Stories about debaptisms–the practice of “undoing” religious baptisms later in life–have been popping around the news as of late. AFP recently posted an article called “100,000 secular Britons seek ‘de-baptism’” which briefly examines the phenomenon.
So why bother? Well, for one, it’s making a statement that you, as a child, had no say in your own baptism. You were too young to make a decision as to what you believed. Perhaps more pointedly, debaptism makes the statement that “original sin” is a distortion of the very nature of a child when it enters the world.
Fair enough. But some take this even farther:
Michael Evans, 66, branded baptising children as “a form of child abuse” — and said that when he complained to the church where he was christened he was told to contact the European Court of Human Rights.
I’m going to have to take this opportunity to say that Evans is taking this a bit too far. While the claim that religions can be downright abusive (see my previous post on Deborah 13: Servant of God) is a fair enough assertion, I wouldn’t go so far as to say that a baptism is an abusive act. It’s absurd. So someone sprinkles a little water on your head, says a prayer and maybe some candles are involved. While it might be meaningless to Atheists such as myself, it cannot be equated with actual instances of abuse. Save the abuse claims for circumcision (that’s another article in itself) and more direct emotional traumas like threats of hellfire and damnation.
The doctrine of “original sin” is disgusting, and should be condemned for suggesting that an infant is damned to carry the weight of inherited sin unless he is cleansed by the Church. Like many religious doctrines, it carries an appalling element of self-deprecation. But the actual baptismal ceremony itself is harmless. No part of the child’s body is cut off, and as far as I know, most babies are no longer submerged under water–a mere trickle over the forehead is the most trauma suffered by the child. The real abuse begins later in life.
While I’m not very happy about my own baptism in the Catholic Church, nor am I particularly thrilled about the “optional” confirmation in the ninth grade, I’m not going to be claiming abuse because of a sprinkle of water and a cluster of words murmured by a celibate old man in robes. The real condemnation of the Church stems from the larger psychological implications of being told that your immortal existence depends on the accumulation and purging of your sins, whatever they may be.
Likewise, there’s no harm in getting a debaptism certificate later in life if you so chose. Imposing a debaptism on a child is likewise fairly harmless, but it’s falling into the same trap as religion–assuming that your own worldviews are going to be those of your children.
Let’s not get caught up in that garbage and save the paperwork for when we are able to discern for ourselves who we are and what we believe.
100,000 secular Britons seek ‘de-baptism from AFP
You have missed the point.
Children can be discriminated against for even waiting until they are old enough to decide. That is why it is an issue, as “the best” for the child in that situation is baptism, and allowing the church to say ‘you are mine’ to vulnerable children.
Having seen the damage done by children realising ‘trustworthy’ adults had lied to them for many years, I cannot agree that baptism is harmless.
Baptism and faith should be personal choices fir which you can’t proxy