Should it be law, that a priest can only baptist somebody over 18 years old?

1. 55

   peter565posted 9 years ago

   Should it be law, that a priest can only baptist somebody over 18 years old?
   
   People should have the right of religion freedom and parents should not force their own religion upon their children, but in the west, it is common practice to have ur child baptist as a christian at birth. I don't think that is a good idea. We should wait till the child grow up to make their own decision whether they want to be a baptist Christian. So, I believe it should be illigal for priest to baptist a child, if he is under the age of 18, even with parent's consent. And if the parent force the child to be baptist, after growing up, the child has the right to sue the priest, who perform it

   replyreport
2. 83

   tamarawilhiteposted 9 years ago

   Parents teach their children their views on everything from faith to finances to politics. You can't say, "Parents, teach your kids how to eat, dress, behave, handle money - but don't discuss something most consider very important."
   No, baptism should not be illegal. If you want to talk about coercion in religion, go look up how Islam calls for death to those who leave the faith, whether born into it or forced to convert under threat of death - and how many atheists and converts to other religions are killed for it.
   Parents have the right to teach their children what they believe, and in a free society, the young adults have the right to choose another path. You need to focus on the religion that denies people that right, Islam.

   replyreport
   1. 55

      peter565posted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Actually Christian bible also teach, killing people who refuse to worship Christ, it is just modern westerners don't practice such savage teaching. There is at least two bible passage that teach stoning or stranggling non believer to death

      replyreport
3. 73

   Aime Fposted 9 years ago

   While I believe in letting kids explore the topic of religion freely, I don't necessarily see the harm in baptism if it means something to the parents.  Ultimately I think it means more to them than to the kid.  If someday the child decides they're an atheist or a Buddhist or whatever else, being baptized isn't really going to mean a heck of a lot to them anyway.  It's not a permanent tattoo that says "I'M A CHRISTIAN!", it's just an experience that becomes pretty much meaningless if they don't choose to follow the religion in the future.  I'm an atheist and had I been baptized at birth it wouldn't bother me at all and I most definitely would not feel the need to sue anyone.
   
   Now, replace "baptism" with "circumcision" and you have me on board.

   replyreport
4. 50

   bradmasterOCcalposted 9 years ago

   Baptism is a religious ceremony, and the government shouldn't get involved in religion.

   replyreport
5. 0

   savvydatingposted 9 years ago

   No. Your assumption is that Baptism is something other than a Rite of protection. Baptism is a blessing, that is all. The child or adult can make a declaration of his belief at a later point if he so chooses. And besides, the government has no right to interfere in such matters. The U.S. is not a communistic society. Hopefully, it will not some day become so.

   replyreport