The Raving Theist

Dedicated to Jesus Christ, Now and Forever

Baptism

September 6, 2005 | 23 Comments

Should atheist or non-Christian parents be permitted to sue a person who baptizes their infant without permission? (see relevant God Squad column for backqround).

Comments

23 Responses to “Baptism”

  1. St. Teabag
    September 6th, 2005 @ 4:48 pm

    They shoulds not be allowed to sue for financial gain or pain and suffering (since the latter comes only after death if the baptisee dies before the matter is resolved then a 9-11 style reckoning of the suffering must be prorated for eternity and paid out fractionally to the victims family). However, i6t should be possible to recover all costs associated with a reverse baptism as well as a new confirmation into the faith of the parent or gaurdians choice. However, the baptisee should, upon obtaining their majority be able to sue the parent or guardian if they feel that the religious choice was not in their best interests. Substantial damages could apply if it is too late for a reverse baptism or is entry into the faith of choice is no longer possible.

  2. Jennifer
    September 6th, 2005 @ 10:14 pm

    I’m in favor of the Nurse doing community service for groups who’s beleif system is radically different from hers. I also think that if she has any children they should be dressed in full Pirate Regalia.

  3. boywonder
    September 7th, 2005 @ 2:55 am

    My parents baptised me without my permission. Maybe I should sue them. Ah, what the hell. They never went to church after that anyway, so I guess that makes up for it. It would be really funny if I turned out to be the only atheist in heaven just because I was baptised. I suppose it’d suck though, ’cause all my friends would be in hell. At least heaven would have air conditioning.

  4. Mutt
    September 7th, 2005 @ 5:49 am

    Litigiousness is idiocy. He or she should be chewed out for it by the family and disciplined in the context of his or her profession for showing insensitivity. (I’m assuming an atheist would be less traumatised by this than someone religious who believes “baptism” means jack squat.)

  5. Rob
    September 7th, 2005 @ 6:13 am

    Boywonder, you’ll have the company of those atheists like yours truly, who are still considered Jews by Jewish law because they had a Jewish mother. Which brings up something even more crucial. Should you be permitted to sue your parents and rabbi for circumsizing you without permission?

  6. a different tim
    September 7th, 2005 @ 2:01 pm

    Yeah. Sue them! Sue them! You can sue for everything else.
    I would be outraged if a Christian took it upon themselves to baptise my non existent children.
    What we need is an officially recognised atheist antibaptism. We could call it a “renunciation”. Maybe we could get atheist nurses into hospitals to renunciate children born to religious parents if they are in danger of dying.

  7. Aeger
    September 7th, 2005 @ 8:29 pm

    no, they shouldn’t sue. If they really are atheist, baptism doesn’t matter. Sueing is just spitefulness. Unless of course the child was forcibly taken and baptised, then parents could sue, but that would be for the forcibly taking part, and not the meaning of the baptisim itself. And anti-baptisim is also silly, for the afore stated reasons.

  8. leon
    September 7th, 2005 @ 8:46 pm

    YES

  9. Sportin' Life
    September 8th, 2005 @ 12:03 am

    Yes.

    Should you be permitted to sue your parents and rabbi for circumsizing you without permission?

    And, YES!

  10. Gun Of Sod
    September 9th, 2005 @ 3:00 am

    Would a Christian sue me for ritualistically marking their child as the property of Cthulhu?

  11. a different tim
    September 9th, 2005 @ 1:04 pm

    Don’t know. Let’s do it and find out.

  12. jlb
    September 9th, 2005 @ 3:02 pm

    If the parents are atheists, why would they care one way or the other? It’s not like baptism really means/does anything – and as long as the baby wasn’t harmed, who cares if someone sprinkled some water and mumbled over it? Obviously for some peple, atheism is as much a system of (unproven) belief as any religion.
    jlb

  13. Alex
    September 10th, 2005 @ 8:53 am

    Oh my… At first i was thinking yeah i guess sueing would be appropriate, when u think about it, these days everyone is being sued for everything, might as well get religion tangled up in the web of post modern social/moral life and welfare… Although, after reading the ‘god squad collum’ it was actully baptising the child if he/she is in danger of death… i find this idea pethetic… some born again nurse thinks, baptising a child in the name of the father the sun and the holy spirit, is going to save its life… if anything it would bring death ever so closer, due to possible hyperthermial insident, or the bringing on of the flu… not to mention if he/she swallows the water, etc basically what i’m getting at is that doing this ‘deed’ is worse for the baby the good, and hey if i was a parent and my child was dieing, and he/she did actully die, i sure as hell wouldnt wont my baby dieing a christian, so basically no, screw that shit, sue them putting a baptism / christian ‘beliefe / act’ apon a child without permission of parents, is just as bad as turning a christian child into another religion, or taking them out of one, its controling strong beliefs such as religion, that mant people are for and against, as we can see due to the ‘hate’ of certain denonimations of christianity… blah blah blah, i’m going on, i conclude:

    Yeah sue them, and even if you wanted to get it done later on, who is this born again whore, what do they think there jesus or some christian profit, if they wanted to spend there life dunking babys into water, why didnt they become a priest / nurse…

  14. Alex
    September 10th, 2005 @ 9:10 am

    oh and by nurse, i mean nun :) (i’m tired ) hehe

  15. Oz
    September 10th, 2005 @ 10:45 am

    Since baptism means nothing to an atheist, and nothing to a baby, why would you bother?

  16. a different tim
    September 10th, 2005 @ 1:17 pm

    For the money.

    To annoy Christians ( I usually put theists, but baptism is pretty specifically Christian).

    For fun.

  17. The Libertarian Defender
    September 10th, 2005 @ 3:56 pm

    Absolutely, yes. Just like a Christian parent should be allowed to sue Satanists who initiate the Christian infant in the Satanist faith.

  18. Vernichten
    September 10th, 2005 @ 5:43 pm

    I guess you should be able to put any suit before the court. Then the judge can throw it out or let it go forward.

    jlb said: “If the parents are atheists, why would they care one way or the other? It’s not like baptism really means/does anything – and as long as the baby wasn’t harmed, who cares if someone sprinkled some water and mumbled over it? Obviously for some peple, atheism is as much a system of (unproven) belief as any religion.”

    So who cares if someone does whatever they want to your dying baby, just so long as there’s no harm done, eh?
    Should clowns be permitted into the room, since they cause no harm?
    Shouldn’t everyone around your dying baby be involved in direct aid to your baby’s physical health?
    jlb, just as an aside, could you imagine any circumstances where the decision for a baby’s circumcision might be up to the doctor?

  19. Aequitas
    September 11th, 2005 @ 1:50 am

    “Absolutely, yes. Just like a Christian parent should be allowed to sue Satanists who initiate the Christian infant in the Satanist faith”

    These are very different incidents. For a Christian, being initiated into the Satanist faith could have serious repercussions, but for the atheist, being baptized is nothing more than offensive.

  20. a different tim
    September 11th, 2005 @ 10:07 am

    So it’s OK to be offensive to a dying baby and his/her relatives, just as long as it’s done from a Christian perspective?

    I think Vernichten is right. The clowns analogy is a good one.

  21. jack*
    September 11th, 2005 @ 3:17 pm

    There are many reasons why an atheist would not want this done to their child despite the fact that we think it’s as pointless as any other superstitious fetishism.

    1) Professionalism. I want the best care for my critically ill child. What’s not being done because a key caregiver is focusing on things that don’t matter, against my express wishes?

    2) Appropriateness. A nurse is expected to keep their personal beliefs separate from their professional duties. They wouldn’t tell a Jew they were going to hell — why aren’t atheists accorded the same benefit?

    3) Propriety. Masterbation doesn’t hurt anyone either, but I don’t want the nurse doing it in my child’s hospital room. Public displays of piety are unseemly and I would rather not have my child exposed to it.

    4) Fairness. Why should Christianity get special treatment just because its pointless rituals are relatively harmless? Let’s let the voodoo doctors in too — I’m sure we can find a place for them to butcher a chicken that won’t contaminate the sterile field.

    I could go on.

  22. hermesten
    September 12th, 2005 @ 5:14 pm

    Religion is a disease that must be treated aggressively. As long as Christians (or whomever) are infecting themselves with this disease I don’t care. When they force their disease on me and mine, action is required to stop the infection. In such cases, these self-appointed moralists should be hit right where it hurts them the most –their pocketbook– separating them from the thing they love the most –money.

  23. Olly
    September 15th, 2005 @ 2:43 pm

    I would be more concerned about what the bejesus I was doing at the time.

  • Basic Assumptions

    First, there is a God.

    Continue Reading...

  • Search

  • Quote of the Day

    • Fifty Random Links

      See them all on the links page.

      • No Blogroll Links