Getting de- Baptized

Education is a seperate entity. It does not have the same effect as religion and seeking to be free of religion. It has nothing at all to do with getting de-baptized.

2 Replies

@edgarblythe,

So Edgar, you are specifically targeting religion here rather than standing for a principle that is equally applied. I personally don't think it is good to discriminate against any specific type of organization in a free democracy. If you were willing to apply the same rules to other organizations, I might be more sympathetic to your argument.

But you still haven't answered the circumcision example. This is also a religious ceremony and it causes a real physical change where the only real impact of baptism can be fixed with a towel.

Is circumcision less of a problem for you than baptism?

1 Reply

Even if you could get de-baptized, your name would not be removed from the books.
There would just be written that you have been de-baptized. But your name will never be removed.
Just like when divorced, that you were married is not removed, just written down that you are divorced.
When you die and leave the church for ever, your birthdate is not removed.

0 Replies

@edgarblythe,

A five minute ceremony with water has a stronger effect than education?
It all depends on the education.
How about the education that Jews were less human beings than the Aries?
What did that lead to?
How about that Armenians are not worth anything? Just kill them.
What about "The Baltic countries you don´t have to learn about. They belong to Russia anyway and are of no importance what so ever"?
What about the Afro-Americans that have been seen upon as something far below you white guys?
The list is long that education is not always superior.

2 Replies

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

So Edgar, you are specifically targeting religion here rather than standing for a principle that is equally applied. I personally don't think it is good to discriminate against any specific type of organization in a free democracy. If you were willing to apply the same rules to other organizations, I might be more sympathetic to your argument.

But you still haven't answered the circumcision example. This is also a religious ceremony and it causes a real physical change where the only real impact of baptism can be fixed with a towel.

Is circumcision less of a problem for you than baptism?

1. I knew it would eventually get around to charging me with attacking religion. I have not in any way done so, of course.
2. Circumcision is a separate question. While it may be an unwanted part of one's life, baptism is a unique transaction, aimed at the "soul," and nobody has argued that circumcision is the same thing, except you. One might argue that circumcision is a health measure and get away with it. At any rate, nobody is demanding circumcision related justice. Good luck with that line of thought.

1 Reply

@saab,

Again, we are speaking on the one hand of education and on the other, matters of the "soul." No way the two are the same.

1 Reply

@edgarblythe,

Quote:

All of both of your scenarios are about something else. We are discussing a religious organization that baptizes little kids. This is part of a move to gain control over and mold the inner being.

I interpreted this comment, as well as your other comment about putting your soul in a "little black box" to be attacks on religion. No one reading your comments would think you had any respect for religous organizations, in fact you keep on bringing up the word "religious" in pretty much every post.

If it isn't about religion then I would expect you would treat non-religious organizations the same as religious organizations in this respect. Apparently you are putting religious organizations in a separate box.

And, your comments about circumcision make no sense. Circumcision is a "covenant", a binding contract, with God that is performed by a religious leader in a religious ceremony.

It seems that you are singling out one religious practice.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

My personal feelings about baptism are not the topic under discussion. In order to discuss a religious mattter, I, oddly, have to speak of religion. But, nowhere in my posts have I attacked religion and in fact I have not launched a real assault on the structure of the Catholic Church.

0 Replies

@Thomas,

Sorry, didn't see this right away. Many Christians probably do believe that they adhere to fundamentals--but i'm not going to discuss radical with you, since that was no part of what i've written. However, i suspect that Saab was referring to the commonly functional use of fundamentalist in regard to the religious, which has to do with those who are sufficiently convinced of the rectittude of their view to attempt to impose it on others. Saab is, of course, free to correct that if it is a misapprehension. It does seem to me, though, that Saab is now trying to dodge this question.

The question of whether or not there are atheists who can be described as fundamentalists, though, is not one which i would ever deny. I've known too many atheists who are eager to shove their world view down the throats of others, and who are only restrained by the awkwardness of finding a converstaional gambit. I usually think of them, however, as militant atheists.

0 Replies

@edgarblythe,

edgarblythe wrote:

All of both of your scenarios are about something else. We are discussing a religious organization that baptizes little kids.

You're wrong.

The issue is about record-keeping. The fella in the original post wants historical records changed. That's what his concern is.

The church has no control over him, has no particular interest in him. The issue is that he wants the record of a ritual destroyed.

It is precisely the same as removing any historical fact from the record.

So splish-splash, no more KKK. Out of the books. Gone. Didn't happen. Never happened. There are no records.

1 Reply

@edgarblythe,

edgarblythe wrote:

It makes one intolerant - a fundamentalist - when we reject baptism? Not so. I say it more likely makes one a fundamentalist to want to force baptism on the unwilling.

They're both fundamental positions. No difference there.

0 Replies

@saab,

saab, you make a lot of sense here.

0 Replies

@ehBeth,

ehBeth wrote:

The issue is about record-keeping. The fella in the original post wants historical records changed. That's what his concern is.

Exactly. He was an active, practicing Catholic into his thirties and doesn't feel that way in his 70's. I understand. No matter what his beliefs now, a ceremony was conducted on that day and the event logged in a book. He has repudiated the ceremony, fine. You shouldn't try to erase history to suit your personal narrative.

0 Replies

@edgarblythe,

There is body, soul and mind.
In some languages there is only body and soul. In that case soul also represents the mind. Which makes mind and soul the same.
She was so eager to learn to bake bread. She put her whole soul into it.
I would say in that case it has nothing to do with religion.
We are going out for dinner and afterwards to a concert.
One needs something for both body and soul.
It has nothing to do with religion.

0 Replies

Well, I have the same opinion I started out with, but I feel we could only rehash what was already said, if I continue.

1 Reply

I wonder if someone could get a de-exorcism.

2 Replies

@edgarblythe,

One thing is your opinion another one is that neither you nor the French man seems to know the basic facts of French and European Church and State bureaucracy. You do no remove what has been written into the books. You can add something, but hardly ever remove or change.
Somebody added a hyphen between my two first names. So instead of two first names I now officially have one first name with a hyphen. They refuse to remove the hyphen. For then it is a historical fact that I was given one name.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

The devil is in the details . . .

0 Replies

@saab,

Quote:

One thing is your opinion another one is that neither you nor the French man seems to know the basic facts of French and European Church and State bureaucracy. You do no remove what has been written into the books. You can add something, but hardly ever remove or change.

Doesn't anybody read anymore?

Quote:

Again, he asked the church to strike him from baptismal records. When the priest told him it wasn't possible, he took the church to court.

Last October, a judge in Normandy ruled in his favor. The diocese has since appealed, and the case is pending.

...

French law states that citizens have the right to leave organizations if they wish. Loup Desmond, who has followed the case for the French Catholic newspaper La Croix, says he thinks it could set a legal precedent and open the way for more demands for de-baptism.

"If the justice confirms that the name Rene LeBouvier has to disappear from the books, if it is confirmed, it can be a kind of jurisprudence in France," he says.

Up to now, observers say the de-baptism trend has been marginal, but it's growing. In neighboring Belgium, the Brussels Federation of Friends of Secular Morality reports that 2,000 people asked to be de-baptized in 2010. The newspaper Le Monde estimated that about 1,000 French people a year ask to have their baptisms annulled.

1 Reply

@JTT,

French law states that citizens have the right to leave organizations if they wish.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes, but leaving an organization is not the same as your name is being removed from the records.
So far the law has not been changed..... the case is not yet finished.
A baptism record is not the same as a mailing list.

1 Reply

Getting de- Baptized

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know