De-Baptism Catches On in the U.K. and Elsewhere

The Cauldron's server is expensive and requires monthly payments. Please become a Bronze, Silver or Gold Donor if you can. Donations are needed every month. Without member support, we can't afford the server.

Or donate directly via Paypal

This message board is The Cauldron: A Pagan Forum's SMF Archive Board. It is closed to new memberships and to posting, but there are over 250,000 messages here that you can still search and read -- many full of interesting and useful information. (This board was open from February 2007 through June 2011).

Our new vBulletin discussion board is located at http://www.ecauldron.com/forum/ -- if you would like to participate in discussions like those you see here, please visit our new vBulletin message board, register an account and join in our discussions. We hope you will find the information in this message archive useful and will consider joining us on our new board.

[EverFool]

It really doesn't make a damn except for the Mormons which raises a huge ethical question.  Is it ethical to leave an entity to protect you from the machinations of some sob that would attempt to bind or otherwise alter your status after your crossing, after you cross?   I see it as ethically proper to release all those who exist in my service at the time of my crossing.  Yet, if I do that I will be unprotected from the machanations of those who would scheme to bind my spirit to the service of their fantasies.  What is the ethical response?
Ogre

I'm not sure I follow what you're trying to say here.  Can you put it a little more simply, please?

[Melamphoros]

I'm not sure I follow what you're trying to say here.  Can you put it a little more simply, please?

I think Ogre is referring to the Mormon practice of baptizing people after they died.

[Juniper]

I can't think of a country that allots power based upon confession and lets people change their confession.  What ever you are born is what you will be until you die. Do you have an example of a country that both allocates power based upon confession And lets them change it?

I read what I put, and then I read what you put, and I really don't know what you are asking me. 

[sailor_tech]

I read what I put, and then I read what you put, and I really don't know what you are asking me. 

Your post implied that secular political power for certain religious groups within a country was allocated upon the number of people who were members of a specific religion (ie confession).  Thus, if people convert away, then the religion will lose the number of seats in the legislature, or jobs, or tax dollars, etc that they get.

I can't think of any country that counts the number of adherants of a religion when giving specific religious groups direct political power AND permits people to change religions. Such as the Archbishop of Canterbury sits in the House of Lords by virtue of being Archbishop of Canterbury.

[mandrina]

Your post implied that secular political power for certain religious groups within a country was allocated upon the number of people who were members of a specific religion (ie confession).  Thus, if people convert away, then the religion will lose the number of seats in the legislature, or jobs, or tax dollars, etc that they get.

I can't think of any country that counts the number of adherants of a religion when giving specific religious groups direct political power AND permits people to change religions. Such as the Archbishop of Canterbury sits in the House of Lords by virtue of being Archbishop of Canterbury.

I think that's the point, that in England, people are finally able to do it.

[sailor_tech]

I think that's the point, that in England, people are finally able to do it.

Uh, no.  It doesn't matter how many people get de-baptized, the C of E won't lose any seats in Lords. No other religion gets any seats from converts. In addition, no other religion gets automatic seats in Lords or Commons.  For example there is not a seat in Commons or Lords that goes to a Quaker, with the specific Quaker being elected by the Society of Friends.

This was a two part item from what was first said. It's both permission to change religion (which is not the same really as de-baptism I'd think) plus certain seats reserved for specific & multiple religions.

[Nyktipolos]

Uh, no.  It doesn't matter how many people get de-baptized, the C of E won't lose any seats in Lords. No other religion gets any seats from converts. In addition, no other religion gets automatic seats in Lords or Commons.  For example there is not a seat in Commons or Lords that goes to a Quaker, with the specific Quaker being elected by the Society of Friends.

This was a two part item from what was first said. It's both permission to change religion (which is not the same really as de-baptism I'd think) plus certain seats reserved for specific & multiple religions.

I believe mandrina is saying the people of England, while it may not be "legal", have a way for people who do not like the Christian faith and no longer want to be a part of it, to separate themselves quite visibly from it.

For my own thoughts, a possible effect of this is eventually it leading to a possibly reformation of how much power the Church of England has in the UK. Not getting rid of it entirely, but I think it would cast doubts on how much power the Church has, and how the people don't like the way things are being run anymore.

[EverFool]

I think Ogre is referring to the Mormon practice of baptizing people after they died.

I know he's referring to that, but huge chunks of that post still didn't make sense to me.

[Juniper]

Your post implied that secular political power for certain religious groups within a country was allocated upon the number of people who were members of a specific religion (ie confession).  Thus, if people convert away, then the religion will lose the number of seats in the legislature, or jobs, or tax dollars, etc that they get.

That's what the article implied. From the article:

"According to Argentine campaigner Ariel Bellino, a former Catholic: "The church counts all those who've been baptized as Catholic and lobbies for legislation based on that number, so we're trying to convey the importance of people expressing they no longer belong to the church." Campaigners say that's particularly important in Argentina, where liberal social values frequently clash with Roman Catholic doctrine related to issues such as birth control, abstinence before marriage and homosexuality; in 2003, Buenos Aries became the first city in South America to legalize gay civil unions."

I can't think of any country that counts the number of adherants of a religion when giving specific religious groups direct political power AND permits people to change religions. Such as the Archbishop of Canterbury sits in the House of Lords by virtue of being Archbishop of Canterbury.

I still can't seem to get my head around what you're saying. Are you saying that if the Archbishop of Canterbury were to change his religion he would still have a seat in the House of Lords, or that he wouldn't?

[Marilyn (ABSENTMINDED)]

I still can't seem to get my head around what you're saying. Are you saying that if the Archbishop of Canterbury were to change his religion he would still have a seat in the House of Lords, or that he wouldn't?

I think he's saying that the archbishop would maintain his seat even if most of his congregation formally revoked their membership in his church, that his presence does not depend on the number of his parishioners.

I'm not familiar with British political rules, so I don't know whether the seat is fixed no matter who is archbishop and how many people he represents, or if he could lose his seat if he lost his followers.

Are they even 'his' followers?  I'm no more familiar with church hierarchies than with the House of Lords.

Absent

[Star]

That's what the article implied. From the article:

"According to Argentine campaigner Ariel Bellino, a former Catholic: "The church counts all those who've been baptized as Catholic and lobbies for legislation based on that number, so we're trying to convey the importance of people expressing they no longer belong to the church."

What that implies to me is that the church will use those numbers to say, "Look, we support this and we have X million followers!  It's popular!"--trying to emphasize how many people they have who allegedly support the legislation.  Not that they have greater representation in the legal system because of it, but that they can put more pressure on the representatives who are there.  If people leave, that decreases the leverage the church has because X-minus-1 million is not as impressive as X million.

But then I'm looking at this from an American standpoint (particularly the word "lobbies", which to me is something government is on the receiving end of rather than a function of the government itself), and I recognize that all this may be completely different in Britain.  I know nothing of the way the British legal system works, I'm afraid.

[Juniper]

I think he's saying that the archbishop would maintain his seat even if most of his congregation formally revoked their membership in his church, that his presence does not depend on the number of his parishioners.

Ah, ok. But I wonder about this. Perhaps if it became increasinly evident that the Church of England had less and less support, then the position of Archbishop of Canterbury may begin to be regarded as a position of little importance.

When the Reformation took place in England back in the 1530's, the position of the Archbishop of Canterbury still existed, but went from a man of catholic ideas to a man of protestant ones. But of course the decision to change religion came from above, and not from below. If the change were to come from below, then I wonder what would happen to such positions like that of the Archbishop of Canterbury.

[Juniper]

What that implies to me is that the church will use those numbers to say, "Look, we support this and we have X million followers!  It's popular!"--trying to emphasize how many people they have who allegedly support the legislation.  Not that they have greater representation in the legal system because of it, but that they can put more pressure on the representatives who are there.  If people leave, that decreases the leverage the church has because X-minus-1 million is not as impressive as X million.

*nods*  I agree with this.

[sailor_tech]

What that implies to me is that the church will use those numbers to say, "Look, we support this and we have X million followers!  It's popular!"--trying to emphasize how many people they have who allegedly support the legislation.  Not that they have greater representation in the legal system because of it, but that they can put more pressure on the representatives who are there.  If people leave, that decreases the leverage the church has because X-minus-1 million is not as impressive as X million.

But then I'm looking at this from an American standpoint (particularly the word "lobbies", which to me is something government is on the receiving end of rather than a function of the government itself), and I recognize that all this may be completely different in Britain.  I know nothing of the way the British legal system works, I'm afraid.

What you wrote above is different than the initial post where "alloted power based upon the number of followers."  The paragraph above is very much in line with the US. Various minority groups advocates get very worked up over each US Census. Aside from the number of people in each district, it helps with lobbying for money, projects etc that will particularly benifit a given group.

For example, in Lebanon, the Sunni Muslims get a certain number of seats in parliment; Shia get a certain number, Orthodox Christians, etc. So if you are a Sunni, you are runing for a seat that by the constition can only be held be a Sunni. The number of seats allocated for each religion was initially based upon the 1932 census.

[EverFool]

Ah, ok. But I wonder about this. Perhaps if it became increasinly evident that the Church of England had less and less support, then the position of Archbishop of Canterbury may begin to be regarded as a position of little importance.

Like now for example?

[Tags:]

Jump to: Please select a destination: ----------------------------- About The Cauldron ----------------------------- => Rules and Regulations => Cauldron Announcements ===> Volunteers Needed: Site Assistants and Projects => Introductions => Board Questions, Suggestions, and Feedback => Chat and CauldronMUX Support => Test Board ----------------------------- Religion and Philosophy ----------------------------- => Paganism For Beginners => Books and Other Resources => Pagan Religions => Pagan Spirituality => Gods, Goddesses, and Mythology => Worship and Ritual => Holidays and Festivals => History and Religion => Faith in Everyday Life => Philosophy and Metaphysics => Non-Pagan Religions and Interfaith Discussions => Miscellaneous Religious Discussions ----------------------------- Magic and the Occult ----------------------------- => Magic and the Occult for Beginners => Witchcraft, Hoodoo, and Folk Magic => The Western Magical Tradition => Chaos Magic => Lodges and Other Magic Organizations => Miscellaneous Magical Discussions ----------------------------- Special Interest Groups & Special Discussions ----------------------------- => Special Topic Discussions => Chavi Memorial Chronic Illness SIG => General SIGS ===> College Pagans SIG ===> Cooking SIG ===> Divination SIG ===> Home and Garden SIG ===> Pagan Parents SIG ===> Teen Pagans SIG => Religious SIGS ===> Asatru and Heathenry SIG ===> Cauldron Cill ===> FlameKeeping SIG ===> Hazel and Oak: A Celtic Polytheism SIG ===> Neo-Druidry SIG ===> Reformed Kemeticism SIG ===> Ta Hiera Hellenic Polytheism SIG => Book/Media Discussion Boards ===> Academic Book Discussions ===> Pagan Religion Book Discussions ===> Magick Book Discussions ===> Fiction Book Discussions ===> DVD/Video Discussions ----------------------------- Life, the Universe, and Everything Else ----------------------------- => Pagan Announcements => Prayer and Energy Requests => News and Politics ===> Religious News ===> Non-Religious News ===> Political Discussions => Social Discussion Boards ===> Art, Poetry and Writing ===> Books ===> Computers and the Internet ===> Crafts and Hobbies ===> Family Life ===> Gaming ===> Health and Medicine ===> Humor and Quizzes ===> Music, Television, and Film ===> Pets ===> Science and Technology ===> Sports and Recreation