For many Christians, baptism is one of the most sacred ceremonies in which a person can participate.
Baptism is a symbol of a person’s acceptance of the faith, a way of publicly affirming their beliefs.
But for some, it’s a mark of shame — a mark they want to erase from history.
England’s National Secular Society is doing everything in its power to help its formerly faithful members do just that.
Atheist John Hunt is a pioneer in an emerging movement toward “debaptism” — a formal rejection of the creeds of baptism.
Hunt, a member of the NSS, has petitioned the local clergy of the Church of England to officially remove his name from their baptismal records.
Apparently Hunt, who broke his faith as a teenager, wants to remove any trace of affiliation he might have with an organization preaching what he now believes to be superstition.
The Church has so far refused to comply.
“You can’t remove from the record something that actually happened,” the Right Rev. Nick Baines, Bishop of Croydon, said, according to the BBC. “Whether we agree whether it should have happened or not is a different matter.”
In Baines’ view, whatever his current beliefs about God are, Hunt can’t pretend his baptism never happened.
Hunt’s petition is a part of the NSS’s attempt at convincing the Church of England to develop an official procedure for annulling baptisms. So far, such a procedure has not been devised.
In response to the Church’s hesitance, the NSS has begun issuing documents called “Certificates of Debaptism.”
The documents are deliberately constructed as satire of Church ceremonies, and the ceremonies intentionally look homemade and use faux ceremonial language.
Hunt’s certificate reads, “I, John Geoffrey Hunt, having been subjected to the rite of Christian baptism in infancy ... hereby publicly revoke any implications of that rite. I reject all its creeds and other such superstitions in particular the perfidious belief that any baby needs to be cleansed of original sin.”
The certificate is largely a tongue-in-cheek jab at the formalities of the Church — in fact, the Society’s president Terry Sanderson suggested that it be displayed in the bathroom.
The document is available online and has been downloaded more than 60,000 times, according to Sanderson.
The Society’s movement to annul baptisms seems juvenile.
The Church’s argument is sound — whether Hunt likes it or not, he was baptized, even if he was too young to understand. Church records are historical documents, so the names should not be removed.
A baptism does not denote membership in the Church. It’s a profession of belief, and, as Hunt is well aware, beliefs can and do change throughout a person’s life. By maintaining records of his baptism, the Church is certainly not claiming any affiliation or power over him.
Besides, if the NSS really thinks Christian beliefs are so absurd and false, there’s no reason for them to attach any significance to the ceremonies those beliefs entail.
But, on the other hand, baptism is a sacred, important ritual to those who have kept the faith — atheists have no reason to care about baptisms as Christians do.
The “debaptism” effort represents a certain breed of militant, confrontational atheism more concerned with vehemently disassociating themselves from Christianity than maintaining actual religious freedom.
If Hunt wants to distance himself from his former religious affiliations, that right is certainly his. But digging into the obscure archives of a church in an effort to remove all traces of his past only serves to insult the faith in which he was raised.
This column, accessed via UWire, was originally published in The Daily Reveille at Louisiana State University. Please send comments to letters@mndaily.com.








Serving the University of Minnesota Community since 1900
9 Comments
To comment, please login.
Drawing attention to your
Drawing attention to your views is not "militant." No one complains when Christian missionaries infiltrate unsuspecting societies. Atheists have a right, and a reason, to poke fun at institutions that marginalize them and hurt humanity.
'Militant?'
It's funny how you actually have to pick up a gun and kill somebody to be considered a 'militant' believer, but all you have to do to be considered a 'militant' atheist is write a book or publish a certificate.
BTW, an adult baptism may be a profession of belief, but that can't be said of infant baptism... except maybe the beliefs of the parents.
blah blah blah... As long as
blah blah blah...
As long as parents and religious organizations wish to impose their mythology on their children without consent - whether it be baptism or circumcision - we have the right to point out their absurdity.
Well, I don't believe they
Well, I don't believe they have any right to force a church to perform an act they don't support, but I do believe that Atheists have a right to renounce their Baptism if they want to.
Even if gay marriage were legal, for example, I don't believe churches should be forced to perform them - it kind of impedes on their right. Same scenario with the debaptism topic.
Unbaptism
i want my Catholic baptism anulled and I would like to go further than just downloading a bit of paper to confirm it is done - I'm talking about a major scale public unbaptism ceremony - see my web page here for the basis of this http://arthurchappell.me.uk/unbaptism.htm
Wow, the anger here is amazing
I thought this was a very thoughtfull and fair sided article and one of the best I have read in the Daily in a long while.
Baptism without consent? I have never heard of that concept. Since when do we give babies the right to consent to anything? A parent is the legal guardian of a child and as such can raise them any way they wish as long as the child is not harmed by the actions imposed. A little water sprinkled on the forehead does not harm a child and thus it is that parents choice. Think about what you are saying and don't let your negative views on religion blind you to the greater argument that you are making. Do you really want govt. to tell parents exactly how they must raise their children?
An infant baptism is not a proffesion of faith for the child but of the parents. It is simply a statement that they have brought a new child into the world an intend to raise them within the congregational community of the church. An adult baptism on the other hand is a proffesion of faith and as such must be requested by the believer themselves.
They where called "militant" not because they espouse their atheistic views, but because they were harrasing the Church of England. I for one do not care if you are an atheist, so be it that is your choice and power to you. Just like you would be angry if I constantly came to your house and stated that "you are going to hell" or other such religious propaganda; you could be legitimately angered. So too are the religious when the "militant" atheist berate churches and their memebers.
If you truly think that God is just make believe then why do you even care as long as it does not harm you? Yes, I know there is murder in God's name and the like. Feel free to speak up about harmfull actions that have taken religion to violent extremes. I say this becuase to not only are there good things done in the name of religion i.e. Catholic run hospitals, charity organizations and the like; there are also bad things done in atheaistic contexts like with former Soviet Union. Hence, all I am saying is to paint any group of people with a wide brush stroke makes a mess and should be avoided.
Answer to Justin Kimmel
Justin Kimmels writes: "A parent is the legal guardian of a child and as such can raise them any way they wish as long as the child is not harmed by the actions imposed"
And this "harm" must be physical?? How about psychological harm? Being forced into a specific religion? Having your human rights removed from you? Freedom of religion is a human right and also includes freedom from religion... It doesn't cause any harm to dedicate a child to Satan - should that be OK? Or for muslims to force their small girls to cover the hair and face? No one can claim it causes any harm to cover your hair.
Does Justin also think (since he obviously does not consider children as individuals) that parents have the right to force their children to be members of a certain political party? Would it even be reasonable if all infants were subjected to ceremonies to make public that now "2 months old Josh is officially a life-time member of the Conservatives"? And if Josh decides to protest this as an adult then he becomes a "militant" anti-political??
No one should decide for anyone else what religious or political belonging that person should have. Decide for yourself, leave others to decide for them. As long as parents keeps disrespecting their children and society ignores viewing kids as individuals, at least the victims of religious parental dictatorship should have the right to protest what they've been forced to and have their names removed from official records!
Oh, it's funny, isn't it. An
Oh, it's funny, isn't it. An intentionally silly idea like debaptism is turned into some kind of angry, militant gesture.
Now, it turns out there is a market for these certificates, and some of those buying them actually are angry about their induction into a religion they consider damaging - maybe they are gay, for example, and horrified by religious homophobia. Not a huge mystery why that might be, is it?
But one of the original points was to satirically comment on the fact that baptism statistics are sometimes used to justify religious privilege. So again, that's a reasonable thing to be irritated about.
I think a lot of people are failing to understand what's going on here.
Dan
have a great day
Choose, buy and shop for on sale tiffany jewelry including Tiffany & Co Silver Necklace, Pendants, Bangles, Bracelets, Earrings, Rings and Accessories
rolex replica
tiffany jewelry
tiffany jewellery
tiffany bracelets
tiffany rings
tiffany necklaces
tiffany necklece
tiffanys
tiffany accessories
bags online
backpacks