Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

3 Bumps

Battle over baptism

A story about a mother who was arrested after having son baptised.

For those who won't bother to read the story, both the parents claim to be Christians, just of different denominations. 

Do you think the mother should have been arrested?  Do you think the father's rights had been denied?  How do you think the law should have handled this case - if at all?

Answer Question

Asked by jsbenkert at 10:53 PM on May. 13, 2012 in Religious Debate

Level 37 (89,331 Credits)
Answers (16)
  • I think this case is bunk! The child is old enough to make his own decision. The father had time to discuss it with his son and in the end he agreed with the baptism. The mother didn't force her son to be baptized. There is no case for contempt because the father was allowed to weigh in with his opinion and in the end everyone went with what the child wanted to do.

    Answer by kmath at 11:04 PM on May. 13, 2012

  • If you look at the root of this story, instead of the leaves and branches, the mother violated the court order.

    Answer by iwicked at 11:08 PM on May. 13, 2012

  • – collapse
    I think the baby's rights have been violated.

    Baptism should be for consenting adults ONLY. Any dumbfuck who thinks that only baptized babies get into heaven has no business reproducing in the first place.

    Answer by FreeForAll at 11:10 PM on May. 13, 2012 (hidden) + expand

  • Seriously!!! I read most of the article and was dumbfounded to beat it all it's up the road from me and I hadn't heard the first thing about it. It's ludicrous.  That father is just being spiteful The child was not forced and was gave him INFORMED concent.  Crazy!


    Answer by luvmygrlz at 11:11 PM on May. 13, 2012

  • @ FFA the child was 12 years old

    Answer by luvmygrlz at 11:16 PM on May. 13, 2012

  • FreeForAll.. the"baby" was 12 years old.

    I think jail was extreme. I think dad overreacted.

    Answer by gdiamante at 11:19 PM on May. 13, 2012

  • Wow. He had equal access to share his religious veiws. He had the oportunity to talk to his son and shugged it off. He gave his consent to the religious upbringing the child has received and then he calls foul?
    In some states a 12 year old is considered old enough to decide which parent he wishes to live with. My opinion is that he is old enough to make the decision without either parent.
    Had she been taking him to church and to bible studies and retreats rtc. without his knowledge I would say he had every right to complain. But it seems to me that he had full access and knowledge and gave his consent.
    Oh in answer no I do not think that the government ought to have anything about religion in the parenting plan except possibly the both agree that the other one can expose the child to the religion they themselves are practicing.

    Answer by Dardenella at 11:20 PM on May. 13, 2012

  • So this is a paedo - vs credo- baptism debate gone dreadfully wrong?

    Ugh! I don't believe the state should be involved in matters like this. I fail to see how the mother's act was criminal.

    And speaking of people who won't read the article ... FFA, you really need to get a grip. If you're going to debate at least a cursory reading would be nice.

    Answer by -Eilish- at 11:26 PM on May. 13, 2012

  • I think that is bullshit. The kid explained to his dad that he wanted to be baptized, and his mom even made sure that he was 100% sure of his decision before doing it. The kid is old enough to make his own choices.

    Answer by AF4life at 11:30 PM on May. 13, 2012

  • Kid's choice. That said, when there is an ugly divorce involved, she should've at least talked to her lawyer first about the potential impact and made sure she had something in writing first to head off the court mess at the pass.

    Answer by NotPanicking at 1:09 AM on May. 14, 2012

Join CafeMom now to contribute your answer and become part of our community. It's free and takes just a minute.