BAPTISM OF BABIES IS UNDERPINNED BY TOTAL DISRESPECT FOR INFORMED CONSENT
Baptism makes babies a member of a religion without their consent. That is
terrible enough. But it is done without their INFORMED consent which is worse.
And if the child could give consent nobody would care if it was informed or how
informed. There is little concern for the parent's informed consent as
well! The priests don't care if the parents hardly know Catholic doctrine so
they don't really respect their choice either when it comes to baptising babies.
Parents would be told why or why not they should get babies baptised. They never
are. Buddhism and Witchcraft believe in refusing those who wish to convert. This
is not that they are rejecting the people, it is to ensure they are doing their
best to make a convinced and final choice which can only be an informed choice.
When such a choice is made, the person will be welcomed into the religion. No
other religions are as respectful of those who come to them.
It is bad enough to put a child in a religion that way but it is worse to put
them into Catholicism. That is because Catholicism makes the child a subject of
its canon law by baptism. It is the most illiberal of many illiberal religions.
Baptism suggests that the religion is more important than the rights of the
babies and what is best for them when their consent is so unimportant. The
notion that there are many things we have to decide for our young without their
consent does nothing at all to show that they can be baptised without their
consent. If you have the right to have your child vaccinated without her
consent, that does not give you the right to have her baptised. There is no
evidence that baptism is going to do her spirit any good. You cannot have
evidence the same way as you can have evidence that vaccination is best.
Baptism is, at least in Catholic thought, negatively a removal of supernatural
powers that hinder the child from going to God and obeying him through his
Church and positively a dedication to God and the teachings he has given the
Church. It is a vow and marriage with God.
Nobody has the right to take a vow to what they don't understand. It is worse
when they are forced to take the vow. And for most people baptism is claimed to
open the child up to something - but when they don't know what they are being
opened up to is that right?
You cannot assume that the baby would consent to a rite that accuses him of
being unfit to go near God and offers him a relationship with a petty God who
rejected him. The baptism is an attempt to force magical influences and
abilities and religion on the baby. It is not just because she is a baby who
can't consent but also because of the downside of the faith represented by the
baptism.
In a tolerant society we respect other's principles. We respect the right of a
Muslim to go to Mosque on a Friday even if it upsets lots of people and his
employer. Some parents are against having their babies baptised as a matter of
principle. They might be atheists. The Christians bully and pressure them to
have the babies baptised. And those who argue ,"But if you don't believe its
only a harmless splash with water - don't be a weirdo and resist getting little
Joanie baptised" are enablers of that bigotry. They are bigots themselves for
they know society needs to progress and if you suppress a challenge to its
superstitions you are holding it back and being unfair to the person's right to
challenge.
Baptism is a promise to have them indoctrinated by the Christian religion when
they are so vulnerable and easily conditioned and by people who don’t have the
expertise or the honesty to look into religion objectively to see what is best
for the child. There is a lot of harmful religion and harmful spirituality
about. The philosophy with the least mysteries (eg how God could be one God in
three persons or bread could be flesh without any discernable physical change)
is the one that children should be exposed to if any. The less mystery the more
credibility and security. Religion is full of rules that it says the human mind
cannot understand but which God does for he knows best which makes it dangerous.
What if a woman dies over not having an abortion though it was necessary to save
her life? The Church says this is God’s law for abortion is never tolerable or
right. It says you cannot do the wrong to a baby to make a right. It adds that God knows what he is doing and he sometimes makes laws that
seem odd just because he sees that having them pushes chance in such a direction
that our spiritual betterment is implemented for everything that happens has
direct and indirect effects and short-term and long-term effects. But what if
the Church is wrong about God and what if there is no God? We have a woman that
died over a fanatical so-called mystery. But God is only a belief and nobody has
the right to die for it or ask others to die for it or encourage such deaths in
any way.
The view that children need to be entered into a religion instead of doing the
hard work to find a religion that suits them is invalid. It is learning to be
good citizens that they need and that is simple. If religion should be at the
heart of your life as the command of Christ suggested when he said, “Thou shalt
love the Lord thy God with all thy heart and all thy strength and all thy mind
and this is the greatest commandment of them all” (Mark 12:28-31) then it is
wrong to discourage searching no matter how hard the searching will be.
The doctrine of the Church that children have original sin which needs baptism
to be forgiven and to undo the bias it causes towards sin is a sectarian and
bigoted thesis. It accuses those who do not have their children baptised of
harming them and risking causing them to harm others. It is accepted that people
who believe people outside their sect are inferior are bigots and this is
socially opposed these days so baptism should be opposed as well. And we see no
difference between baptised and unbaptised children. In fact Muslims are often
holier than baptised people. The doctrine is laced with bigotry.
If God is really good he can forgive original sin without baptism and should if
he has any sense. By letting it effect us at all he proves himself worse than
the Devil for the Devil only asks you to sin but God gives you the inclination
to frequently rebel. God made the laws that caused original sin.
Original sin is in essence my self-will, I want my own way and not God’s way. We
never stop being like that. If I help the poor not because God asks me to or
because I love God then this is still self-will. I am selfish towards God
even if I am selfless to the people I serve. So we are talking about
something that can easily hide and fool those who think we are so wonderful. If God asked you to endure extreme torments forever
and ever (Hell is the absence of God so I am not talking about Hell here) to
save two strangers from eternal torture in Hell would you do it? Of course not.
And yet you say you love the Lord your God with all your heart. So it is a
deliberate lie for the Church to tell us that baptism takes original sin away
and reduces its bad effects. What is the point of entering your child into an
institution that gives it an example like that?
The Church demands that babies be baptised. It claims that baptism has mystical
and supernatural power to heal the babies of spiritual harm. Where is the
research to back this claim up? The priests are quacks. You only have to look
around you to see that baptism makes no difference. If you subject your baby to
a healing ritual that does nothing instead of looking for one that does, then do
you love your child as much as you love the approval of the Church? The priests
claim that spiritual health is the most important health of all for Jesus said
that it profits a man nothing to gain the whole world and lose out spiritually.
If they can be quacks then why should the medical quacks who look up to them
worry? What a lovely example baptism sets for the world! Think of the poor child
who finds no magical power in him because of baptism and he wonders why he
cannot believe or do what the Church says.
If God wants us to be involved in religion then he will use his psychic
influence on us to make us see the truth and the religion that teaches it which
is one reason why the Christians say that faith is a gift from God that cannot
be naturally explained. Baptism allegedly infuses faith so it supports this evil
notion. This notion is responsible for the suspicion that exists between
religions for it means there is no excuse for being wrong except being sinful
and lazy and imprudent which is not an excuse. It helps cause violence. The
truth is that theology is just human thinking and you should believe what you
think is right which shows that Churches are just a scam to limit your right to
think.
Sacraments, symbolic rites like baptism and communion that actually confer grace
(the help from God that enables one to do God’s will), are blasphemous and
superstitious. Any decent God will give grace when you are open to it and need
it and will not wait until you undertake a rite. If God comes first (and Jesus
said he alone should be loved) you need to be totally sure the rites will work
which is impossible. If we could be very good by effort and prayer there would
be no need for sacraments so they urge you to be imperfect so that you will need
them. You cannot put God first if you believe you should not be very good until
you get his grace to improve your virtue in a sacrament which is not very
inspiring! If we may believe that we need sacraments to get grace what is to
stop us believing that we need to give the pope money or let him sleep with our
children to get grace?
Religion encourages the deadly vice of credulity and has the nerve to deny it.
For example, if the apostles satisfied themselves that Jesus did indeed rise
from the dead which does not amount to much for they were ordinary men and were
not expert psychologists, theologians and scientists then we should not believe
them for it is more likely a mistake has been made and/or a lie has been told.
If we are going to believe them then we should believe all zany tall tales.
Indeed, when religion is unable to control what its people are influenced by
they soon go off the rails and pollute everything with nonsense and stupidity
that is often even worse than the nonsense taught by the religion. This teaching
about the apostles is not based on a bias against miracles. Even if you believe
in miracles, you are not supposed to accept miracle claims that are flawed.
Baby baptism tries to make the child biased in favour of the faith if she never
has to decide if she wants to continue with it or not. The child can feel she is
dishonouring her family and parents if she rejects her baptism implicitly or
explicitly.
From every angle, baby baptism is harmful. And nice as it seems is worthy only of
disdain and disgust.
There is an alternative to baby baptism.
The alternative respects their freedom. This alternative involves several
things. The main, is not to have them baptised but to let them hear about
different religions that they can make their own decision about religion later
in life. Later in life, they will be more mature and better able to find out
what faith or none suits them the best – everybody is so different. This
alternative treats them as people not as statistics. It promotes thinking for
themselves and helps prevent sectarian bigotry from getting a grip on them. It
counsels that they be taught not by word but example about being good so that
they will be noble because they are noble and for no other reason including god
or baptism or religion.
It is cynical of the Church to talk about informed consent when it is about
adults who are looking into Catholicism. It has to applaud that simply
because it CANNOT force them. This is not about real respect for consent
at all. It is Machiavellian and pragmatic.