Wife wants sprog Christened - I don't.

[AJS-]

TheHeretic said:

Just be aware that baptism numbers are one of the backbone reasons that the Church has bishops in the House of Lords. People may well say "well, it is harmless", but if enough people do it the church can point to the numbers of 'religious' who may well not be religious. This is why secular organisations advertised for people to actually put down their true beliefs on the census, rather than just ticking what religion they are 'culturally'. They had some interesting figures associated with it as well.

If it is being done on religious grounds, fine, if not, then I wouldn't bother.

I would rather tackle the assumption that everyone who is baptised believes in a theological state than go around badgering everyone to throw off what is still a harmless tradition that has gone on for generations.

[TheHeretic]

AJS- said:

I would rather tackle the assumption that everyone who is baptised believes in a theological state than go around badgering everyone to throw off what is still a harmless tradition that has gone on for generations.

Trouble reading? Read my post again, and get back to me. I gave a reason NOT to add to the churches official numbers, as it has repercusions politically. I even added that if it was for religious reasons then fine. Apparently that is not good enough. With recent announcements, and decrees from the church regarding people 'outside' their remit, removing power they should not have of the numbers do not stack up IS of importance, even if you cannot see it.

[Justices]

Agree to the baptism on the condition your guests sit through Religulous beforehand.

[AJS-]

I can't see it though. I can't even see the much more meaningful figure of church attendance as a reason to have religious figures involved in government. Government ought to be about supporting the basic morality that we can nearly all agree on, and which ought to be argued on it's tangible merits rather than some abstract religious notions, however widely held they are.

[GTO Scott]

My wife wanted to talk about the arrangements for the christening last night, we compromised on having it around March 2013.

Of course, that was yesterday. Today she might change her mind again.

[Kermit power]

dorme said:

Seriously buddy, i felt(not the same) but similar towards wanting kids, me and the mrs were happy, had plenty of spare cash, home etc like you.

She got pregnant, we both admitted now wasnt really the time, but also that we wouldnt want to abort, no matter what (we both have strong reasoning behind this, not religious).

Shat myself for 9 months thinking im gonna be a bad father, im too young for this, i dont want kids yet etc etc, BUT when my little girl came into the world, i INSTANTLY felt a strong bond with her, its hard to describe-but i would say its so strong that you literally feel like you would give your life at a drop of a hat for her at any given moment-like a overly committed bodyguard!

Its a different kind of "love" than what your used to, but i would bet she tips up, and a few weeks or even days down the line, youll feel like you couldnt imagine being without her, the dog will be very insignificant in comparison-you'll see.

with regards to the christening, im in the same boat as you, but if it means that much to her, just let her crack on, it really isnt a big deal and only the weirdys take religion hugely serious now days.

good luck.

Posts like this can be a bit dangerous, in so far as they only represent one person's experiences, not the experiences of parenthood in general.

Personally, I loathe babies. They are needy, noisy, stty and generally utterly useless until they're about 3.

That's how I felt until our daughter was born.

We've now got 3 kids, and it's still the way I feel about babies. There is a 2.5 year gap between our two eldest because when my experience of father was limited to being the father of a baby, nothing on earth would've made me even contemplate having another.

Our youngest is now 4, and I wouldn't give any of them back under any circumstances, but I am somewhat jealous of the Victorian aristocrat approach of patting the new arrival on the head, quietly congratulating my loins on providing my wife with such a handsome child then brushing off any inadvertently dropped cigar ash before handing it over to Nanny for the first decade of its life. Of course, I do also realise that by doing that, the young people I enjoy now wouldn't have grown up to be the same young people that they are.

This doesn't change the fact that I would happily have missed out the entire baby experience if I could, and suggesting to the OP that he'll find his feelings all change straight after the birth could prove totally wrong and then exacerbate the situation, as he'll start to question himself even more.

Equally, if the marriage manages to survive his negativity over fatherhood until the kid does reach that sort of age, he may still not grow into being a father.

As for the christening though, I'd explain to my (fortunately utterly non-religious wife) exactly how negatively I feel about organised religion, then give the same explanation to the vicar if asked. I don't suppose I could legally have stopped my wife from having our sprogs christened had she been hellbent on doing so, but I certainly would not have been there on the day.

[VoziKaoFangio]

walm said:

marcosgt said:

I'm not sure he shouldn't stand his ground a bit.

She is about to give birth.
Now is not the time.

She doesn't want to do it in 2013 because there is a 13 in the year.
There is no reasoning with them at this (perhaps any) stage.

One wonders how the wife would feel about the child's birth were the due date to be in 2013. Presumably a reason would be found as to why it's fine to have a baby born with a 13 in the year, but not christened. Would she then wait until 2014 for the christening if it were born 1st Jan 2013? I expect not, I expect all would be fine for a 2013 christening.

Stand your ground. Don't have the child christened if you don't want to. When I was young and foolish I agreed to marry in a church "for our mothers". When it came to babies, I was asked to have them christened for similar reasons. By then, I realised I was an adult and said no. We had birth parties instead, and it has caused us zero problems. Youngest is about to turn 5 now and I haven't had to "pay" for it. (Yet.) It's never even mentioned. Schools? Well, if it's the kind of school which favours those christened children with a religious background, then it's probably not the kind of school you want your children going to.

[300bhp/ton]

GTO Scott said:

Sometime in the next few days the wife is going to be dropping a sprog. Whilst this already represents something of a personal failure, wife is now on about the christening. Whilst she isn't exactly a religious fanatic (her family are all methodists but all capable of drinking large amounts at parties and family gatherings), she does believe in god. I have no issue with that, nor does she have an issue with the fact that I do not believe at all. However, she wants sprog christened within a couple of months of being born (early December is when she wants it).

I can't agree with this. Why not let sprog grow up, make her own choices and if she wants to believe the world was created by a bored deity who had a week spare and fancied doing a bit of landscaping, then fine. Mrs S has said the christening is tradition as much as anything else, which to me seems pointless. It's almost like saying I should go and have a case of chicken pox because everyone else has.

I just don't see what the problem is with letting sprog decide when she grows up. If the wife wants to celebrate sprogs appearance on the planet, why not just have a party?

Over to you...

Can't really see the problem tbh, if you don't believe, then why object it won't cause you any harm and at most 40 mins to an hour of your time? Being fanatically about not believing is almost religious behaviour in itself btw.

[TheHeretic]

300bhp/ton said:

Can't really see the problem tbh, if you don't believe, then why object it won't cause you any harm and at most 40 mins to an hour of your time? Being fanatically about not believing is almost religious behaviour in itself btw.

Because baptismal numbers, as well as people ticking 'RC' or CofE' on the census, despite not going to church, or actually believing in the religious stuff adds weight to having 26 bishops sitting in the House of Lords, affecting how the country is run. As has recently been seen with regards to gay marriage, the church is more than happy to sticks it's beak in where it doesn't belong, and these false figures they use to justify their position in the House of Lords is an issue.

If they are religious folks, fine, if not, then for fks sake don't add weight to an organisation that sees fit to interfere outside of its sphere.

[300bhp/ton]

TheHeretic said:

300bhp/ton said:

Can't really see the problem tbh, if you don't believe, then why object it won't cause you any harm and at most 40 mins to an hour of your time? Being fanatically about not believing is almost religious behaviour in itself btw.

Because baptismal numbers, as well as people ticking 'RC' or CofE' on the census, despite not going to church, or actually believing in the religious stuff adds weight to having 26 bishops sitting in the House of Lords, affecting how the country is run. As has recently been seen with regards to gay marriage, the church is more than happy to sticks it's beak in where it doesn't belong, and these false figures they use to justify their position in the House of Lords is an issue.

If they are religious folks, fine, if not, then for fks sake don't add weight to an organisation that sees fit to interfere outside of its sphere.

Umm ok...

[TheHeretic]

300bhp/ton said:

Umm ok...

No idea what to make of that. It is neither a question, more a statement. Tell me to buy a Camero or so etching, it might make you feel better.

[GTO Scott]

300bhp/ton said:

Can't really see the problem tbh, if you don't believe, then why object it won't cause you any harm and at most 40 mins to an hour of your time? Being fanatically about not believing is almost religious behaviour in itself btw.

To the best of my knowledge I'm not a fanatic. I believe what I feel is right, but am of the opinion that others are free to believe what they want.

I only wanted the child to grow up, learn and make her own informed choice, even if she chooses something I don't believe in.

I seem to be repeating that bit a lot.

[TheHeretic]

GTO Scott said:

To the best of my knowledge I'm not a fanatic. I believe what I feel is right, but am of the opinion that others are free to believe what they want.

I only wanted the child to grow up, learn and make her own informed choice, even if she chooses something I don't believe in.

I seem to be repeating that bit a lot.

I'm not sure the whole religion thing works if you just let them make their mind up when they get older. They like to get their hands on the kiddies as their minds are easily formed.

[300bhp/ton]

GTO Scott said:

To the best of my knowledge I'm not a fanatic. I believe what I feel is right, but am of the opinion that others are free to believe what they want.

I only wanted the child to grow up, learn and make her own informed choice, even if she chooses something I don't believe in.

I seem to be repeating that bit a lot.

That's all fine. But I don't see how it'll cause any harm either way. They can still grow up and make an informed choice, whether they have been Christened or not. Also where do you draw the line to say they are informed enough to make such a decision? 5, 10, 16 or 18 years old maybe?

In short being Christened removes none of their choices.

[walm]

VoziKaoFangio said:

Well, if it's the kind of school which favours those christened children with a religious background, then it's probably not the kind of school you want your children going to.

While I wish that were true - it is often bks.

In plenty of catchment areas the very best school (by a huge margin) is the religiously affiliated one.

The religious element to the school is minimal and the other characteristics of the school are so good (in comparison with the other schools in the area) that you have perfectly rational parents wasting 1.5 hours every Sunday for two years in order to get Little Johnnie into the school.

Hence the 10% religious: 90% liars comment earlier.

It is frankly a disgusting situation that makes me hate religion and religious people even more than usual.
It wouldn't stop me joining the liars though.



Also - is anyone actually reading the OP's update? He has agreed on a compromise - saying "stand your ground" is all very well but that horse has bolted.

[Kermit power]

300bhp/ton said:

That's all fine. But I don't see how it'll cause any harm either way. They can still grow up and make an informed choice, whether they have been Christened or not. Also where do you draw the line to say they are informed enough to make such a decision? 5, 10, 16 or 18 years old maybe?

In short being Christened removes none of their choices.

As Heretic says, letting the church add another number to their adherents certainly does cause harm.

Even with spin doctors which made Blair's lot look like quaint amateurs, the churches can't disguise the fact that their membership is experiencing a catastrophic decline in this country, yet they still have a totally disproportionate say in the governance of the country through the existence of the Lords Spiritual.

The more people who glibly let the church add them to their lists, the longer this farce will be perpetuated.

[VoziKaoFangio]

walm said:

VoziKaoFangio said:

Well, if it's the kind of school which favours those christened children with a religious background, then it's probably not the kind of school you want your children going to.

While I wish that were true - it is often bks.

In plenty of catchment areas the very best school (by a huge margin) is the religiously affiliated one.

The religious element to the school is minimal and the other characteristics of the school are so good (in comparison with the other schools in the area) that you have perfectly rational parents wasting 1.5 hours every Sunday for two years in order to get Little Johnnie into the school.

Hence the 10% religious: 90% liars comment earlier.

It is frankly a disgusting situation that makes me hate religion and religious people even more than usual.
It wouldn't stop me joining the liars though.



Also - is anyone actually reading the OP's update? He has agreed on a compromise - saying "stand your ground" is all very well but that horse has bolted.

Well if it were me, I'd move house or choose a private school if the only decent primary in my area was of the God bothering variety. In fact, I did choose a private school despite my local state primary being non-religious and very well thought of, but for reasons of restricted facilities at the local school. I'm just trying to point out that no-one is wedded to using their local primary if it's religious and they don't like that aspect - there is always an alternative path. Ironically my children are probably getting more religion where they are, but at least the school's non-affiliated to any particular single branch of lunacy.

As for the horse bolting, as the OP rightly says she may well change her mind on arrangements, so that implies there's a chance he could still get it knocked on the head completely if he's of a mind.

[300bhp/ton]

Kermit power said:

As Heretic says, letting the church add another number to their adherents certainly does cause harm.

Even with spin doctors which made Blair's lot look like quaint amateurs, the churches can't disguise the fact that their membership is experiencing a catastrophic decline in this country, yet they still have a totally disproportionate say in the governance of the country through the existence of the Lords Spiritual.

The more people who glibly let the church add them to their lists, the longer this farce will be perpetuated.

So what farce would you prefer it was replaced with? Do you really think it would make any odds to your daily life?

[Kermit power]

300bhp/ton said:

So what farce would you prefer it was replaced with? Do you really think it would make any odds to your daily life?

Frankly pretty much anything would be preferable to having people in a position of national power (however restricted their actual power may be) who have achieved that position as a result of centuries of their organisation abusing the vulnerable and gullible.

Get rid of the Lords completely, make them all elected, non-partisan appointments based on subject matter expertise, a random lottery of everyone over the age of 18 without a criminal record.... I'd stick any of those ahead of religious Lords.

[ClaphamGT3]

Just to counterpoise KP's rather hysterical assertion that we're living in a virtual theocracy, can we just sense check how much political clout 12 bishops sitting in the House of Lords actually have?

You might like to consider in your answer the fact that the Chief Rabbi and other religious leader also happen to sit in the Lords as life peers, so its hardly a CofE stitch-up.