Do we prevent somebody being hurt by superstition or faith by rejecting and challenging those things? 

Is it mistaken to support organised religion in membership or donations?

If people do good because they are human, not because God prompts them then is it right to risk giving God any credit when they alone own their good?

 


OBJECTIVE EVIL OF NOT HAVING  YOUR BABY BAPTISED
 
Religion claims that it is objectively bad to fail to have your baby baptised. It isn't wrong just because Catholics believe it is wrong or their consciences tell them it is wrong. It really is wrong. To have your child baptised is to tacitly consent to the accusation. The accusation is unjust. The Church cannot justify it. When you get on good terms with a religion or organisation that is being unreasonable, is their acceptance of you real acceptance? If you really accept people you don't ask them to do silly things to please you. The acceptance is just hypocritical whitewash.
 
Nobody should accuse you of doing something objectively evil without proving it. Religion cannot do that. Religion is advocating hatred when it accuses.
 
Catholics believe that a good Catholic will respect people who do not believe in Catholicism as human beings. Catholics say we must respect freedom of conscience. But they say that respecting this freedom does not mean you must respect beliefs that defy logic or human decency. They say that a person who believes that the world is made of wood does not deserve to have this belief respected. He can be respected as a person and as sincere but his belief should not be respected or affirmed. They say it is the belief not the person that is being opposed. They say they can do this for they oppose the belief for the person's sake or benefit. Clearly then Catholic baptism seeks to turn a child against the truth - assuming that what is truth is not what the Catholic Church believes. If the Church is wrong, then the Church opposes truth. Baptism is a big deal for the parent who is not sure that the Catholic Church really is the true Church and a bigger deal for an unbeliever.
 
Catholics would say that if you baptised your dog that you were somehow mistreating the animal for it didn't consent to be baptised. And they would say this mistreatment is compounded by the fact that the poor dog can't consent. By that logic they admit they are mistreating their babies whom they get baptised. Its a big deal if you mistreat your child for a religion. And the less faith you have in the religion the worse you make yourself.
 
Religion says that God does not sin simply because he does not sin. It says we need a law over us to ensure we do not sin or that we will suffer if we do. Is it not far better to hold that your baby does not need sacraments or graces from God and may simply be good simply because its good? That would be a better message to send out and to surround the child with. The unbeliever can find great peace and comfort in the thought of God but may choose to reject these for the sake of what he or she believes or knows to be the truth - that there is no God. Such a person sacrifices the peace and comfort for the truth - that is his intention whether atheism is the truth or not. Such a person is heroic in their integrity and far more worthy of praise than any believer.
 
Baptism must never be dismissed as a minor thing. It matters for believers. It matters for unbelievers. A lot.

If you care about moral truth you will care about baptism.