted on scant evidence while someone elses idea of whole, also based on scant evidence, gets pushed aside. If you can't clinically demonstrate this harm and necessity of these rituals then you only have your beliefs. Beliefs are not suitable for policy. More of than not it tramples the rights of others. Such as forced baptisms of those who cannot understand or consent.


Amd yet its a spiritual tradition where killing rebellious kids is the way.

By what standards do you follow or ignore a rule?

But you adhere to a religion that did appropriate the religion of those Iron Age Jews.

Do you love your god by not following his commands and creating exceptions of your own devices on what and whem to follow them?

It is all based on their ancient superstitions, however, along with the even older superstitions and founding myths of the Hebrews.
That doesn't answer my question.

You’re going to have to repost this with appropriate quotes, because I’m unable to address individual points.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Interested to hear opinions regarding this story:

Parents Settle Lawsuit Over Disabled Son’s Forced Baptism
Should such a lawsuit be entertained?

Do you think this is evidence of our "litigious" society?

What remedy if any should be available?

Through what avenue should one pursue remedy in cases like this?

Coerced baptisms first of all should be considered null and void. Any input here from our resident Christians?

I cannot even begin to express the anger I feel about forced baptisms. The parents should make the choice before the age of consent, and the individual after that. Period.

There was a case where a Jewish child was hospitalized and close to death. A well intentioned but awful nun went against the obvious wishes of the parents and secretly baptized the boy, because she believed he would otherwise go to hell. Well... the boy recovered. Now the Catholic community was in the position of there being a baptized baby who would be raised as a Jew. They could not tolerate that, and stole the child from its Jewish parents in order to raise him Catholic.

Obscene.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

You’re going to have to repost this with appropriate quotes, because I’m unable to address individual points.

I went back with multiple tabs opened to reread to go back o whatvwas being addressed, amd still worked on reducing the number of replies, while on my phone.

They don’t resist the baptism, therefore they’re not forced into it.

That's what rapists often say. Not resisting is, very fortunately, not a legally valid defense. If it where all manners of atrocities would go unpunished against those who prey upon the weak and vulnerable. Except for when it comes to religion.

The decision of what is necessary and important is, both by long-standing precedent and constitutional protection, granted to the parents.

Which is unfortunate. Too many children have needlessly suffered and died because of this.

No one follows that tradition anymore.

But yet it's in there. It what your god wanted. It was what his prophets said and upheld. It the rules that are to be followed, and traditionally have been followed.

By the standard of what’s reasonable, appropriate, ethical, and beneficial in the current circumstance.

Yeah. Which is vastly superior to what your god gave as 10 Commandments. Because we learnes better things and of more complex concepts as time went on, and developed a code of morality that is superior to the ones given to us by most gods and most prophets. Nietzsche declared god is dead and we've never been better off, especially in regards to violence. For much of the world, the chances of dying a violent death have never been lower. The danger of being the victim of violence has never been lower. Europe is about 80 years without any major internal wars ir conflicts (this being the continent thatvsaw a 100 Years War [120 years]and other wars named for the decades of length they lasted).

No they didn’t.

They appropriated it from the Jews and changed things around. This is why thee are such chasms of discrepancies between Judaism and Christianity.

I love God by reflecting God.

But you pick and chose the laws of his you folow.

It’s also expanded upon. Appropriately so.

Because they've learned a lot. But, in general, they adhere to tradition and policy and take their religion far more seriously than most Christians. There expansions are subject to debate, and that debate is subject to debate. That's how Jews do their religion, with "arguing with god" being considered a tradition. Christianity, particularly in America, has adherents who champion the claim the Bible is all they need, and many denominations and chur hes are very insular and will are "trigger happy" about filtering and censoring information.

 

[sojourner]

That's what rapists often say

I’ve already adequately addressed this point.

Which is unfortunate. Too many children have needlessly suffered and died because of this

‘K. Let’s do a little experiment: Let’s just do away with “the parents are in charge” when you have a child of your own. Let’s let government agencies dictate every aspect of your child rearing from brand of diaper, to mealtimes, to bedtimes, kind of toothpaste, stories that are read at bedtime, music they may hear, shows they may watch, etc. We’ll just see how long it takes for you to call “invasion of privacy” and that your rights “are being trampled.” You see, the door swings both ways. The reason why parents retain sovereignty is because of the myriad constitutional problems that would result otherwise. We can’t live in a free nation and not have control of our own family’s lives.

But yet it's in there. It what your god wanted

No. I don’t believe it was “what God wanted.”

It was what his prophets said and upheld

I’m not beholden to those prophets.

Yeah. Which is vastly superior to what your god gave as 10 Commandments. Because we learnes better things and of more complex concepts as time went on, and developed a code of morality that is superior to the ones given to us by most gods and most prophets

Perhaps in some areas.

They appropriated it from the Jews and changed things around. This is why thee are such chasms of discrepancies between Judaism and Christianity

If that were the case, there’d be no more Jews.

But you pick and chose the laws of his you folow

I follow the ones appropriate to my circumstances. I’m not a Jew, so I don’t have to follow Judaic Law.

Because they've learned a lot. But, in general, they adhere to tradition and policy and take their religion far more seriously than most Christians. There expansions are subject to debate, and that debate is subject to debate. That's how Jews do their religion, with "arguing with god" being considered a tradition. Christianity, particularly in America, has adherents who champion the claim the Bible is all they need, and many denominations and chur hes are very insular and will are "trigger happy" about filtering and censoring information

I don’t see what this has to do with your wish of not allowing infant baptism? Or are you on a rant in general?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I’ve already adequately addressed this point.

It was with a different point. First it was because they cant refuse or consent, its ok. Now because they didnt resist it wasnt coerced. Rapist amd all sorts of abusers use that exact same mentality. Fortunately, by all standards of ethical consent, not resisting does not equate to consent or not forced. Because whem it is approached like that, medical abuses such as the ones you mentioned earlier happen.
Again, as I said before, we have learned in medicine amd healthcare. Religion? Not so much as you have demonstrated for us.

‘K. Let’s do a little experiment: Let’s just do away with “the parents are in charge” when you have a child of your own. Let’s let government agencies dictate every aspect of your child rearing from brand of diaper, to mealtimes, to bedtimes, kind of toothpaste, stories that are read at bedtime, music they may hear, shows they may watch, etc. We’ll just see how long it takes for you to call “invasion of privacy” and that your rights “are being trampled.”

That's rather extreme. I e suggested nothing of the sort. Rather than children nkt be forced to participate in a religious ritual. Enforcing a certain brand of diaper or bedtime is hardly comparable.

If that were the case, there’d be no more Jews.

Thats not how appropriation works. Its not driving into extintion, its taking an adoect if someone elses culture and traditions and claiming them for your own.

No. I don’t believe it was “what God wanted.”

But it is in his Holy Bible, both Old and New Testaments.

I’m not beholden to those prophets.

Too bad. Jesus said he didnt come to donaway with them or the law.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Interested to hear opinions regarding this story:

Parents Settle Lawsuit Over Disabled Son’s Forced Baptism
Should such a lawsuit be entertained?

I think it's justifiable in this case.

Do you think this is evidence of our "litigious" society?

No. I don't see where the group had any right to do this without parental permission (given that it was a minor) and that's without even considering coercion or his disability.

What remedy if any should be available?

In this specific case, and based only on the linked article, I think pursuing a civil case is appropriate. My assumption here is that the boy gave some form of concept (coerced or not) else I'd be thinking it's also criminal.

Through what avenue should one pursue remedy in cases like this?

Civil action seems appropriate.

Happy to extrapolate on any answers, etc, just thought I'd shoot for brevity to start with.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Could do what some Pagans did during the Baltic Crusades.

The tribe was marched through a river to mass baptise them, but when the Christians had gone they marched back the other way to unbaptise themselves

Didn't need a single lawyer...

Bahaha...I remember asking my mum how to unbaptise me, and that she shouldn't have baptised me without permission. I was probably...I dunno...14 or 15 at the time?
There was an element of truth in what I was saying, but she wasn't trying to harm me...just following cultural norms, really.
Still, the thought of walking backwards through a river made me chuckle.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Stop being so legalistic and be a little more realistic.

She was behaving in a very religious way. Little different from the dude who pushed a disabled kid's head underwater. Or the religious folks claiming that gay people are damaged. Abrahamic religions teach people that what really matters is the afterlife, damage done to living people doesn't matter if done in a scriptural way.
Tom

I don't think he was being legalistic...

I've encountered a LOT of Christians with heretical beliefs per the tenet of the religion they claim to follow. Forced baptisms would seem to fit into that category.
And I know that's kinda your point (that people behave in this manner for what they see as valid religious reasons), but I always find it frustrating and a little hard to believe when people aren't aware of the basic tenets of their own religion.

The trinity and how it's described is the simplest example of that, but I would imagine baptisms without consent is more problematic, given third party involvement.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

@Shadow Wolf , are you suggesting you would put specific laws in place to prevent baptism until a child is an adult and can give their own consent?

 

[Augustus]

Bahaha...I remember asking my mum how to unbaptise me

Just convert to anabaptism and it becomes no different from washing your face

Could start an anabaptist atheist movement to save people's souls from heaven

 

[Shadow Wolf]

@Shadow Wolf , are you suggesting you would put specific laws in place to prevent baptism until a child is an adult and can give their own consent?

Baptism, I haven't really fully thought it through to that extent to determine "when." I'm even opposed tonparents getting their baby and little girl's ears pierced because it is a body modification. This holds for religious body modifications, except like other body modifications I would ban those until the normal age for those (typically, here at least 16 and 17 with parental consent, and many will not work on minors).

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Could start an anabaptist atheist movement to save people's souls from heaven

I don't even know if I still get to go or not. That would have to majorly suck for people in Heaven if I do though. Spend my youth fiercely devoted, get baptised, spend my later teens on an anti-christ and sin in delight and delight in sinning, but I got my "get out of Hell" card so my eternity is looking rad!

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Baptism, I haven't really fully thought it through to that extent to determine "when." I'm even opposed tonparents getting their baby and little girl's ears pierced because it is a body modification. This holds for religious body modifications, except like other body modifications I would ban those until the normal age for those (typically, here at least 16 and 17 with parental consent, and many will not work on minors).

Cool...the exact age doesn't matter, more the concept.
I'm very much a secularist, though of course people use that term differently. But basically I'm firmly against laws with religious exemption or variance.

So I'd be against an anti-baptism law, for example, no matter my personal opinion on baptism of children.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

So I'd be against an anti-baptism law, for example, no matter my personal opinion on baptism of children.

I used to be that way, but ive read many stories of adults who's lives were off to a hard and underprepared start as adults because here, in America at least, children are viewes closer to being the property of the parents than humans. This is why there is crap for sex ed here. Because parents have too much say. Enforcing no forced baptisms or dedication ceremonies is more about the statement that children ae still human beings entitled to self-determination (not fully, obviously, but nevertheless, some things children should be able to chos3, especiallyif it makes no real difference if somethingis done to a child or not. The paents are there to guide and teach their children, not force them down a path that leaves them illiterate, unvaccinated, and unprepared should they find their own way in life.

 

[Vouthon]

Coerced baptisms first of all should be considered null and void. Any input here from our resident Christians?

I refer you to my previous postings in this thread, where I addressed this issue 'doctrinally'. Needless to say, since the time of the Church Fathers (i.e. Lactantius, Tertullian, John Chrysostom, Pope Gregory the Great etc.) and just after their era in its definition as de fide at the Council of Toledo in the seventh century, subsequently reiterated by numerous papal bulls such as Sicut Judaeis and incoporated into canon law, the church has always condemned forced baptism as a mortal sin and excommunicable offence (also warranting compensation and appropriate punishment under law).

Likewise, I also discussed the facts of that disturbing situation involving the baptised Jewish child and Pius IX in my second post (linked below):

Forced baptism and torts

Forced baptism and torts

Forced baptism and torts

Forced baptism and torts


A few choice statements from authoritative churchmen, with the references for you to read the original documents yourself if interested:

First, beginning with the Patristics / Church Fathers (equivalent in stature within Catholicism and Orthodoxy to the tannaim Rabbis of the Mishnah in Judaism):

Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol III: Tertullian [155 – c. 240 AD]: Part I: Chapter XXIV. | St-Takla.org


"...Let one man worship God, another Jupiter; let one lift suppliant hands to the heavens, another to the altar of Fides; let one — if you choose to take this view of it — count in prayer the clouds, and another the ceiling panels; let one consecrate his own life to his God, and another that of a goat. For see that you do not give a further ground for the charge of irreligion, by taking away religious liberty, and forbidding free choice of deity, so that I may no longer worship according to my inclination, but am compelled to worship against it. Not even a human being would care to have unwilling homage rendered him..."


CHURCH FATHERS: To Scapula (Tertullian [155 – c. 240 AD])

"...It is a fundamental human right, a privilege of nature, that every man should worship according to his own convictions: one man's religion neither harms nor helps another man. It is assuredly no part of religion to compel religion — to which free-will and not force should lead us..."


CHURCH FATHERS: Divine Institutes, Book V (Lactantius [c. 250 – c. 325])

There is no occasion for violence and injury, for religion cannot be imposed by force; the matter must be carried on by words rather than by blows, that the will may be affected. Let them unsheath the weapon of their intellect; if their system is true, let it be asserted. We are prepared to hear, if they teach; while they are silent, we certainly pay no credit to them, as we do not yield to them even in their rage.

Let them imitate us in setting forth the system of the whole matter: for we do not entice, as they say; but we teach, we prove, we show. And thus no one is detained by us against his will, for he is unserviceable to God who is destitute of faith and devotedness...

For if you wish to defend religion by bloodshed, and by tortures, and by guilt, it will no longer be defended, but will be polluted and profaned. For nothing is so much a matter of free-will as religion; in which, if the mind of the worshipper is disinclined to it, religion is at once taken away, and ceases to exist.​

CHURCH FATHERS: Divine Institutes, Book II (Lactantius [c. 250 – c. 325])

It is therefore right, especially in a matter on which the whole plan of life turns, that every one should place confidence in himself, and use his own judgment and individual capacity for the investigation and weighing of the truth, rather than through confidence in others to be deceived by their errors, as though he himself were without understanding.


Pope St. Gregory the Great, Qui Sincera, November, 602 AD:

Those who sincerely desire to bring those outside the Christian religion to the correct faith should be earnestly engaged in displays of courtesy, not harshness, lest hostility drive far away those whose minds a clearly thought out reason could challenge. For whoever acts otherwise, and wants to keep them away from their customary practice of rites under this pretext, is shown to be more concerned with his own interests than with those of God.

For the Jews who live in Naples complained to Us that some people have unreasonably sought to prevent them from celebrating some of their solemn feast days, so that they were not permitted to celebrate their solemn festivals, as they, up to the present, and their ancestors for a long time previously, were allowed to observe or honor. If such is the case, these men seem to be engaged in a useless pursuit.

This, then, is the agendum: by being encouraged more by reason and gentleness, they are to wish to follow, not flee from us, so that by showing them what we affirm from their Scriptures, we may be able, with God’s help, to convert them to the bosom of Mother Church. And thus, Your Fraternity, as far as possible with God’s help, should awaken them to conversion by admonitions and not allow them to be further disturbed in their celebrations. But they should have complete freedom to observe and celebrate all their feast and holy days as up till now … they have possessed.


(continued...)​

 

[Vouthon]

Canon 57 of the 4th Council of Toledo IV (633 A.D.), citing Romans 9:18:

In respect to Jews, this holy synod has resolved, that in future no one shall be compelled to receive our faith; for God hath mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth; as such persons are not saved unwillingly, but by consent, that the attribute of justice be preserved entire.

For as man perished by his own free will in submitting to the serpent, so when the grace of God calleth, every man is saved by believing, by the conversion of his own mind...They should be persuaded to convert, therefore,of their own free choice, rather than forced by violence


The Responses of Pope Nicholas I to the Questions of the Bulgars A.D. 866

Chapter XLI.

Concerning those who refuse to receive the good of Christianity and sacrifice and bend their knees to idols, we can write nothing else to you than that you move them towards the right faith by warnings, exhortations, and reason rather than by force....[cf. Jer. 1:16]

Yet, violence should by no means be inflicted upon them to make them believe. For everything which is not voluntary, cannot be good; for it is written: Willingly shall I sacrifice to you,[Ps. 53:8] and again: Make all the commands of my mouth your will,[Ps. 118:108] and again, And by my own will I shall confess to Him.[Ps. 27:7] Indeed, God commands that willing service be performed only by the willing.

But if you ask about what should be judged concerning faithless persons of this sort, listen to the apostle Paul who, when he wrote to the Corinthians, says: Why indeed is it my business to judge concerning those who are outside? Do you not judge concerning those who are inside? God will judge those who are outside. [I Cor. 5:12-13] It is as if he said: Concerning those who are outside our religion, I shall judge nothing, but I shall save them for the judgment of God, Who is going to judge all flesh.

Chapter CII.

We have taught above that violence should not be inflicted upon the pagan in order to make him become a Christian.



Pope Alexander II, Licet Ex (to Prince Landolfo of Benevento), 1065 AD:

Although We have no doubt it stems from the zeal of devotion that Your Nobility arranges to lead Jews to the worship of Christendom, We have nonetheless thought it necessary to send you Our letter by way of admonishment, since you seem to do it with a zeal that is inordinate.

For we do not read that our Lord Jesus Christ violently forced anyone into his service, but that by humble exhortation, leaving to each person his own freedom of choice, he recalled from error whomsoever he had predestined to eternal life, doing so not by judging them, but by shedding his own blood. …

Likewise, the blessed Gregory forbids, in one of his letters, that the said people should be drawn to the faith by violence.


POPE INNOCENT III, On the Jews and Forced Baptisms (1199)

Just as, therefore there ought not to be license for the Jews to presume to go beyond what is permitted them by law in their synagogues, so in those which have been conceded to them, they ought to suffer no prejudice....

We, out of the meekness proper to Christian piety, and keeping in the footprints of Our predecessors of happy memory, the Roman Pontiffs Calixtus, Eugene, Alexander, Clement, and Celestine, admit their petition, and We grant them the buckler of Our protection.

For we make the law that no Christian compel them, unwilling or refusing, by violence to come to baptism...Indeed, he is not considered to possess the true faith of the Christianity who is recognized to have come to Christian baptism, not spontaneously, but unwillingly.

Too, no Christian ought to presume, apart from the juridicial sentence of the territorial power, wickedly to injure their persons, or with violence to take away their property, or to change the good customs which they have had until now in whatever region they inhabit.

Besides, in the celebration of their own festivals, no one ought to disturb them in any way, with clubs or stones, nor ought any one try to require from them or to extort from them services they do not owe, except for those they have been accustomed from times past to perform.

In addition to these, We decree, blocking the wickedness and avarice of evil men, that no one ought to dare to mutilate or diminish a Jewish cemetery, nor, in order to get money, to exhume bodies once they have been buried.

If anyone, however shall attempt, the tenor of this decree once known, to go against it - may this be far from happening! - let him be punished by the vengeance of excommunication, unless he correct his presumption by making equivalent satisfaction.


Pope Innocent IV Bull (1247) to the bishops of France:

Certain of the clergy, and princes, nobles and great lords of your cities and dioceses have falsely devised certain godless plans against the Jews, unjustly depriving them by force of their property, and appropriating it themselves; . . . they falsely charge them with dividing up among themselves on the Passover the heart of a murdered boy. . . .

In their malice, they ascribe every murder, wherever it chance to occur, to the Jews. And on the ground of these and other fabrications, they are filled with rage against them, rob them of their possessions without any formal accusation, without confession, and without legal trial and conviction, contrary to the privileges granted to them by the Apostolic See. . . .

They oppress the Jews by starvation, imprisonment, and by tortures and sufferings; they afflict them with all kinds of punishments, and sometimes even condemn them to death, so the Jews, although living under Christian princes, are in a worse plight than were their ancestors in the land of the Pharaohs. They are driven to leave in despair the land in which their fathers have dwelt since the memory of man. . . .

Since it is our pleasure that they shall not be disturbed, . . . we ordain that ye behave towards them in a friendly and kind manner. Whenever any unjust attacks upon them come under your notice, redress their injuries, and do not suffer them to be visited in the future by similar tribulations.
​

Pope Gregory X, Bull (1272)

We decree moreover that no Christian shall compel them or any one of their group to come to baptism unwillingly. But if any one of them shall take refuge of his own accord with Christians, because of conviction, then, after his intention will have been manifest, he shall be made a Christian without any intrigue.

For, indeed, that person who is known to have come to Christian baptism not freely, but unwillingly, is not believed to posses the Christian faith...

Moreover, if any one, after having known the content of this decree, should — which we hope will not happen — attempt audaciously to act contrary to it, then let him suffer punishment in his rank and position, or let him be punished by the penalty of excommunication, unless he makes amends for his boldness by proper recompense...


(continued...)​

 

[Vouthon]

Immortale Dei (November 1, 1885) | LEO XIII

The Church is wont to take earnest heed that no one shall be forced to embrace the Catholic faith against his will, for, as St. Augustine wisely reminds us, "Man cannot believe otherwise than of his own will".


Pope Benedict XV Letter published in Civilita Catolica (1916):

The Supreme Pontiff.... as Head of the Catholic Church, which, faithful to its divine doctrines and its most glorious traditions, considers all men as brothers and teaches them to love one another, he never ceases to indicate among individuals, as well as among peoples, the observance of the principles of the natural law, and to condemn everything that violates them. This law must be observed and respected in the case of the children of Israel, as well as of all others, because it would not be conformable to justice or to religion itself to derogate from it solely on account of divergence of religious confessions


DIGNITATIS HUMANAE

(Second Vatican Council's Declaration on Religious Freedom)

PROMULGATED BY HIS HOLINESS
POPE PAUL VI
ON DECEMBER 7, 1965

This Vatican Council likewise professes its belief that it is upon the human conscience that these obligations fall and exert their binding force. The truth cannot impose itself except by virtue of its own truth, as it makes its entrance into the mind at once quietly and with power.

This Vatican Council declares that the human person has a right to religious freedom. This freedom means that all men are to be immune from coercion on the part of individuals or of social groups and of any human power, in such wise that no one is to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his own beliefs, whether privately or publicly...

It follows that a wrong is done when government imposes upon its people, by force or fear or other means, the profession or repudiation of any religion, or when it hinders men from joining or leaving a religious community....

It is one of the major tenets of Catholic doctrine that man's response to God in faith must be free: no one therefore is to be forced to embrace the Christian faith against his own will.(8) This doctrine is contained in the word of God and it was constantly proclaimed by the Fathers of the Church.(7)

12. In faithfulness therefore to the truth of the Gospel, the Church is following the way of Christ and the apostles when she recognizes and gives support to the principle of religious freedom as befitting the dignity of man and as being in accord with divine revelation. Throughout the ages the Church has kept safe and handed on the doctrine received from the Master and from the apostles. In the life of the People of God, as it has made its pilgrim way through the vicissitudes of human history, there has at times appeared a way of acting that was hardly in accord with the spirit of the Gospel or even opposed to it. Nevertheless, the doctrine of the Church that no one is to be coerced into faith has always stood firm.​

I could keep quoting Chrch Fathers and papal bulls and church councils and theologians, but I imagine that would be tediously boring for the rest of the membership

2,000 years = a lot of documentation to wade through

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I used to be that way, but ive read many stories of adults who's lives were off to a hard and underprepared start as adults because here, in America at least, children are viewes closer to being the property of the parents than humans. This is why there is crap for sex ed here. Because parents have too much say. Enforcing no forced baptisms or dedication ceremonies is more about the statement that children ae still human beings entitled to self-determination (not fully, obviously, but nevertheless, some things children should be able to chos3, especiallyif it makes no real difference if somethingis done to a child or not. The paents are there to guide and teach their children, not force them down a path that leaves them illiterate, unvaccinated, and unprepared should they find their own way in life.

I understand your position, I just don't agree with it. Not trying to change your mind here, just explaining my view...

Something harms a child, or it doesn't.

Splashing water on a kids head? Causes no harm.
Religious beliefs should be treated the same under law as other beliefs. There is nothing special about them...legally...no protection afforded them.
But to me that belief cuts both ways. If there's nothing special about them, then so be it. They shouldn't be targetted by laws either.

Now, if you're suggesting religion should be legislated against? I don't think that society ends up in a good place.

If you're NOT suggesting legislating against religion (at least in terms of religious schools, attendance at church, etc)...then what are we talking about???