Atheist wins right to have baptism removed

[Bandito]

He was baptised into the Church of England as a five-month-old in 1953.


Eleven years later, having become disillusioned with religion, John Hunt announced to his parents he had stopped believing in God and would no longer be attending Sunday school.


Now the 56-year-old, who grew up to become a vehement atheist, has become the first person in Britain to have his baptism cancelled.


His move follows a battle with church leaders who had argued evidence of the ceremony at St Jude and St Aidan parish church in Thornton Heath, South London, could not be destroyed as it was a public record.


But religious leaders at the Southwark Diocese relented after Dr Hunt stated his renouncement of baptism in the London Gazette, a paper of record dating back to the 17th century.


They agreed that a cutting of the declaration can be placed alongside his baptism certificate in church records.


Yesterday Dr Hunt, a PHD-holding former software engineer who retrained as a nurse, said: 'I am delighted. It's important we send a signal to the Church and Government that an increasing proportion of the population don't place any faith in various churches.
'

Dr Hunt became disillusioned with religion while attending confirmation classes aged 11.


He said: 'It struck me there was a lot of hypocrisy around. One Sunday I came back home and said, "Mum, I'm not going to the class any more". She decided not to argue.' Dr Hunt added: 'Having been subjected to the rite of Christian baptism in infancy I hereby publicly revoke any implications of that rite.
'

After his ad in the London Gazette, Dr Hunt received a letter from a Southwark Diocese official, who wrote: 'The Archdeacon of Croydon has undertaken, in this particular case, to have it cross-referenced with the baptismal entry and pasted into the back fly-leaf of the relevant register at St Jude's Church.
'

President of the Secular Society Terry Sanderson said: 'This is great news, it has taken many months and John's been very persistent. I agree historical records should not be destroyed but I think a de-baptism certificate is also very important for the records.
'

A spokesman for Lambeth Palace said it was a matter for Southwark Diocese and there were no plans to allow it nationwide.
(Daily Mail)

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I wasn't baptised, but if I was, I would also be seeking to have my baptismal record amended.

[RedAnarchist]

Sounds like a great idea to me. This revoking of baptisms will most likely grow to be quite popular in this country.

[Demogorgon]

What's the point? It still happened. If you no longer subscribe to the church, it no longer means anything.

[RedAnarchist]

What's the point? It still happened. If you no longer subscribe to the church, it no longer means anything.

But there's still a record saying you're baptised. That record will be around forever in church records, so now that he's revoked it, that record will be gone, or at least edited.

[Bandito]

The point lies in lowering the church's powers, debunking the myths, and mocking dogma.
Baptism is one of the "wonders" and playing with it on this level is a blow for the clerics.
If a person simply refuses to go to church, it is a good step, but this fellow took it on a new platform, making his beliefs heard. If this becomes regular thing, than we will see what John Hunt actually did.

[Hoxhaist]

If you dont believe in God why go to all the effort of removing something you think has no effect? Atheists baptized as kids just go on about their lives without obsessing over rites in infancy

[Bandito]

Question back: Do you think it is ok to baptize children?
Hell,maybe one day they will grow a brain and reject it than.
This, my friend, is called, fighting the basics.

[Kassad]

Because getting your baptism 'removed' somehow makes the slightest bit of fucking difference in the struggle against religious tyranny? I was baptized. I'm an atheist. End of story. What kind of attention-grabbing tool do you have to be to think that something like this is necessary, especially when you could be assisting in the struggle in dozens of other ways? Soon the streets will flock with the anti-religious, all waving their de-baptized certificates. It truly is a revolution.

Give me a fucking break.

[Bandito]

This kind of thinking give rights to baptizing children.
Is this a step to finally scrape the "holy" sign off this form of child-abuse? Yes.
Revolution?
Who the hell mentioned revolution?

[Kassad]

No, it's not. This world is inhabited by billions of religious folk and a significant amount of them are Christians. A significant amount of them baptize their children. Instead of focusing on the baptism itself, which is just a physical procedure, why not criticize the concept of religious education and manipulation of young, malleable minds? I was raised Catholic and I am incredibly opposed to their teachings and their dogma, but this practice is not going to become widespread and even if it does, the Church is still going to maintain a significant amount of control, as people raised religious, often times, will grow up religious. That's just basic conditioning.

Also, you're proving to me that you aren't revolutionary whatsoever. If you don't consider and comprehend the effects on revolution of society's actions, you are not a revolutionary socialist or anything of the like. Revolution must consistently be the first thing on our minds, as it is our goal. To say that revolution isn't relevant in religious discussions like this is counterproductive and idiotic.

[Jazzratt]

As I understand it the church has records of everyone babtised into their faith, presumably for the purposes of counting who is in their number and so on. I can see how it could be quite irksome to be nominally included in a group you want nothing to do with and why one might want to have their name striken from the record. Beyond the possibility of hobbling one of the favourite arguments of the religious ("how can x million people be wrong, lol!") there is very little utility to doing it.

[RedAnarchist]

Most "Christians" in the UK aren't even Christian apart from in name only. I would guess that more than half of the people seen as Christian in this country have hardly ever been inside a church apart from weddings/christenings/funerals. Most actual Christians in this country are either immigrants from elsewhere coming to work here, older people or conservatives.

[Bandito]

Kassad,
So,you are proving to us that this is a bad thing from a dialectical stand point?
Clarify.

[Kassad]

It's not necessarily a 'bad thing,' but I merely think it's a total waste of time. This kind of thing isn't going to have an impact. Attendance at Catholic mass is plummeting. Instead of focusing on 'Oh, look at me. I revoked my Baptism,' we should be struggling for an end to the child abuse that is religious conditioning. We should criticize schools that raise children who are young and malleable to believe in surreal fantasies. You're attacking a symptom of a disease here. Under capitalism, sub-par healthcare is provided, correct? Especially under privatizes systems. Well, if you are just calling for socialized healthcare, you're a reformist and you're ignoring the greater ail that is capitalism. It's the same thing with religion. If you attack baptism, you're missing the greater evil.

[Bandito]

Where do you keep finding my ideological standpoints in this?
I am for every thing that demyths and cracks this institution, and my opinion is that this is one of those things.
And keep me out from this "you are reformist,social-democrat..." and stuff.
I prove my marxist-leninist beliefs on the field, not to you.

[Kassad]

I'm sure you feel very special. So while the Church impedes progressive movements and suppresses women's rights, LGBT rights and promotes racist attitudes, you can feel very content with yourself knowing that you sure 'let them have it' by revoking baptisms. I'm sure the Pope will shit bricks.

[Bandito]

Yes,i am for opression over women,hate LGBTs and damn i hate those other races.
What the hell are you thinking?
That I don't see it?
That I don't care about it?
That I am content with just this?
That i will now stop fighting against church opression?

If so,you have a problem.

[Bandito]

Yes,i am for opression over women,hate LGBTs and damn i hate those other races.
What the hell are you thinking?
That I don't see it?
That I don't care about it?
That I am content with just this?
That i will now stop fighting against church opression?

If so,you have a problem.

[Kassad]

You seem to have a problem called 'a lack of reading comprehension.' What I'm telling you is that while you and your kind are out getting Baptisms revoked, the Church is still oppressing other social groups. Your actions will have absolutely no impact on the Church's daily affairs, nor will it impact their xenophobic, racist and homophobic actions. I'm telling you to struggle against the disease that is religious manipulation, as opposed to acting like getting a few baptisms revoked will tear down the Church's hierarchy.

[Patchd]

Interesting story.


What's the point? It still happened. If you no longer subscribe to the church, it no longer means anything.

But I second what Demogorgon said, I see this more of an egotistical pursuit as opposed to anything substantial. This person should have been fighting against the so-called "right" of the parent to baptise their children. Their children should make their own choice when they are old enough, without pressure from their parents, the child is not the property of the parents, and forcing a child to adopt a religious belief, I consider, to be child abuse.

[Bandito]

you and your kind
And what kind is that?

What I keep telling you is that you put words into my mouth. Please, don't.
No,it's not going to end racism and homophobia in the church, but it is good move for demythisation of the instituion. THAT was my point. OK?
Problems that exist about religious belief still remain and....did I make a single post where I denied that?
We still have a lot to fight for.
This is only good for as one of thousands of steps for debunking the "holy" part out of it.
Understood me finally?
Or are you going to put another word in my mouth?

[Kassad]

I feel it necessary to ask if you intentionally act brain dead or not. I haven't put one word in your mouth. I'm telling you that you're wasting your time by attacking a symptom of a greater disease. I never said you were homophobic or xenophobic, but I am stating that you focus on a totally irrelevant issue of struggle against religious institutions. 'You and your kind' are the reformists who thing that attacking irrelevant parts of the system are a solution to that problem. If getting people to reject baptism won't make a difference, as you said, why waste your time? Who cares if the religious want to believe their fantasies and myths? Revoking baptism does not end religious oppression or the manipulation of children raised to be religious, therefore it is fucking irrelevant. Take five seconds to read what I'm telling to you.

[TC]

Because getting your baptism 'removed' somehow makes the slightest bit of fucking difference in the struggle against religious tyranny? I was baptized. I'm an atheist. End of story. What kind of attention-grabbing tool do you have to be to think that something like this is necessary, especially when you could be assisting in the struggle in dozens of other ways? Soon the streets will flock with the anti-religious, all waving their de-baptized certificates. It truly is a revolution.

Give me a fucking break.

I don't understand your (or others) hostility to the idea. Its not an either/or proposition whereby this particular action entails forgoing other actions.

My parents are atheists, I wasn't baptized. If i was, I can imagine resenting it and resenting that a church claimed me as a member.

If a political party had you on its membership rolls, say, when you got your driving permit at 14, on the dmv registry form your mother or father ticked 'democrat' before signing the parental consent portion, would you resent that? I would.

Baptism is symbolic, and so is renouncing it. Having symbols you destain applied to you can hurt. Being able to symbolically rectify it can heal that. Thats just the reality of it.

[Decolonize The Left]

TC is absolutely correct. This is a symbolic gesture, and given that religion is primarily composed upon the repeated and thoughtless worship of symbols, such a gesture is important given that it is resistance within the present framework.

- August

[synthesis]

This is indeed a symbolic gesture, and not as meaningless as people are saying. Some people stick with religion because, hey, what if Hell does exist? By rejecting his baptism, this guy is basically saying that his disbelief is so strong that he refuses to even consider the possibility of eternal damnation. I think it might inspire a few people "on the fence" to take their skepticism all the way, so to speak.

[Kassad]

But the worship of symbols and metaphysical spirits or deities is the symptom of religious manipulation and oppression. It's like advocating socialized healthcare or a living wage under capitalism. You are attacking a symptom of capitalism, but you aren't attacking the greater disease by commiting to revolutionary struggle. Instead of focusing on the symptom of the religious manipulation that is baptism, why not focus on the source of this destructive power, which comes from raising children to submit to religious authority and manipulating the public through religious teachings?

[pastradamus]

What a load of complete bullshit. Im an Athiest and I was Baptized. I have no intention of going up to my parish priest and acting like a smartass just for the sake of it. It dosent make a shit's bit of difference to me what the church thinks of me on or off any stupid records. Also, some people bring up the whole catholic funeral mumbo jumbo - which is another thing I couldnt give a fuck about, after all im dead at that stage anyway. Its simply a waste of time and I have a friend who wants to get excommunicated from the church but he's just doing it for the sake of controversy like a dim-wit as im almost convinced he's still a christian.

[pastradamus]

I don't understand your (or others) hostility to the idea. Its not an either/or proposition whereby this particular action entails forgoing other actions.

My parents are atheists, I wasn't baptized. If i was, I can imagine resenting it and resenting that a church claimed me as a member.

If a political party had you on its membership rolls, say, when you got your driving permit at 14, on the dmv registry form your mother or father ticked 'democrat' before signing the parental consent portion, would you resent that? I would.

Baptism is symbolic, and so is renouncing it. Having symbols you destain applied to you can hurt. Being able to symbolically rectify it can heal that. Thats just the reality of it.

TC, I fully understand your opinion and its quite a valid one at that. Now, as I've stated im an Athiest brought up in a fairly leftist ,working-class,catholic family. I dont blame them for baptizing me as they were brought up in relatively prudish times when the church controled everything and an unbaptized child was a massive stigma and even taboo - my parents were the result of Church indoctrination.

However this is not a question of a church claiming a child for me. Its a question of what id rather do that day; go to the gym? Watch a football match? listen to music? read a good book? I find it a time wasting experience. It makes about as much sense to me as pissing into the wind.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

But the worship of symbols and metaphysical spirits or deities is the symptom of religious manipulation and oppression. It's like advocating socialized healthcare or a living wage under capitalism. You are attacking a symptom of capitalism, but you aren't attacking the greater disease by commiting to revolutionary struggle. Instead of focusing on the symptom of the religious manipulation that is baptism, why not focus on the source of this destructive power, which comes from raising children to submit to religious authority and manipulating the public through religious teachings?

Firstly, with the baptism point, I see that it's a symbol, and I admit I wouldn't like being associated with the Democratic party. However, that's because people find out. It affects my life. I'd get annoying phone calls, pamphlets, et cetera. I've never had my baptism influence my life. They poured water on my head. Yeah, I didn't choose it, but people know that. Baptism is a procedure performed in youth. All they can assume is that I was once involved in religious things. I was. I'm not trying to change history.

Maybe you can justify baptism reversal if it wastes the resources of churches, but for the individual to somehow resent being baptized, well, that's nonsensical, as I see it.

Secondly, capitalism doesn't necessarily cause all social ills. It "may" necessarily contribute to all social ills (not sure here). It's a huge problem. However, I can conceive of various social problems existing independent of capitalism. Marx really gives little reason for why they wouldn't.

Marx defends this idea of "capitalism causing everything" by requesting a counterexample. Opponents can provide one, but any Marxist can shoot it down. I used to make mistakes with this kind of reasoning. I recently realized its problems.

Basically, I can develop some sort of nonsensical causal chain that makes food consumption the root of all problems, perhaps. Or power, or gender conflicts. As long as you are able to make your explanation elaborate enough, you can escape criticism. Look at religious explanations.

The standard response is Occam's Razor. Pick the simpler explanation. What's the common link between the following inequalities:

Gender Inequalities
Economic Inequalities
Age Inequalities

Class struggle, humans, power relations, existence itself. Pick whatever you want. It's arbitrary. That's why I would never say Marxist analysis is useless. He might have the simplest explanation.

However, how does capitalism, class inequalities, contribute to other inequalities. Pretty self-evident. However, there are a few responses I can think of immediately:

1. If the removal of capitalism involves socialism, which does not contain inequalities, you are essentially saying "inequalities won't exist by definition." This says nothing about how those inequalities disappear.
2. A universal link between capitalism and inequality does not prove capitalism the only cause of inequality or necessary for inequality to exist.
3. If class struggle is part of all inequalities, by definition, the removal of the struggle will eliminate those inequalities. The removal of capitalism does not necessarily remove class struggle.

Marx generalizes far to much. His time period involved creating universally applicable philosophies. Sometimes, philosophies are universally valid. Sometimes, they are only useful as a tool. Marxism is a tool to analyze the system. It shouldn't be a hard and fast universal explanation for how and why everything is what it is, as I see it.

Lastly, addressing symptoms is important because we don't know if capitalism removes them or they remove capitalism, by default. Removing the symptoms of a disease are generally how it is treated, in some cases. Other times, not. We shouldn't be overly confident a methodology is correct when both methods of experimentation have had incomplete results.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Instead of focusing on the symptom of the religious manipulation that is baptism, why not focus on the source of this destructive power, which comes from raising children to submit to religious authority and manipulating the public through religious teachings?

The two are not mutually exclusive.

[Bandito]

The two are not mutually exclusive.
Thank you.
That was my point.

[Bud Struggle]

If you don't believe--what does it matter?

This is a "feel good" thread. Comfort time.

[Comrade Anarchist]

I didnt know you could get them removed because i really need to

[RedAnarchist]

I didnt know you could get them removed because i really need to

He had to put quite a bit of effort into it here in the UK, so it might be even more difficult in the US.

[Lenin Cat]

yay!

[Jazzratt]

I didnt know you could get them removed because i really need to

I can't imagine a set of circumstances where someone would really need to have a baptism removed.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

If you don't believe--what does it matter?

This is a "feel good" thread. Comfort time.

What's wrong with wanting to feel good?

[Bud Struggle]

What's wrong with wanting to feel good?

Nothing at all. Enjoy! :)

BTY: I certainly agree that people that don't want to be Baptized--shouldn't be, and if you want it revoked there should be some simple procedure to get it done.

[Comrade Anarchist]

He had to put quite a bit of effort into it here in the UK, so it might be even more difficult in the US.

ya i know ill just brush it off and hope i never run into anybody in the church that day because i dont think theyll approve of the whole anti theism

[Oneironaut]

It's not necessarily a 'bad thing,' but I merely think it's a total waste of time. This kind of thing isn't going to have an impact. Attendance at Catholic mass is plummeting. Instead of focusing on 'Oh, look at me. I revoked my Baptism,' we should be struggling for an end to the child abuse that is religious conditioning. We should criticize schools that raise children who are young and malleable to believe in surreal fantasies. You're attacking a symptom of a disease here. Under capitalism, sub-par healthcare is provided, correct? Especially under privatizes systems. Well, if you are just calling for socialized healthcare, you're a reformist and you're ignoring the greater ail that is capitalism. It's the same thing with religion. If you attack baptism, you're missing the greater evil.

While I also agree that it is a total waste of time, I would be interested in having my baptism revoked for personal reasons. However, I would imagine that it is a fairly complicated process which would mean I am 1) too lazy to go about and 2) have much better things to do with my time. If it was easy to revoke, then hell yeah! I don't think anyone is arguing that it is actually going to make a difference but merely that it is an option for those who would be interested in revoking their baptism for personal reasons.

[TC]

But the worship of symbols and metaphysical spirits or deities is the symptom of religious manipulation and oppression. It's like advocating socialized healthcare or a living wage under capitalism. You are attacking a symptom of capitalism, but you aren't attacking the greater disease by commiting to revolutionary struggle.

But socialists *do* advocate socialized healthcare and a living wage under capitalism when not in a position to overthrown capitalism in its entirety.

It is not conceding the ultimate aims of socialism to attempt to remedy the worst abuses of capitalism, to fight back and limit its damage while at the same time insisting on revolutionary goals.

Socailists attack both at once: when you fight the battles you can win while figting the batters you're not a position to win yet, you can win some intermediary victories to keep the movement goving.


Instead of focusing on the symptom of the religious manipulation that is baptism, why not focus on the source of this destructive power, which comes from raising children to submit to religious authority and manipulating the public through religious teachings?

First I don't see why you assume that this is 'focusing' on baptism to the exlcusion of other aspects of religious indoctrination. It seems reasonable to guess that virtually anyone trying to renounce baptism would object to those as well.

Secondly though I think you've somewhat misunderstood the point of the gesture. Renouncing baptism, and in fact making such a fuss over it, was a conciousness raising gesture to make people aware of just the practice of getting children to submit to religious authority that you object to.

What is your real problem with this exactly? You don't have an issue with symbolic but conciousness raising anti-war protests (rather than stopping the war by active resistance).

[TC]

by the way Kassad, whats your opinion of Black liberation activists changing their 'slave names' to new last names?