| This is the litigation: The european court convicted a national state for violation of the human rights of an atheist/agnostic woman and her newborn child. She opposed the baptism done by the father without the consent of the woman and their child. The case has been brought up by the appeal to the european court of justice of the wife who was convicted by the national courthouse to have commited intimidation and abandonment of the conjugal roof, as she was against the baptism of her child, strongly supported by his father and grandparents (father side), she asked for a legal anulment of the sacrament. The speech of the judges: The national state, allowing baptism of newborns, violates ECHR articles 9 and 14, as newborns are unable to understand and take action. In the particular case, they are obliged to join and take part in a religious community for the rest of their lifes. The imposition of a rite called sacrament reveals a doctrine which considers people like objects which destiny is already decided without them knowing by a religious organisation. In fact, baptism creates an undelible mark, making the newborn become part and member of it without him knowing or willing, subjugating him to its rules and authority. As it can be read by the article 96 of Catholic code of law: "Through baptism man is incorporated into the church of christ, in which he is acknowledged as a person, with all its rights and obligations that come with his condition." This practise also harms the superior interest of the child, sanctioned by the article 3 of the international convention on the rights of the child, ratified by the national state and its law. This has not really happened, but it's a simulation of what could happen if someone appeals to the EU court of justice. I think it's very interesting, what do you think on the matter? Does baptism violate human rights in your point of view? |
RollTheJointMar 30, 2015 4:01 AM
| Signature removed. Please follow the signature rules, as defined in the Site & Forum Guidelines. |
| Yes, I wouldn't baptize my offspring. |
| If you grow up in a religious household chances are you will be a part of that religion until you're old enough to make the decision for yourself anyway. It's all part of the brainwashing. Parents want what's best, at least in their minds, for their children. So there's not really much give when it comes to this. Like, you know religious people, they're nuts. Because that's how they were raised, just as their Grandparents were raised. And so on. It is pretty much a plague on society, though. As much as it pains me to say it this really wouldn't be a step in the right direction. All it'll do is cause fucking riots. Is it a violation of human rights? Nah. Baptism is just kind of a cultural thing. There's no literal harm in it. Except arguably mental well being or some other psychological nonsense that'll def go unfounded in any courtroom. And some people find happiness in religion because that's all they've ever known. They'd have a better case if they brought up circumcision or something. That shit stays with you for life. While being baptized is just kind of a ritual that you don't even remember. |
| I don't see anything bad with Baptism, considering it's only Water on the Forehead as opposed to having the Foreskin cut. Or else, you wouldn't be allowed to wash your Child. Christians over here usually need to confirm their Believes at around 14 (Protestants) or around 16 (Catholics) and they can opt-out before or after. The major Reason why this has even been considered a big Deal was because it was against the the Will of one (parental) Guardian. |
| Baptism is just like circumcision in my opinion. Nothing actually changes unless you're giving it way too much attention. Plus, I don't think the Church people are going to walk around with their guns on your head just because you are baptized. You could very well ignore the rules and move on. Just like circumcision, a parent baptizes his/her children in the best of the child's interests, in their view of course. So it's not really a violation of any sorts unless you're being pretentious. That's my opinion on it. |
[i]"Yet each man kills the thing he loves, [/i]By each let this be heard, Some do it with a bitter look, Some with a flattering word, The coward does it with a kiss, The brave man with a sword!'' ~Oscar |
geniobastardo said: This only holds Truth for Regions, in which Circumcision isn't considered unusual. Circumcised People (even if they're non-religious) might get stigmatized because of it, but no one would be able to see whether you have been or are Christian if you don't want to.Baptism is just like circumcision in my opinion. Nothing actually changes unless you're giving it way too much attention. Also, you're ignoring the Right of one (paternal) Guardian to not do anything like that. |
| It's just a splash of water, not something that causes lasting harm. I don't see why it would matter to an atheist anyway, since they don't believe in that mumbo-jumbo. |
 |
| the child has no control at that point anyway, what the law can do is allow the child to choose another religion or abandon religion when he/she becomes an adult so for me no harm done if the child is baptize |
| Not gonna touch too much on this topic, I'll keep my response simple. No, baptism does not violate human rights. |
| "In the end the World really doesn't need a Superman. Just a Brave one" |
Noboru said: geniobastardo said: This only holds Truth for Regions, in which Circumcision isn't considered unusual. Circumcised People (even if they're non-religious) might get stigmatized because of it, but no one would be able to see whether you have been or are Christian if you don't want to.Baptism is just like circumcision in my opinion. Nothing actually changes unless you're giving it way too much attention. Also, you're ignoring the Right of one (paternal) Guardian to not do anything like that. I've had this debate in that circumcision thread a week ago. Don't want to repeat it again so I'll make it short; anyone who thinks circumcision is genital mutilation is merely being pretentious and nothing else. The only drawback to circumcision that people CAN derive is a subjective one - less pleasure. There have been many surveys that indicate that circumcision doesn't always (like 80% of the time) result in the subject having his sexual pleasure abated. So we can conclude that it all depends on how well he was circumcised. And stigmatization doesn't really look like a problem to me. I don't know much about the "Right of one (parental) Guardian" so I'll refrain from commenting on that. |
[i]"Yet each man kills the thing he loves, [/i]By each let this be heard, Some do it with a bitter look, Some with a flattering word, The coward does it with a kiss, The brave man with a sword!'' ~Oscar |
geniobastardo said: Baptism is just like circumcision in my opinion. *snip* Just like circumcision, a parent baptizes his/her children in the best of the child's interests, in their view of course. So it's not really a violation of any sorts unless you're being pretentious. What if parents did some really messed up shit to their children but 'in the child's best interests, in their view of course'? Let's say that they mutilated the child's genitals. Or maybe they cut off the child's hands to stop them possibly hurting themselves. Or maybe they gouged out the child's eyes so that they wouldn't be falsely tempted by pornography. Or maybe they fed it hormones and altered its gender. Where do you draw the line and say that the child's own autonomy comes ahead of its parent's wishes? |
| Now you're wondering if there's white text in any of my other posts. Over there, I'm everywhere. I know that. |
icirate said: geniobastardo said: Baptism is just like circumcision in my opinion. *snip* Just like circumcision, a parent baptizes his/her children in the best of the child's interests, in their view of course. So it's not really a violation of any sorts unless you're being pretentious. What if parents did some really messed up shit to their children but 'in the child's best interests, in their view of course'? Let's say that they mutilated the child's genitals. Or maybe they cut off the child's hands to stop them possibly hurting themselves. Or maybe they gouged out the child's eyes so that they wouldn't be falsely tempted by pornography. Or maybe they fed it hormones and altered its gender. Where do you draw the line and say that the child's own autonomy comes ahead of its parent's wishes? Calm down. There's a fine line between mutilation and "just cutting 2 cm of skin" or "just pouring some damn water on the forehead". The 'mutilation' is clearly another case. I don't have time neither any interest in arguing slippery slopes. You damn well know the difference between the two, don't be pretentious. |
[i]"Yet each man kills the thing he loves, [/i]By each let this be heard, Some do it with a bitter look, Some with a flattering word, The coward does it with a kiss, The brave man with a sword!'' ~Oscar |
Wyzdm said: geniobastardo said: Baptism is just like circumcision in my opinion. Nothing actually changes unless you're giving it way too much attention. I believe there was a study saying that circumcision increases the chances of autism due to trauma or something. I'm too lazy to go research and check if it's legit or not. That's a thing of past. Anesthetics are the new age. Plus, the risk is almost negligible if it's done on infants. Even without the anesthetics. |
[i]"Yet each man kills the thing he loves, [/i]By each let this be heard, Some do it with a bitter look, Some with a flattering word, The coward does it with a kiss, The brave man with a sword!'' ~Oscar |
geniobastardo said: icirate said: What if parents did some really messed up shit to their children but 'in the child's best interests, in their view of course'? Let's say that they mutilated the child's genitals. Or maybe they cut off the child's hands to stop them possibly hurting themselves. Or maybe they gouged out the child's eyes so that they wouldn't be falsely tempted by pornography. Or maybe they fed it hormones and altered its gender. Where do you draw the line and say that the child's own autonomy comes ahead of its parent's wishes? There's a fine line between mutilation and "just cutting 2 cm of skin" or "just pouring some damn water on the forehead". The 'mutilation' is clearly another case. I don't have time neither any interest in arguing slippery slopes. You damn well know the difference between the two, don't be pretentious. Read the bold text. Obviously I don't think that pouring water on someone's head is mutilation, but removing only 2 cm of a particularly nerve-filled chunk of someone's skin still sounds exactly like mutilation to me. You're the one that invited scrutiny by comparing it to baptism. |
| Now you're wondering if there's white text in any of my other posts. Over there, I'm everywhere. I know that. |
Wyzdm said: geniobastardo said: That's a thing of past. Anesthetics are the new age. Plus, the risk is almost negligible if it's done on infants. Even without the anesthetics. False The people who say babies don’t feel pain are saying that because they can’t admit the truth to themselves. In 1997, doctors in Canada did a study to see what type of anesthesia was most effective in relieving the pain of circumcision. As with any study, they needed a control group that received no anesthesia. The doctors quickly realized that the babies who were not anesthetized were in so much pain that it would be unethical to continue with the study. Even the best commonly available method of pain relief studied, the dorsal penile nerve block, did not block all the babies’ pain. Some of the babies in the study were in such pain that they began choking and one even had a seizure (Lander 1997). Some babies that don’t scream are in shock, and their body doesn’t know how to respond to the overwhelming pain stimulus. http://intaction.org/10-myths-about-circumcision/ Who the hell said that the infants don't feel pain? pain is inevitable if done without the anesthetics. Read back, I said the "risk" is almost negligible. |
[i]"Yet each man kills the thing he loves, [/i]By each let this be heard, Some do it with a bitter look, Some with a flattering word, The coward does it with a kiss, The brave man with a sword!'' ~Oscar |
icirate said: Read the bold text. Obviously I don't think that pouring water on someone's head is mutilation, but removing only 2 cm of a particularly nerve-filled chunk of someone's skin still sounds exactly like mutilation to me. You're the one that invited scrutiny by comparing it to baptism. Suit yourself. I'm already over this debate a week ago. |
[i]"Yet each man kills the thing he loves, [/i]By each let this be heard, Some do it with a bitter look, Some with a flattering word, The coward does it with a kiss, The brave man with a sword!'' ~Oscar |
Wyzdm said: geniobastardo said: Who the hell said that the infants don't feel pain? pain is inevitable if done without the anesthetics. Read back, I said the "risk" is almost negligible. Even with anesthetics the baby might feel pain and no it's not negligible. I don't know where you're getting these statistics from. I personally have had an anesthetic used on me for reasons and I felt a little pain so the doctor had to inject more. A baby isn't able to communicate and if they feel a lot of pain they may go in shock. The risk of contracting autism is low NOT the damn pain. Don't make me repeat myself. It's probably got to do something with the brain that hasn't really developed in infants or some complicated stuff but this study is proven. |
[i]"Yet each man kills the thing he loves, [/i]By each let this be heard, Some do it with a bitter look, Some with a flattering word, The coward does it with a kiss, The brave man with a sword!'' ~Oscar |
Wyzdm said: Oh....Anyways it's wrong to inflict pain on such a young child so #BanCircumcision. I just remembered that this thread is about baptism....eh it's okay I guess. Nein. The medical benefits far surpass the pain inflicted on the child. Also, since there's no harm in it, it should be okay if done for religious purposes. |
[i]"Yet each man kills the thing he loves, [/i]By each let this be heard, Some do it with a bitter look, Some with a flattering word, The coward does it with a kiss, The brave man with a sword!'' ~Oscar |
| Meh, it's a tradition for the family and relatives, like wedding/funeral etc. Failing to see the social dimensions it has for the family and the child (i.e. religious studies, "confirmation", possible religious services in schools/military etc.) is more a problem of stupidity not atheism. It might not be the best of ideas to make your kid a rebel just because you want to be one. The real moral problem is if children need to pay tax without their own concent before even having the option to leave the church. Generally though, I'm rather pleased with how things are. Could be better and I left the church ages ago myself (which is a nice and harmless process nowadays), but ever since then I've seen "atheists" wasting their energy on stupid things like wanting to ban songs and shit. I no longer call myself one, because it has become about as ridiculous as feminism with random attacks on stuff that doesn't even matter and people who mind their own business. |
| I'm kinda hoping Rollthejoint has a counter to this since the thread is pretty much at a consensus.. geniobastardo said: holy water washes off, foreskin doesn't grow backBaptism is just like circumcision in my opinion. stop derailing, stay ignorant |
Fo-Fai said: I'm kinda hoping Rollthejoint has a counter to this since the thread is pretty much at a consensus.. Sorry, the only consensus I see is about baptism not being that much of a deal. And I agree with it too. Still, I might be interesting to debate about it Fo-Fai said: Is it a violation of human rights? Nah. Baptism is just kind of a cultural thing. There's no literal harm in it. Except arguably mental well being or some other psychological nonsense that'll def go unfounded in any courtroom. And some people find happiness in religion because that's all they've ever known. They'd have a better case if they brought up circumcision or something. That shit stays with you for life. While being baptized is just kind of a ritual that you don't even remember. Well, technically it clearly is. The references to the articles are not randomly placed. Psychological nonsense is what gets you money in such cases. I don't give a damn about the church and its funny ravings, but some people might. Why is your destiny decided by others? Why do they take it upon themselves to arbitrarily bind your life and afterdeath to their (made up) rules and organisation? Nowadays it's really hard to find people who believe in this bullshit and get really scared. Rare, but they do exist. And it's not like there is an easy opt-out option until you are not underagedanymore, do you image the ruckus you create if you don't take the confirmation sacrement? Teens of that age don't really have the option to seriously think about it and they still don't take the opting-out option seriously as it would make them leave their social group (teens about to receive confirmation) and on a social-abstract-general level, people tend to stay within their social groups. Why do I even have to bother to quit said religious organisation in the first place, it's not like I was an adult when they counted me in their ranks. Why does a human need to abandon a group of people in which he was forced to be placed? Why does he have to get through their resentment or hostility thrown at him for doing so? Is that right? Is that legit? I don't think it is right on an abstract level. From a social point of you it just seems wrong. We can't have baptism and circumcision on a same level. I don't want to touch that argument though as it has already been discussed a week ago. |
RollTheJointMar 30, 2015 5:42 AM
| Signature removed. Please follow the signature rules, as defined in the Site & Forum Guidelines. |
RollTheJoint said: Most of the time it isn't. Because not only is destiny just a silly buzzword but ultimately it is the individuals choice to stay with the church if they so choose, at least in the end. Why is your destiny decided by others? I'm pretty much with ya, though. The main issue is that half the time when you grow up christian, you stay christian. Just because it's easier? Or maybe because it's what you want and what you believe in. Either way, who's to say what you would have ended up believing in if not subjected to baptism, confirmation whatever. The flip side is the kid who, for lack of a better term, wants out. Which is where I think your argument is the strongest yea. There's a lot of strings attached. Like the fact that they're still living under their parents roof, food on their plate, cloths on their back. etc. In that situation, you're self aware. You know what you believe. So technically you should be able to NOT follow through with confirmation. Although you'll already be baptized by that point but that's besides the point. I agree with you there. It should definitely be the kids own decision. But for a lot of kids it isn't. And the best coarse of action is to either just play along or get kicked out.(That was me) Which is extremely fucked up. So it's pretty much an argument of when a child is allowed to make their own decisions. And to what degree. Which is unfortunately pretty subjective. Because who the hell really even knows when you become 'self-aware' or even capable of it. Which makes baptism at birth pretty much untouchable. |
| I think this kind of rhetoric should be about things like circumcision that leaves you with a permanent defect, not baptism. Baptism is just putting a baby into a little water. You get the same every time you make a bath. Because even if they baptize you if you latter decide you do not want to follow that religion baptism can't really hold you back. And what if the church says you have become a member of the church. What are they gonna do if you don't want to be a member of the church? I mean their usual punishment is throwing you out of the church and that doesn't exactly works if you don't want to be a member of it, lol. Fo-Fai said: The main issue is that half the time when you grow up christian, you stay christian. Just because it's easier? Or maybe because it's what you want and what you believe in. Either way, who's to say what you would have ended up believing in if not subjected to baptism, confirmation whatever. Lol, lets not be ridiculous here. Baptism isn't some brainwashing machine keeping you Christian. Usually if you grow in a religion you stay with that religion because of all the brainwashing talk the parents gave you while growing up that stays imprinted in you(or out of society fear if everyone around is religious and not very tolerant of any different religion or non religion). Getting some water while you were still a baby while some priest was mumbling something from a book isn't a reason anyone believes what he/she believes. |
geniobastardo said: Wyzdm said: Oh....Anyways it's wrong to inflict pain on such a young child so #BanCircumcision. I just remembered that this thread is about baptism....eh it's okay I guess. Nein. The medical benefits far surpass the pain inflicted on the child. Also, since there's no harm in it, it should be okay if done for religious purposes. There are no medical benefits. It's all bullshit myth. Quite the opposite in fact. geniobastardo said: Baptism is just like circumcision in my opinion. Lol, nothing changes with circumcision? Your whole sex experience changes. Even the way your dicks works changes. Foreskin isnt just a flap of skin you know. It has tens of thousands of nerves muscles and lymph nodes.The inner side of the foreskin represents 40% of the penis glans. Circumcision can also negative effect on sex drive and at how old age your dick will be working. |
MonadMar 30, 2015 6:57 AM
Monad said: geniobastardo said: Nein. The medical benefits far surpass the pain inflicted on the child. Also, since there's no harm in it, it should be okay if done for religious purposes. There are no medical benefits. It's all bullshit myth. Quite the opposite in fact. Back it up. Wyzdm said: geniobastardo said: The medical benefits far surpass the pain inflicted on the child. I guess so, doesn't change the fact that we're doing something to the child's body without his consent. Some people who were circumcised wish they weren't. Those people only wish that because other tell them or rather shove them into this inferiority complex that "OMG YOUR PENIS LACKS 2CM OF SKIN!!! YOU ARE NOT A MAN HOHOHOHO!". No one even gives a fuck about his penis tbh. How can you even wish for something you don't even know? and even then, what will actually happen if you get that tiny skin back anyway? |
[i]"Yet each man kills the thing he loves, [/i]By each let this be heard, Some do it with a bitter look, Some with a flattering word, The coward does it with a kiss, The brave man with a sword!'' ~Oscar |
| I've been baptized It has never affected me in a negative way. |
 |
Wyzdm said: Juschaara said: I've been baptized It has never affected me in a negative way. Your avatar and signature makes a strong case against that lmao that's mean |
|
| There is nothing wrong with baptism, and I can't understand this "done without the baby's consent and he will be forced to be part of a religion" bullshit. Just because he gets baptized (which happens when the child is a baby as a tradition so there is no choice but to do it without the baby's consent) does not mean he is forced to be a Christian or whatever. Nobody forces him to attend services or pray to God. Actually, many atheists say they were baptized and grew up in a very religious household and their parents' questionable ways changed their views and that's how they became atheists. If they are forced to be part of a religion, then they couldn't say they are atheists, no? In this case I really can't see what's the big deal about baptising a child. It's not circumscision, no, because that actually has later effects, while being baptised affects your later life in no way at all. And what if the father wants the child to be baptised because he is religious? Then we could strech things and say the mother violated the religious freedom rule, because the father can't baptise his own child. To me it seems like the mother was just a hardcore atheist who really wanted to show she is superior and be like "no mothafucka tis child in tis 21st century won't get baptised sorry". If a father wants to spread his religion to his children, then the atheist mother wouldn't let him, then that means she didn't let the father practice his religion, which is more of a centuries old tradition, and usually most normal people would let others continue this tradition. I guess it all comes down to who has more rights in this matter. In this case the mother's reason was obviously only because she was an atheist, but ffs, baptism means no harm to a child. So what's the big deal? I mean, if she married herself to a religious man, then at least she should respect an old tradition (because the so called tolerant people do that often), which is just a symbolic thing and has no effects later. If the case was about the father sending the kid to a religious school without the mother's consent, that's another thing. Because that would actually affect the kid's life big time. It seems to me that the woman has no respect at all for her husband's religion. And if her atheism affects her this much, that she would go against the father, then she should just find another atheist and marry him. And before someone says "but the man didn't respect the woman's wish either", yes. But baptism is a centuries old tradition, deeply religious people take their religion really seriously and baptism is really important to the religious father, while it's of no real importance to the mother. If the woman "wins", it just shows how the system changed the rules in a way where atheists have more rights than religious people. When the two sides should be equal, and nobody should have more rights. In this case however, we are talking about a harmless tradition, that affects only the father, since it's his "pride" as a religious person to baptise his own child, whereas the mother gains (if the child is not baptised) or loses (if the child is baptised) nothing at all. |
Monad said: Lol. That isn't what I said at all and I agree with you. Fo-Fai said: The main issue is that half the time when you grow up christian, you stay christian. Just because it's easier? Or maybe because it's what you want and what you believe in. Either way, who's to say what you would have ended up believing in if not subjected to baptism, confirmation whatever. Lol, lets not be ridiculous here. Baptism isn't some brainwashing machine keeping you Christian. Usually if you grow in a religion you stay with that religion because of all the brainwashing talk the parents gave you while growing up that stays imprinted in you(or out of society fear if everyone around is religious and not very tolerant of any different religion or non religion). Getting some water while you were still a baby while some priest was mumbling something from a book isn't a reason anyone believes what he/she believes. I probably could have worded it better but...yea. Read it again I guess? |
Monad said: geniobastardo said: Nein. The medical benefits far surpass the pain inflicted on the child. Also, since there's no harm in it, it should be okay if done for religious purposes. There are no medical benefits. It's all bullshit myth. Quite the opposite in fact. geniobastardo said: Baptism is just like circumcision in my opinion. Lol, nothing changes with circumcision? Your whole sex experience changes. Even the way your dicks works changes. Foreskin isnt just a flap of skin you know. It has tens of thousands of nerves muscles and lymph nodes.The inner side of the foreskin represents 40% of the penis glans. Circumcision can also negative effect on sex drive and at how old age your dick will be working. Keep telling yourself that. |
[i]"Yet each man kills the thing he loves, [/i]By each let this be heard, Some do it with a bitter look, Some with a flattering word, The coward does it with a kiss, The brave man with a sword!'' ~Oscar |
geniobastardo said: Monad said: There are no medical benefits. It's all bullshit myth. Quite the opposite in fact. Lol, nothing changes with circumcision? Your whole sex experience changes. Even the way your dicks works changes. Foreskin isnt just a flap of skin you know. It has tens of thousands of nerves muscles and lymph nodes.The inner side of the foreskin represents 40% of the penis glans. Circumcision can also negative effect on sex drive and at how old age your dick will be working. Keep telling yourself that. I am sorry i made you feel bad about losing your foreskin. |
Monad said: geniobastardo said: Keep telling yourself that. I am sorry i made you feel bad about losing your foreskin. No hard feelings.  |
| Now you're wondering if there's white text in any of my other posts. Over there, I'm everywhere. I know that. |
| Baptism is a gift, it doesn't violate anything. You should accept it if you're born in a Catholic country. |
 |
geniobastardo said: Wrong.anyone who thinks circumcision is genital mutilation is merely being pretentious and nothing else. geniobastardo said: So there is a drawback, why should we do it then?The only drawback to circumcision that people CAN derive is a subjective one - less pleasure. This is why you can't win arguments, geniobastardo. Anyway, shit like baptism shouldn't be forced on toddlers or anyone that does not consent. Period. It is unneeded. |
Play League of Legends here! Autocrat said: Hitler was good, objectively. |
Immahnoob said: Anyway, shit like baptism shouldn't be forced on toddlers or anyone that does not consent. Period. It is unneeded. What. Why the hell not? Is dressing up a child in nice clothes and splashing their face with special water now considered a crime? You think that a day out is now something that parents need to bargain for with their own children? You're letting your ideals get in the way of common sense. |
| Now you're wondering if there's white text in any of my other posts. Over there, I'm everywhere. I know that. |
| Maybe you can't read. Immahnoob said: It is unneeded. It's a religious tradition that only wastes the baby's and the parents time. EDIT: Nevermind, I saw what you wrote in the last part of your reply. "You let your ideals get in the way of common sense"  Common sense doesn't exist, get out. |
Play League of Legends here! Autocrat said: Hitler was good, objectively. |
| I ask myself what do religious organisations gain about this system.. they can only boast on how large based their consensus is. I don't think it benefits them in anyway to have people in their ranks who don't give a damn. Wouldn't it be more efficient and civilised to pospone sacraments like those to an age where the person of interest has the faculty to actually ponder its decision of joining? Wouldn't it be a benefit to the church to gain interested and commited believers instead of filling their ranks with lots of fakes? I think the church would definitely gain more out of quality than quantity. But somehow the seem to fear this, as you know, they much prefer political influence, those big numbers come in handy for that. Most of you people are agreeing on the fact that baptism is a less noxious than circucision. I agree, as one is, quoting you, a "simple splash of water" and the other is a "mutilation". But I want you to think on a more abstract level, let's not forget about what those action have as consequences and implications: Baptism is a rite that initiates your religious life. With it comes a community of people. Putting a human being on a social group during his primary education time will affect him for the rest of his life (even more than a scar, as it will influence his deepest persona for ever). Why do you force him in the first place? Why does he have to go through what he goes through when he wants to quit? Is that fair for the sake of "old customs"? Is that fair because that's what his parent wants? Is that efficient? icirate said: Is dressing up a child in nice clothes and splashing their face with special water now considered a crime? No, but I think if you would read the cited articles you would know what, in this scenario, is considered a crime. |
RollTheJointMar 30, 2015 8:37 AM
| Signature removed. Please follow the signature rules, as defined in the Site & Forum Guidelines. |
| Well, you can baptize your kid just for the sake of it and never take him to church or teach him about being religious, he might not give a fuck later just like he might, the issue here is that it's a fucking waste of time and it perpetuates this fucking waste of time. And he might EVEN become religious because of you, why let the poor kid have a future of being ignorant? So no, there's no need to take a baby through this because "Muh baptism" "Muh religion". This is not needed. |
Play League of Legends here! Autocrat said: Hitler was good, objectively. |
Immahnoob said: Maybe you can't read. EDIT: Nevermind, I saw what you wrote in the last part of your reply.  You heard Immahnoob. Going to traditional cultural events and spending time with extended friends and family is 'a waste of time' so you shouldn't do it. This is such a non-argument. |
| Now you're wondering if there's white text in any of my other posts. Over there, I'm everywhere. I know that. |
icirate said: Immahnoob said: Maybe you can't read. EDIT: Nevermind, I saw what you wrote in the last part of your reply. You heard Immahnoob. Going to traditional cultural events and spending time with extended friends and family is 'a waste of time' so you shouldn't do it. This is such a non-argument. WHY YOU EDIT DONT BE A PUSSY MAN. STICK TO YOUR WORDS |
RollTheJoint said: I ask myself what do religious organisations gain about this system.. they can only boast on how large based their consensus is. I don't think it benefits them in anyway to have people in their ranks who don't give a damn. Wouldn't it be more efficient and civilised to pospone sacraments like those to an age where the person of interest has the faculty to actually ponder its decision of joining? Wouldn't it be a benefit to the church to gain interested and commited believers instead of filling their ranks with lots of fakes? I think the church would definitely gain more out of quality than quantity. But somehow the seem to fear this, as you know, they much prefer political influence, those big numbers come in handy for that. Most of you people are agreeing on the fact that baptism is a less noxious than circucision. I agree, as one is, quoting you, a "simple splash of water" and the other is a "mutilation". But I want you to think on a more abstract level: Baptism is a rite that initiates your religious life. With it comes a community of people. Putting a human being on a social group during his primary education time will affect him for the rest of his life (even more than a scar, as it will influence his deepest persona for ever). Why do you force him in the first place? Why does he have to go through what he goes through when he wants to quit? Is that fair for the sake of "old customs"? Is that fair because that's what his parent wants? Is that efficient? The reason they don't wait for consent is because it's a lot harder to convince someone to believe in a religion if they were not raised to believe it. Indoctrination is most effective on young developing minds. |
|
icirate said: Next you'll tell me that marriage being a legal institution is a good idea. This is more religious than cultural too.traditional cultural events icirate said: You can spend time with "extended friends" and "family" without the need of an event like "baptism".and spending time with extended friends and family is 'a waste of time' So I need to force you to see my kid and me? icirate said: so you shouldn't do it. Just stay indoors on forums all day instead.  ALERT! STRAWMAN! ALERT! STRAWMAN! Also, how do you know the kid isn't an introvert in his stage of not wanting to socialize? Did you ask the little twerp? You didn't? Stop forcing the kid then in a situation he isn't needed to be forced in. |
Play League of Legends here! Autocrat said: Hitler was good, objectively. |
NudeBear said: WHY YOU EDIT I had to edit out an insult to stop it being incorrectly mistaken by a certain someone as a false dichotomy. It would have lead to some disgustingly unproductive banter that I want no part of. edit: TOLD YOU SO. |
| Now you're wondering if there's white text in any of my other posts. Over there, I'm everywhere. I know that. |
| It was probably a false dichotomy and he edited it out anyway. Not like it bothers me, he has no argument. |
Play League of Legends here! Autocrat said: Hitler was good, objectively. |
RollTheJoint said: I ask myself what do religious organisations gain about this system.. they can only boast on how large based their consensus is. I don't think it benefits them in anyway to have people in their ranks who don't give a damn. Wouldn't it be more efficient and civilised to pospone sacraments like those to an age where the person of interest has the faculty to actually ponder its decision of joining? Wouldn't it be a benefit to the church to gain interested and commited believers instead of filling their ranks with lots of fakes? I think the church would definitely gain more out of quality than quantity. But somehow the seem to fear this, as you know, they much prefer political influence, those big numbers come in handy for that. Most of you people are agreeing on the fact that baptism is a less noxious than circucision. I agree, as one is, quoting you, a "simple splash of water" and the other is a "mutilation". But I want you to think on a more abstract level, let's not forget about what those action have as consequences and implications: Baptism is a rite that initiates your religious life. With it comes a community of people. Putting a human being on a social group during his primary education time will affect him for the rest of his life (even more than a scar, as it will influence his deepest persona for ever). Why do you force him in the first place? Why does he have to go through what he goes through when he wants to quit? Is that fair for the sake of "old customs"? Is that fair because that's what his parent wants? Is that efficient? I don't think churches are fighting for political influence that much nowadays. I think you view things in the wrong way. Religious folk do not baptise their child to "gain" something and the church does not support it to "gain". It's an old religious tradition, they baptise children at a very young age, when they can't voice their opinion, the church can't do anything about it. It's not their fault if the baptised child grows up and becomes a diehard atheist. It's nobody's fault. If I look at it your way, I still don't think the church gains anything or tries to get higher numbers with fakes. To the 2nd part, all I can say is that's not true. Just because someone is baptised doesn't mean/guarantee that the child is forced to live a religious life. |
| You still encourage the possibility, Saki-nyan. Don't forget that the mother in this case is the only one that doesn't give a fuck, his other relatives want him baptized and are probably religious, so it's more likely that they'll teach him religious bullshit. Also: Saki-nyan said: Exactly, and there's no need for this tradition. It is useless.It's an old religious tradition |
Play League of Legends here! Autocrat said: Hitler was good, objectively. |
Immahnoob said: You still encourage the possibility, Saki-nyan. Don't forget that the mother in this case is the only one that doesn't give a fuck, his other relatives want him baptized and are probably religious, so it's more likely that they'll teach him religious bullshit. Also: Saki-nyan said: Exactly, and there's no need for this tradition. It is useless.It's an old religious tradition While the possibility of the religious branch teaching the baptised kid religious stuff is there, it's still not guaranteed. And also many people just do it because it's a tradition, they might not even practice the religion itself. If we strech things, most traditions are useless. People dress up as monsters because back in the day that's how peasants scared away enemy soldiers (ottomans). Nowadays ottomans are not attacking, yet some people still dress up as monsters to continue this tradition. It's completely useless. A tradition is actually something that held great importance a long time ago and nowadays people continue it, yet it's no longer important in any way. It's useless, but it's still a tradition. Some people believe in them and nobody could change their mind about it. And it hurts no one, so why should anyone bother with erasing tradition(s)? |
Saki-nyan said: Immahnoob said: You still encourage the possibility, Saki-nyan. Don't forget that the mother in this case is the only one that doesn't give a fuck, his other relatives want him baptized and are probably religious, so it's more likely that they'll teach him religious bullshit. Also: Exactly, and there's no need for this tradition. It is useless. While the possibility of the religious branch teaching the baptised kid religious stuff is there, it's still not guaranteed. And also many people just do it because it's a tradition, they might not even practice the religion itself. If we strech things, most traditions are useless. People dress up as monsters because back in the day that's how peasants scared away enemy soldiers (ottomans). Nowadays ottomans are not attacking, yet some people still dress up as monsters to continue this tradition. It's completely useless. A tradition is actually something that held great importance a long time ago and nowadays people continue it, yet it's no longer important in any way. It's useless, but it's still a tradition. Some people believe in them and nobody could change their mind about it. And it hurts no one, so why should anyone bother with erasing tradition(s)? Great response. Apathy is on your side. |
| Now you're wondering if there's white text in any of my other posts. Over there, I'm everywhere. I know that. |
| I don't think it's in the best interest of the child to be baptised. It affects him way to early (primary education gets flawed), it forces him to a situation where (if he is against it) he needs to go through a lot of troubles, minors and majors. This clearly violates article 3 of CROC |
| Signature removed. Please follow the signature rules, as defined in the Site & Forum Guidelines. |
More topics from this board
» 2023-2024 NBA Season Discussion ( 1 2 3 4 5 ... Last Page )deg - Jun 18, 2023 |
739 |
by Hitagi__Furude
»»
27 minutes ago |
|
» Do you celebrate your BirthdayST63LTH - Today |
20 |
by Rhae
»»
2 hours ago |
|
» Have you ever really sit down and really think about the short term and long term effects of AI in your industry?tsukareru - May 5 |
18 |
by bevarnow
»»
2 hours ago |
|
» Is the word 'simp' fallen out of context in 2024?Kiryotsu - Today |
23 |
by SwordBreaker36
»»
3 hours ago |
|
» Gender difference in US intermarriageAuron_ - May 5 |
22 |
by MalchikRepaid
»»
3 hours ago |