Christening/ baptism should I or shouldn't i?

janninew

Plans_all_plans wrote: »

Getting a child baptised when you have no intention of fulfilling the promises you make is wrong in my opinion also. It is also the reason I will refuse to be godmother for my friend's child if she asks me (I think it is more than likely she will) as I know she has no intention of following through with the promises she'll make on the day of the baptism.

BUT, the original poster is a practising Catholic and her children attend Mass with her. All the anti-religion posters are missing that point and are focusing on why they feel religion is not relevant to them. Religion clearly IS relevant to LilacPixie and in her set of circumstances, baptising her children makes the most sense.

The OP's husband isn't a Catholic though and she does state that they decided when they had children to let them choose their own religion. I suppose Lilacpixie needs to talk with her husband and decide, it obvious that baptising doesn't make the most sense yet, otherwise she wouldn't be asking on here and questioning what she should do!

Person_one

lostinrates wrote: »

Many Christian and aethiest men are circumcised. My father, from a very un Jewish background was, it was just ''the norm''. As a matter of fact all the men I have ''known'' have happened to be circumcised, most were of a ''British'' background. A friend of mine, a GP has a special interest in the subject and wrote and researched a paper showing something or other about reduced incidence of certain health problems. Circumcision is not defining of 'what you are'' any more than a name is IMO. And there are plenty of aethiests bearing ''Christian'' names!

To Jews, circumcision represents a covenant between them and their god, its done specifically to be a symbol of faith. I know I know, its a pretty weird god that collects chopped off bit of penises, but it really is very intrinsic to male Jewish identity, many feel you aren't Jewish for those first few days until its done.

Plans_all_plans

janninew wrote: »

The OP's husband isn't a Catholic though and she does state that they decided when they had children to let them choose their own religion. I suppose Lilacpixie needs to talk with her husband and decide, it obvious that baptising doesn't make the most sense yet, otherwise she wouldn't be asking on here and questioning what she should do!

Well I see your point. However, my view is that if her husband was that concerned about them "not sticking to their decision" then he'd have said something about LilacPixie taking the kids to church already.

What I'm struggling with is why someone would continue to raise their children as Catholics - which is what is happening - without formalising it. That's why I think it makes most sense to baptise.

lostinrates

Person_one wrote: »

To Jews, circumcision represents a covenant between them and their god, its done specifically to be a symbol of faith. I know I know, its a pretty weird god that collects chopped off bit of penises, but it really is very intrinsic to male Jewish identity, many feel you aren't Jewish for those first few days until its done.

Honestly, I get this.having married into a Jewish family it was explained to me with great enthusiasm by the observant members of the family...including a rabbi...but it doesn't have to define a non believer. Its not as if ONLY Jewish people are circumcised. The fact of it being something that you have no choice over is why I chose names as a comparison. My husband feels no more Jewish (dispite being circumcised) than he doies Christian..having been brought up in an overwhelmingly agnositc environment within countries where th overwhelming culture was derived from at least a background of Christianity. His missing bit means as little him as a list I'm on saying I was babtised, and is no more defining of what he is now!

GracieP

poet123 wrote: »

So you had the option of having your baptism certificate annotated (note, not negated or removed) did you take it up? Quite a large window of opportunity there imo.


I suspect that having someone through the records was a costly exercise, was there a charge?

Again you are making assumptions based on your suspicions, rather than the facts. According to EU law the church has to annotate it's baptismal records and the cost must be borne by them otherwise it's in breach of numerous Data Protection Acts. They bear the costs because they choose to use the register politically.

I had an application put in for a defection in that period. (The annotation is a statement of defection, so you can no longer be counted among the membership, btw. I'm not sure what point you think you were making there?) It was through the NGO "Count Me Out" which is an organisation established to do the brunt of the costly administrative work. However the church kept blocking my application. Actually going out of their way to block it. I was not resident in the country I was baptised in but when the parish priest requested a meeting with me in order to allow my defection, I flew there in order to meet with him. This meeting is not necessary to the defection but is a common delaying tactic. He did not convince me to disallow my defection and said he'd proceed with it, but he did not and requested another meeting. Again I acquiesced, again at cost of money and time to me, and again the discussion went the same way with him agreeing to amend the register. But he didn't and when it was chased up by Count Me Out they said they needed to see me again. At this point a group action was to be taken to force the defections as the same thing had happened to 1000s of people. The Church were clearly actively delaying following the law. And in this time Canon Law was changed and they say they can no longer make the defections. This is in defiance of actual law so either one or a number of court cases are being planned.

Seriously, you don't know about how this works. You don't know about why it works as it does. You don't know about the laws surrounding this, or the thousands of people and numerous organisations who are involved in it. That's fine, most people don't. But maybe when you find yourself in a debate about the subject with someone who does know these things, you ask rather than assume? Nearly every point you make is prefaced with I doubt, I suspect, I think, but you don't know. I do, I've been through the process, my closest friend worked for a diocesan office, I've been a political lobbyist.

The figures are something I have on hard copy, because I know 2 of the people preparing a case for the EU courts. But if you go to the defection body of each nation of Europe you will see their figures for suspended defections, then you add them together and get a 6 figure sum. Additionally in North America and Western Europe, membership of the Roman Catholic Church is falling more dramatically than it has since the Reformation. The Holy See have a correction of this trend at the top of their concerns.

Person_one

lostinrates wrote: »

Honestly, I get this.having married into a Jewish family it was explained to me with great enthusiasm by the observant members of the family...including a rabbi...but it doesn't have to define a non believer. Its not as if ONLY Jewish people are circumcised. The fact of it being something that you have no choice over is why I chose names as a comparison. My husband feels no more Jewish (dispite being circumcised) than he doies Christian..having been brought up in an overwhelmingly agnositc environment within countries where th overwhelming culture was derived from at least a background of Christianity. His missing bit means as little him as a list I'm on saying I was babtised, and is no more defining of what he is now!

So he lost that part of his body, without his consent, for nothing.

Basically, everything religions do to try and 'claim' babies for their own club can die out tomorrow for me.

POPPYOSCAR

poet123 wrote: »

No, a baptismal register is there forever, it is a record of an event.

Hardly a register of how many people are 'members' of the R.C.Church then, is it!!

I really do not see what all the fuss is about personally about still being 'registered' - it is not a problem for me.

OP you do what is in the best interests of your child and if that means getting her baptised so she can go to a church school etc. you do it if that is what you want.I sometimes wish I had(what a hypocrite that would have made me!!)

She will come to her own conclusions about religion when she is older, just like I did.

lostinrates

Person_one wrote: »

So he lost that part of his body, without his consent, for nothing.

Basically, everything religions do to try and 'claim' babies for their own club can die out tomorrow for me.

Well, if my friend is right its not for nothing and has had certain health risk reduction factors. (and I have no baasis apart from that friend's study to debate that with, I dare say people try and use similar justification for more brutal less ''benign'' operations). I also have no idea why it was common in UK non-jewish families...like my dad and previous ''squeezes''.

And not for nothing exactly culturally either. He is not Jewish, but he owes something to the elements of his cultural background. |Just as I am not Catholic but have chosen to take the parts of Christian life that benefited me into a non-Chritian adulthood.

Mojisola

lostinrates wrote: »

Well, if my friend is right its not for nothing and has had certain health risk reduction factors. (and I have no baasis apart from that friend's study to debate that with, I dare say people try and use similar justification for more brutal less ''benign'' operations). I also have no idea why it was common in UK non-jewish families...like my dad and previous ''squeezes''.

It's well established that circumcised men have fewer urinary tract infections and a lower risk of STDs. Also, the long-term female partners of circumcised men are at lower risk of cancer of the cervix.

These improvements in health can be matched by uncircumcised men who are careful about their hygiene!

Person_one

lostinrates wrote: »

Well, if my friend is right its not for nothing and has had certain health risk reduction factors. (and I have no baasis apart from that friend's study to debate that with, I dare say people try and use similar justification for more brutal less ''benign'' operations). I also have no idea why it was common in UK non-jewish families...like my dad and previous ''squeezes''.

And not for nothing exactly culturally either. He is not Jewish, but he owes something to the elements of his cultural background. |Just as I am not Catholic but have chosen to take the parts of Christian life that benefited me into a non-Chritian adulthood.

The health benefits are negligible, proper hygiene will achieve the same, and grossly exaggerated by people in the US who have a vested interest in keeping it going. I blame puritan attitudes towards sexual pleasure, if it feels nice when you touch it then it must be evil. Nearly all males are circumcised as standard there.

Babies have died and lost their penises due to infant circumcision.