split - Religion the devourer of this relationship.

[LordoftheLeftHand]

I split this thread because I'm about to derail it!

*To catch everyone up. Someone's pregnant fiancé ended their relationship possibly for religious reasons:

Would it be legally possible (lets not even get into the moral aspects just yet) to get some kind of injunction preventing the child from being baptized?
LLH

*edited to add catch up

 

[Beth]

I split this thread because I'm about to derail it!

*To catch everyone up. Someone's pregnant fiancé ended their relationship possibly for religious reasons:

Would it be legally possible (lets not even get into the moral aspects just yet) to get some kind of injunction preventing the child from being baptized?
LLH

*edited to add catch up

I don't know about the legal aspects of it, but why would someone do that? If you don't believe in the religion, then what harm will come of allowing the baptism to proceed? If you do get an injunction against it, I think it would seriously harm the relationship you have with the child's mother, which is probably not in the best of shape already. Do you really think it would be in the best interest of the child to stop a baptism from proceeding? If so, why? What benefit do you perceive would come of preventing the baptism?

 

[LordoftheLeftHand]

Obviously Beth, I can't control where you or anyone else steer this thread; but as you can tell from my post I'm interested in the legal aspect and will not be addressing the moral aspects of this idea.

Would it be legally possible (lets not even get into the moral aspects just yet) to get some kind of injunction preventing the child from being baptized?

LLH
*grr edited a typo

 

[Beth]

Obviously Beth, I can't control where you or anyone else steer this thread; but as you can tell from my post I'm interested in the legal aspect and will not be addressing the moral aspects of this idea.


LLH
*grr edited a typo

Okay. I don't anything about the legal aspects. But I'm curious why you think anyone would attempt this sort of thing? It seems like such a bad idea from the getgo. What would be the purpose? This question isn't about the moral aspects, I don't understand what the objective would be of taking such an action.

 

[stealpick]

I'd like to take advantage of this split and discuss the moral implications of the situation, because I'm actually going to be in a similar situation at some point. I'm an atheist; my wife is Episcopalian. We've been married for nearly two years, but together for over ten. We have a pretty good agree-to-disagree stance when it comes to religion, but I have the feeling we're going to come to a pretty big conflict when it comes to our unborn (and as yet un-conceived) children. She definitely wants them baptized and to attend church every week. I said fine, but I prefer if they went every other week so I could spend the off Sundays talking to them about critical thinking. She agreed to this, but she insists that I attend the baptisms.

So the question I'm facing is, should I attend this water spritzing ceremony with my wife to support her, even though I'd have to stand up there and promise to raise my children in the church and away from satan, etc? Personally, I'd rather not stand up there and lie in front of my wife and child.

I should also mention that my wife and I were married by her Episcopal minister, but I made it clear to him that I was an athiest and I made it clear to her that even though I'd be pledging things to god during the ceremony, that all my pledges were in actuality directed exclusively at her. We also had the ceremony outside of the church and on our college campus where we met, which was much more meaningful for me.

So both my wife and I were satisfied with the compromises we made for our wedding, but I'm not really seeing a way to compromise about the baptism thing. I think my compromise is to let her have the kids baptized in the first place. I don't think I really need to be there, but she's really being insistent. Any thought? Anyone?

 

[Beth]

So both my wife and I were satisfied with the compromises we made for our wedding, but I'm not really seeing a way to compromise about the baptism thing. I think my compromise is to let her have the kids baptized in the first place. I don't think I really need to be there, but she's really being insistent. Any thought? Anyone?

Are you sure you're required to make those promises if you are there for the baptism. I can understand why your wife wants you to be there, but it does seem unfair to ask you to make those sorts of public vows. Congratulations on working things out so far. Thinking about these sorts of potential conflicts ahead of time allows you to work things out without the same sort of emotional investment you'll have when you have the kids.

Don't let the potential conflic stop you from having kids though. Parenting isn't easy and opens up whole new areas of disagreement between you and your partner you never even imagined were there. I can't tell you the surprise it was to discover that my husband and I had strongly held and different positions regarding whether or not Santa wrapped the presents he left under the tree! Baptism will just be the beginning. But's it's all worth it. Having a kid is an incredible experience.

 

[gnome]

I split this thread because I'm about to derail it!

*To catch everyone up. Someone's pregnant fiancé ended their relationship possibly for religious reasons:

Would it be legally possible (lets not even get into the moral aspects just yet) to get some kind of injunction preventing the child from being baptized?
LLH

*edited to add catch up

Just an opinion--I don't believe it would be legally possible. Both parents have rights w/respect to the child's religious upbringing, and I believe that you would need to prove that the child's baptism would interfere with presenting your guidance as well. I don't think that would be a very strong case.

 

[Huh-What?]

Before I derail this thread further I would have to say;

You would probably have to prove that the baptism would harm the child in some way. Being that the judge and/or any jurors were also baptized, or knew people that were and are perfectly healthy, chances are it would never get anywhere as a case.

However, it may harm your position in the custody battle as you might be perceived as unstable or unreasonable.

I'd like to take advantage of this split and discuss the moral implications of the situation, because I'm actually going to be in a similar situation at some point. I'm an atheist; my wife is Episcopalian. We've been married for nearly two years, but together for over ten. We have a pretty good agree-to-disagree stance when it comes to religion, but I have the feeling we're going to come to a pretty big conflict when it comes to our unborn (and as yet un-conceived) children. She definitely wants them baptized and to attend church every week. I said fine, but I prefer if they went every other week so I could spend the off Sundays talking to them about critical thinking. She agreed to this, but she insists that I attend the baptisms.

So the question I'm facing is, should I attend this water spritzing ceremony with my wife to support her, even though I'd have to stand up there and promise to raise my children in the church and away from satan, etc? Personally, I'd rather not stand up there and lie in front of my wife and child.

I should also mention that my wife and I were married by her Episcopal minister, but I made it clear to him that I was an athiest and I made it clear to her that even though I'd be pledging things to god during the ceremony, that all my pledges were in actuality directed exclusively at her. We also had the ceremony outside of the church and on our college campus where we met, which was much more meaningful for me.

So both my wife and I were satisfied with the compromises we made for our wedding, but I'm not really seeing a way to compromise about the baptism thing. I think my compromise is to let her have the kids baptized in the first place. I don't think I really need to be there, but she's really being insistent. Any thought? Anyone?

I went through something similar. My wife and I argued before our first child was born on whether or not he should be baptized. She insisted he should even though she had never attended church since I met her, about a decade, and I was against it as I didn't see any reason why we should.

As it turns out she confided that she wanted to do it because she was afraid what her family might think if we didn't. After hearing that, I agreed that he can be baptized and I will attend. However, I told her I would not fake belief. If asked by anyone I would admit to being an atheist.

The funny thing is he is three years old now and never was baptized.

 

[That_guy]

You might be able to do so if there were an actual religious conflict between the parents (i.e. you're a devout member of the Church of Mudbathers-- a non-existant church, to be clear-- and the baptism would wash off the baby's holy mud stain.) I'm not sure if any religion is actively opposed to baptism, other than Satanism (which won't win you any legal points in America,) but if there were one, I think that would be grounds for an injunction.

That said, my wife's Catholic and I'm agnostic at best. I had no problems with the silly sprinkling ceremony with my oldest daughter, but I refused to vocalize during the process. I still plan on raising my children to question everything, but it gave my wife peace of mind. I've actually presented enough questions about her faith now, after 10 years of marriage, that she's leaning toward agnosticism.

Logic good. Responding illogically to the illogical bad.

 

[LordoftheLeftHand]

What if it was something more tangible than baptism? What if parent/religious sect A wanted to give a child a "magical" tattoo (regular tattoo) vs. parent/sect B who believes this to be the devil's mark and condemn the child for eternity?

I guess a better question is how much legal room does a parent have to block their child from participating in religion while the child is with the other parent?

LLH

 

[That_guy]

What if it was something more tangible than baptism? What if parent/religious sect A wanted to give a child a "magical" tattoo (regular tattoo) vs. parent/sect B who believes this to be the devil's mark and condemn the child for eternity?

I guess a better question is how much legal room does a parent have to block their child from participating in religion while the child is with the other parent?

LLH

According to the Separated Parenting Access & Resource Center, unless you have a contract with the other parent (i.e. custody documentation) specifically stating that permission is needed, you don't need permission to get the child's ears pierced. It seems a decent comparison considering that some of the more out-there sects believe that any sort of body modification is a sin.

So it seems the only legal room you have is that which is agreed upon/won during the custody battle.

 

[Pauliesonne]

So it seems the only legal room .

I have one connected 2 my bedroom...