So what do you do when a big organization insists on maintaining false information about you? You'd demand they remove it, right?
More than 100,000 people have recently downloaded "certificates of de-baptism" from the Internet to renounce their Christian faith.[snip]
John Hunt, a 58-year-old from London and one of the first to try to be "de-baptised," held that he was too young to make any decision when he was christened at five months old.
The male nurse said he approached the Church of England to ask it to remove his name. "They said they had sought legal advice and that I should place an announcement in the London Gazette," said Hunt, referring to one of the official journals of record of the government.
So that's what he did -- his notice of renouncement was published in the Gazette in May 2008 and other have followed suit.
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.
The Church of England said its official position was not to amend its records. "Renouncing baptism is a matter between the individual and God," a Church spokesman told AFP. (Agence France Presse)
That's sort of a Catch-22. If there's no God, there's nothing or no one to take it up with. If there were, I am sure, you would be told "Your message is important to Me. Stay on the prayer and your debaptism will be handled in the order in which it is received." It may be quite a wait, as the line is getting long:
- The Spanish high court has ruled that the country's data protection plan entitles someone to have his record of baptism removed
- In Italy, the Italian Union of Rationalists and Agnostics (UAAR) won a similar de-baptism battle in 2002
- Argentinian rationalists have a Collective Apostasy campaign entitled, "No en mi nombre" (Not in my name)
The delicious irony here is that the de-baptism movement is seen by many as a reaction to organized religion's movement into the secular marketplace via ads on buses, billboards and TV, radio and newspapers. The secular-themed bus messages in the UK and elsewhere this year were direct responses to religious ads threatening those who failed to accept Jesus with eternal damnation and giving a website where the acceptance could be digitally furthered. The freethinker response also has a web URL where, for 3 pounds sterling, you can purchase a certificate of de-baptism. They've already sold 1500.
What's apparently not as good a business these days is Christian books:
Stacks of unsold books and glum publishers stood for three days inside the cavernous Dallas Convention Center this past weekend at the Christian Book Expo, a first-of-its-kind event designed to connect publishers and authors directly with readers in the evangelical Christian market. Only problem was there were few readers to connect with, despite the show’s location in Dallas, the buckle of the Bible Belt and a top market for Christian publishers. The show, sponsored by the Evangelical Christian Publishers Association, attracted 1,500 consumer attendees; it had hoped for 15,000-20,000. (Marcia Z. Nelson, Publisher's Weekly)
The event was designed to "drive awareness" of 238 featured Christian authors. That's well under 7 "awareness-ees" per author.
Your average 13 year old blogger does better than that.
- Log in to post comments
Huh. Neat story. A Mormon friend said they wait until a child is eight and ask them if they want to go ahead with the deed. The theory is that they are old enough to make a choice. I'm not so sure an eight year old can challenge his/her parents' wishes. Maybe if they waited until the kid's a teenager....
If I had ever believed Christian stuff in the first place, I would be delighted to be "unbaptised" by way of making a statement about church practices and to affirm my disbelief in their superstitions. It's not worth the bother, because I've never believed in their abracadabra, not even as a very young child dragged to Sunday school.
Yeah, I find this really odd. I am similarly surprised at the anger of some Jews at their dead relatives being "converted" by some religious wackos. If you are convinced that Judaism is the "correct" religion, then why would you give a flying fuck what some nutters practicing an "incorrect" religion are doing? And if you think that what these nutters are doing actually means something, then wouldn't you conclude that their religion is actually the "correct" one?
Next these enterprising freethinkers need to supply de-birth certificates for those who want to retreact their born-again status - may they sell out each printing overnight!
Where'd you get the stats on 13yo bloggers?
Pierce: I made it up. I thought it was plausible. It was certainly rhetorical! Feel free to sue me.
There are a variety of more or less rational reasons someone would want to be removed from the baptismal lists. The most obvious such is that some estimates of how many adherents a given religion has are based on church records. So if one's baptism is still recorded then one is contributing to what amounts to an inaccurate statistic.
People should also not forget the power of symbolism. Being formally removed from this sort of list has strong symbolic significance to many. Phisio, that's part of what is occurring in the case of the Jews who get annoyed at after the fact Mormon conversions although there's also an element of actual halachic concern for some of them. The halachot governing interaction with other religions were made when Judaims still had strong henotheistic elements and that's reflected in this situation (under a henotheistic system, what other religions are doing matters a lot more than in a monotheistic system).
Well, what's the hurry? Mormons can always be baptised by proxy even after their death. This even includes such famous Mormons as King Herod, Mao Zedong, Joseph Stalin, Mickey Mouse, Martin Luther, John Calvin, Mohammed ibn Abdel-Wahhab, Pope John Paul II, Pope Pius XII, Pope Urban II, et. al.
"People should also not forget the power of symbolism."
Where there is life, there is ritual and symbolism. It needs to be updated and re-interpreted.
In old Chinese tradition, when a baby is one-month old, the family distributed special cake, the receivers will give something back-ranging from rice, red envelop or gold. When the baby is one-year old, the family holds a party and distributed special cooked sticky rice, and again the received will give something to the family.
In an agriculture society, the announcement is by ritual. It affirms the value of mutual supports for people who need it and a marker for the parents to accept their responsibility cheerfully.
The society is devoid of ritual perhaps is less civilized- de-humanized and de-community; therefore is imaginative impoverished.
The church had long history to maintain the public education; the baby baptism is the symbol of the acceptance of new life perhaps with not only cheerful responsibility but also holy commitment.
The baptized that has grown will learn the reverence of life and finiteness; he/she neither was jumped out from rock like Sun Wu-Kong, nor was fallen from the cloud of atheistic sky. From the evolution viewpoint; at least, he/she is aware of the past connection of billions years history.
Someone want to de-birth,yah, better to de-preschool education together or one day de-vaccinations. They were not decided by them also. So what?
Isn't this kind of like trying to renounce your birth certificate. I mean, you were born, and maybe you were baptised, the records just reflect these facts. Now if you want to renounce your birth, jump off a bridge. If you want to renounce your baptism, I don't know, maybe they can just repeat "I renounce my baptism" 3 times, and it is done.
Being fond of old written records, churches are some of the best places to find them. Church histories are the founding histories of some of our communities, and have much influence on the rest.
I hope by "removing the record" they merely mean a note attached that the baptism was renounced on such and such date by so and so and they don't actually destroy any records.
Isn't this kind of like trying to renounce your birth certificate.
Obviously, they feel that the "fact" of baptism is a little less compelling than the fact of birth.
If you want to renounce your baptism, I don't know, maybe they can just repeat "I renounce my baptism" 3 times, and it is done.
Or failing that, they could do what they're doing. Why is it any skin off your nose?
Symbolism and anti-symbolism both are powerful. Anti-symbolism specifically against the abused symbolism is a legitimate measure of correction.
Lack of authentic symbolism is nearly impossible in human life, it lacks of dynamism of ultimate concern towards life, therefore it would fall into nihilism or idolatry worship. In another words; love, good are pale for them to express.
The mystery of Easter by the phrase of "Father, why have you forsaken me?" figuratively depicts the true symbol of Trinity; man's total obedience to the larger and back to unite with the larger-the path of suffering, sacrifice and salvation.
So, there are different levels of de-baptism; some will bring harm, and some will bring truth. You need to be clear which way that you are undertaking.
Technically, de-baptism is not possible.
When you were baby baptized, you were brought by your parents or a family representative, in front of a priest or minister, and congregation-physically present-for some were inspired or left the memory until their deaths. Documentarily, it preserved as a record of ecumenical entity.
Say three times to yourself is done.
But to erase the memory of the parties who were participating in this ceremony is not easy. If your parents were the abused type, do to offend them, beat them and together to the people who had (have) connected with you, certainly you can change part of their memories. You may save them from superstition.
But also be careful; donât leave the footprint of self-denial. Change the family better?
Baptism and funeral are generally relating to religion so far. Both are communal rituals. For the latter, it is carried basically for the livings; unless you like to follow Bob Hopeâs âSurprise Me.â The dead person doesnât need anything.
Who knows? De-funeral one day maybe, not on this earth?
paiwan -
Good grief you're a twit. Seriously.
Most of these people are engaging in a symbolic act - not anti-symbolic, symbolic. They have renounced their Christian faith and having their names removed from the roles is largely an act to make that a firmer reality. Though I imagine that for some of them, they merely wish to have their names removed for posterity.
But the symbolism of that act or something similar can be and often is important to people who had an especially difficult time failing to reconcile their faith with altered world views. For a lot of us, this process of giving up out faith is incredibly painful and rife with fear and anger. Whether it was through attrition or the understanding that it is ultimately just abusive bullshit - a weapon to dominate, victimizing not only the dominated, but the dominators as well.
You seem to believe that ritual and symbolism are the sole purview of the faithful. This is patently ridiculous. Secular society, like any human society is teaming with rituals and symbolism. I daresay that even the faithful engage in far more secular rituals in their lifetimes, than they do religious ones. And everyone is inundated with symbolism pretty much constantly - one cannot look around a room without spotting several, unless one is in a completely spartan space, devoid of virtually anything purchased in a store.
And we use symbolism and metaphor in our language expression, even more in our thinking. There is some fair evidence that metaphor predates spoken or written language. Metaphor and symbolism are definitely language at it's most primitive - thus why symbolism is such a very important part of our culture. Symbols trigger primitive response patterns.
Ritual triggers very similarly primitive response patterns. The heart of ritual is the memory of where we come from, who and what we are. Our rituals define us on a great many levels - they are a very important aspect of the human condition. Whether it is reaffirming that we are a member of our family, by engaging in a particular activity we engaged in with our siblings as a child, or walking down the aisle in our cap and gown, having reached yet another academic milestone - rituals are definitive aspects of our lives. Particular rituals vary from person to person, but their contribution to our identity, our psyche, is universal.
"You seem to believe that ritual and symbolism are the sole purview of the faithful. This is patently ridiculous. "
If they are not more in spiritual and faith domain; then are they more in scientific domain? Who is more ridiculous?
"Good grief you're a twit. Seriously."
I never say that I am against religion or against de-baptism in a simple manner. If you can judge a person so quickly and make you sleep well, thank you for rewarding this title to me.
paiwan -
If they are not more in spiritual and faith domain; then are they more in scientific domain?
There is far more to reality than religion and science.
I never say that I am against religion or against de-baptism in a simple manner.
You're posts mock and argue about the concept of de-baptism, making a lot of assumptions about the people who have done it. You also imply that spiritualism is important, because ritual and symbolism is important.
If you can judge a person so quickly and make you sleep well, thank you for rewarding this title to me.
Your inane commentaries provide plenty of evidence for the validity of my assumption. And I would have made the same comment about you when I was still a Christian.