I finally agreed to Google's generous offer to send me "alerts" for astronomy news.
Most of the articles sent to me are interesting. There's a new type of variable star out there (well, I think it's interesting), there's a Jupiter-sized planet being torn apart by its sun somewhere far away from our solar system, and President Obama is "aiding" a get together with atheists.
Wait a minute.
What does that have to do with astronomy?
While I am actually interested in the content of the article, it's really only by accident. Is there an immediate correlation between astronomy and atheism... or did Google pick up on the one book in the article that is next to the astronomy section in the bookstore (Christopher Hitchens' G-D IS NOT GREAT: A CASE AGAINST RELIGION)? How many really stupid articles will I receive alongside my pulsars and an exploding stars? I deleted the alert that had an article on Molly Shannon in the list.
As it turns out, President Obama had little to do with this meeting. This reminds me of why I'm not a big fan of newspapers or current events. The title sort of blames the president for this meeting... while later admitting that it was unlikely that he would even be there. It was a morning meeting during which organizations such as the American Atheists and the Council for Secular Humanism sat "quietly" to discuss certain significant issues. Among the topics of the meeting were issues involving "child medical neglect, military proselytizing and faith-based initiatives."
The story that bothered me the most was the story of a young teen whose Christian Scientist parents refused to send her to a doctor when she contracted a bone infection which, a little over 30 years later, cost most of her leg. This problem is not so easily answered. If the government were to say this was wrong, then they condemn a religion, a large group of people, and alienate them due to their way of life. It's like calling them unfit parents, maybe even crazy or cruel. If you or I say that, it's our opinion. If the government says that, we have problems bigger than untidy arguments at a table on the White House campus.
However, this woman, as an adult, seems to wish things had happened differently. She joined the meeting by phone hoping to affect change by sharing her story. She was an innocent child who could not act on her own behalf and her parents put her in a position to lead a highly "un-normal" life.
It reminds me of why I cry at infant baptisms. I get angry and devastated to the point where I have had to leave services to calm myself. I feel that the parents are committing the souls of these innocents to something they don't understand. I have no feelings whatsoever about adult baptisms or even when teenagers choose to get baptized. If it's your conscious choice, knock yourself out. But, infants don't even know what's happening. Not only will they not remember this supposedly significant ritual, they weren't given the time to elect to enter into the church ritual on their own.
So, I agree with this woman that something probably should be done to prevent truly life-altering problems parents inflict upon their children due to religious beliefs. Problems beyond the relatively "harmless" church ritual of baptism. As to what should be done... I have no idea. People in this country have a right to believe what they want to believe... that's one of the main reasons our ancestors got onto those big scary boats and sailed away from the comfort of a developed, European society to rough it out in the American wilderness. I suppose, if an adult chooses to use prayer instead of antibiotics, that's totally his or her business. However, for a child who can't decide on their own yet whether or not they want to risk life and limb to support a religious doctrine, I'm not as sure that's right.
I'm not interested in debating faith however. Weird things have happened, and I'm not going to dispute that. Still, I can certainly understand the concern of this coalition for children like the girl in the article. While many of us uphold the faiths of our families, I'd bet just as many of us change our mind and go in another direction in adulthood. Still, how involved should the government be in the private lives of citizens? Who is the government to tell us how to raise our kids? How far would it go? How many other choices would we then allow the government to make for our children?
I have no answers... but I'm definitely happy that the conversation has begun.
2 comments:
I think baptisms are more a ritual for the parents than the child. Though I agree that a child should have the option to choose their own religion and be exposed to many different beliefs in its lifetime before being dedicated to a certain religion or belief system. By taking their child to their place of worship, I think parents make a promise to their child to raise it using the values of their church. sort of like a wedding but for a baby, a ceremony to say out loud in front of an audience the things you promise to do. I'm sure there are still many who believe in the soul stealing without the holy water, but in general, I believe most people just feel the need for the ceremony itself, a sort of confirmation of the stepping stone in life they have just crossed.
You're right- infant baptism is likely a motion made by parents for parents as a declaration to a congregation to raise a child within the church. But, if one reads the order of service for baptism, the quote taken from Matthew 28: 18-20 states, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit: Teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you." That, to me, sounds like committing a person unable to speak up for him or herself to membership of a religion at the time of their birth. If the act, as you say, is a ritual for the grown-ups, why involve the child in pointless lip-service the parents themselves may not necessarily actively uphold? Why make the sign of the cross on the baby's forehead and welcome them to "the body of Christ"? All that being said, my feelings on the matter were offered only to demonstrate the strength of my reaction to what happened to this girl whose parents made an even more drastic decision on her behalf. My feelings on infant baptism are a mere elaboration, a form of description, on a much more pertinent point in my entry. What decisions do we make as parents for our children and how much should the government be expected to intervene when we cause our children harm? Who makes these decisions? These are tougher questions than my hang ups on infant baptism.
Post a Comment