Atheist Wins Right to Have Baptism Removed
0
Let the infant-de-baptism’s begin!
This isn’t the latest news but I only just came across it recently.
I think it’s interesting that an Atheist wishes to revoke a religious act that he believes holds no spiritual power. Although I can understand his point that he wishes it to be noted that he did no consent to this religious act.
Interesting times.
Atheist wins right to have baptism removed as he did not consent as a baby – Telegraph.
How do you feel or what do you think about this?
Recent Entries
- God did not create Universe: Hawking
- Is Religion Inherently Violent?
- The ‘Spirit’ in the Machine?
- Charity
- YouTube – God is a Girl – Groove Coverage
- Who is in charge of the mission of the Church?
- Vatican Revises Abuse Process, but Causes Stir
- How Should We Pray?
- The “Childishness” of God
- The Alpha and The Omega
I could be way off base here, but isn’t this really just a way to slap religion in the face? Obviously there are many things that all of us were subjected to as children that we may or may not agree with or like at this point in our lives as we look back, but to seek out a “de-baptism”? To me this just smacks of a biterness that is not really grounded in any justifiable philosophical position. For example, the comment that “I did not consent” is really just the same old, over-used liberal ideal that at the end of the day the only thing that matters is “choice”. But, if choice is the highest good, then I believe we live in a scary world. By this logic, why, I wonder, would not someone who wishes to achieve assisted suicide not by the same token be able to, without any community intervention, assistance, or counselling, request a certificate stating that he/she did not “consent” to being born and thus deserves to be granted the right to die? Choice simply cannot be the highest ideal.
This is not to say that freedom of choice is not high up on the ethical chain, but it is to say that choice can’t simply be the sole determinative factor for ethics, whether those ethics are within the sphere of politics or child-rearing. Thus, it is important to give children freedom to express themselves and not limit them through brainwashing, but it is ludicrous to think that at the end of the day, parents simply allow their children in every situation to make their own choices; parents are constantly guiding their kids in particular directions in order to protect them and instill in them a sense of tradition and history. While this has certainly been abused, it does not, I believe, warrant a revolt against the past in such a way as this gentleman has decided it does.
Zac
Although I DO think it should be an individuals decision to become baptized, I think it is funny that an Athiest would try so hard to have something removed from record that one would think to them would hold no merit anyway.
He said it was to send a signal to the church and government, but the church and government aren’t forcibly baptizing infants.
It was his parent’s will that he be baptized. I think a 56 year old man is a little old to still be rebelling against his parents.
mfakkyfp…
mfakkyfp…