To get DDs christened and not tell dad?

[purpleframe]

We've been split since DD twins were babies. They're now 7. They see their dad twice a year and he lives hundreds of miles away. He is staunchly atheist and would never agree to a christening.
I've had a baby with my partner (been together for years) and we'd like to get all the kids christened together. DDs do a lot of religious education at school and would be keen.
Basically if I ask for exH permission, he'd definately say no. But frankly- he puts so little effort in (contact maybe once a month on skype between visits) that I'm inclined to do it anyway, even though I know it would be against his wishes. I know I'm probably BU (and ironically that this doesn't feel like a very 'Christian' thing to do!) But I'd really like to do it.

I agree that he will not feel it has any meaning in religious terms, so will not be worried about that. He may dislike the idea of paying lip service to the church though, or dislike the idea of his children being taught 'faith' and reliance on an institution rather than logic and independent thought. He would have a point, but if he cared about that he ought to have been in their lives influencing them more. After all the damage he may see the service doing to the dc is nothing compared to the cumulative effect of everyday example from your new DP if he is very religious.

To me it sounds like OPs partner is a Christian and wants his child christened (personally I'd avoid him just on that basis alone). He isn't your other children's father and has no right to impose his views on them.

We don't know why their father lives hundreds of miles away - granted that would make it difficult to see your children on a regular basis.

I don't think you get to trump his wishes anymore than he gets the right to trump yours. I think though that the children can, if they aren't indoctrinated and are actually making their own mind up.

I'd leave it until they were teenagers personally and see what they they think then.

Ha! Bertrand! Of course it will. Can't believe I missed that.

*Thats what confirmation is for.

CoE tradition states that a baby is baptised as soon as possible after birth, this is when the parent/s promise/s to bring the child up in the faith. When the child is old enough they confirm that with their own promises.*

Er, I chose not to be confirmed but that doesn't reverse the choice my parents made when I was a baby, does it?

Imposing a religion on someone who has no choice in the matter is fundamentally wrong. No two ways about it.

crashdoll ummmmm.... Because he's an atheist?! So he wouldn't want his children raised in religion. Jeez, would you say to parents from two different religions that they cancel out or something?

Imposing a religion on someone who has no choice in the matter is fundamentally wrong. No two ways about it.

In your opinion. Its not fact, no matter how much you would like it to be.

And I say this as an atheist myself.

Yes Pyong, baby. The kids are closer to the age where they could be confirmed than they are to babyhood. It's different making promises on behalf of an infant than a child of 8. If the OP's motivations aren't based in an actual firm religious faith (and if they were you'd think this debate would have occurred 7 or 8 years ago) then she should leave it until at least confirmation age and let them decide then. They don't need to be christened to be confirmed.

There's been a real shift in people I know from some parts to have babies christened, often when there's no sign of a wedding on the horizon and equally no evidence of regular church going. They often feature full hair and makeup for the mum and grannies, outfits and spray tans, photographer, buffet, dj and then a full on party for the adults once the kids go home. Even though I'm not religious it just seems a real shame that people see them as an excuse for a flash do and the actual meaning and commitment is lost on so many.

My child made his decision to enter the church. He wasn't baptised as a baby, his father wasn't religious. He died when ds was only months old, it never felt right to have him baptised as I knew his dad's feelings and I felt he should grow up and decide. I genuinely could not go through with what you're proposing op. It's fundamentally wrong in my opinion.

Much like, whether they are vegetarian or not (on other threads)- the parent doing the actual parenting should decide. I don't see why the vaguely Dad should have power of veto. I think it's almost an insult to real Dads to call him one.

I wouldn't lie to him. I certainly wouldn't tell the kids to lie. It's courtesy to let him know- if you think he will make a drama out of it, do so with little notice and no details about the event.

There can be no realistic legal repercussions. He won't get an order to stop it. It might make a marginal difference in a custody negotiation, but he isn't even being bothered to see them often, let alone start a court battle. Make your own choice about what's best for your kids, he isn't important enough for you to lower yourself to lie to him.

Also- apparently some posters don't approve of child Baptism, OP. Perhaps you should rethink your life based on their opinion. Hopefully those posters will write to all major religions about what practices they want amending.

I'm a Christian, but was raised in a denomination that doesn't baptize children so I suppose I have a bias as baptism to me is a public statement made to acknowledge your belief in Christ.

Thinking about your situation, at first I was in favour, but after thought I have to vote 'no' because I would be livid if my child were to go through a religious ceremony for a faith that I did not believe in before they were old enough to decide for themselves.

I'm sure there's no atheist equivalent, but imagining there was how would you feel if the children's father decided to have them go through that equivalent ceremony knowing it was against your wishes?

I think you should talk to the minister about it (honestly). Find out what infant baptism actually means and what undertakings you are giving. Also what alternatives there are. Not all Christian denominations do infant baptism (aka Christaning) and many Christians in those that do (eg CoE) don't believe in it. Many people prefer a blessing instead. If you are after a ceremony they maybe ask the minister about this? I don't see much an atheist can object to about a blessing other than considering it an unnecessary, silly process.

@Wankershacksandtheives

"To me it sounds like OPs partner is and wants his child christened (personally I'd avoid him just on that basis alone)."

It doesn't matter what minority you put in that space (black, gay, christian), when you are saying stuff like that you're a bigot. Why are you posting on here? The OP wanted some advice, what do you get by derailing the thread with bile? Is everyone who wets their child's head indoctrinating them?

craic you do need to be Baptised to be confirmed but this can happen in the same service, often just a couple of minutes apart.

Just realised the children might be older. If the children are 8, then the minister will speak to them and they must agree themselves.

There can be no realistic legal repercussions. He won't get an order to stop it.

Unless you are a time traveller, there is absolutely no way you can assert that.

At the very least, an emergency hearing could delay the event until a scheduled full hearing considers all the evidence.
Of course, that may subsequently rule in the OPs favour, but it will be weeks or months after the original scheduled event which would have had to be cancelled or at least curtailed so as not to breach an emergency court order.

How many court hearings have you been subject to, quixote? Maybe My experience has left me too cynical - After a while, you begin to predict what seems unlikely.

We had our children dedicated. So they can choose to be baptized when they are older, if they wish to. (in the C of E you are not meant to be baptized more than once, other churches, e.g. baptist may or may not count an infant baptism).

My husband and I are both Christians and belong to a C of E Church, so infant baptism is generally the way to go.

A dedication is about the child but kind of more about the parent as you choose to make a dedication to bring the child up in the Christian faith, and like Hannah in the Bible you dedicate your child to the Lord. Which partly what baptism is about, not completely. Anyway, no idea how the law applies to dedication.

Personally, I would let your children decide. I might even decide to brave it out, tell your ex that they want to do this. If they do.

It will be hard if your twins are left out of the baby's Christening/baptism. Your ex, if he is not religious should no feel that this little bit of water and words has any real power over the girls. As someone pointed out you could do it at the kitchen sink (though I think that is usually done in an 'emergency'!).

Good luck.

Religious people aren't a minority. And there is a difference between being gay or Black (something you are, to your DNA) and choosing to impose something on a child because of something you believe in.

Because I can't think of a sentence like that for gay or Black people. And if there was one it would be very odd, "OPs partner is gay and wants his child to be gay". That would be weird too.

" Your ex, if he is not religious should not feel that this little bit of water and words has any real power over the girls." I mean he should feel that way as he is an atheist, not that I feel that way!

donquixote

There can be no realistic legal repercussions. He won't get an order to stop it.

Actually, there can be. And there have been orders to stop baptisms. Just Google the phrase 'court order stops baptism'.

Also- apparently some posters don't approve of child Baptism, OP.

I don't think anyone on this thread either approves or disapproves of child baptism per se and no one is telling OP to amend her beliefs. I certainly don't disapprove of it, I see nothing wrong with it. It just wasn't part of my religious upbringing. Children in the denomination I was raised in are 'dedicated', not baptized. People who are telling OP not to do it are saying it on the basis of the fact that the father should be a part of the decision.

"At the very least, an emergency hearing could delay the event until a scheduled full hearing considers all the evidence."

Ah. Ha-ha. Ha.

He sees his kids twice a year. He doesn't care. As stated, if OP really thinks this is possible, simple don't give enough notice.

Your ex, if he is not religious should no feel that this little bit of water and words has any real power over the girls.

Except it's a bloody religious ceremony and he's an atheist! I'm a Catholic but I'm rather irritated by the comments on this thread implying that someone who is atheist shouldn't be bothered by a religious ceremony. Of course they bloody should if it's against their wishes!

Never been subject to an emergency hearing then quixote? Giving her ex short notice is the last thing she should do if she wants to avoid a court believing that she's trying to do this behind his back. An emergency order is just that, can be issued on the same day as the application - usually in order to prevent an irreversible act by one parent that the other disagrees with - until a full hearing has taken place.

Your mockery of the system in terms of its effectiveness when fathers seek to secure equal parenting rights is exactly why MRAs trawl this site, goading posters. You are reinforcing their view that the system is bias towards mothers.

And before you condemn the father for living so far away, and not being a daily part of his DDs lives, maybe you should wait for the OP to confirm who moved away? It wouldn't be that unlikely for the recently separated mother if infant twins to be encouraged to move a long way from their father in order to be close to family support.

People who are telling OP not to do it are saying it on the basis of the fact that the father should be a part of the decision.

No, I was definitely saying it because I think people should decide for themselves whether they want to be baptised or not. I'm a Christian in a Church of England church and I wouldn't choose a christening for a child of mine. I can appreciate other Christians making a different choice but I don't understand why someone without any intention of raising their children in the church would bother with a christening. Since the op hasn't mentioned church or faith at all I was wondering what her motives were.

If your twins are happy about it, and show no concerns or anxiety about it, go ahead and do it! If he wants to have 50% say in their life decisions, he needs to put 50% effort into the lives....end of!

Don, who are you to decide who can post or not and has been pointed out Christians are not a minority. I was pointing out that the OP seems to want to do this not because she actually wants to or the children have asked to, but because her partner does. Try putting Muslim or scientology in the place of Christian if you want and see if if feels any different.

No one should have religion of any kind imposed on them. It should be a free choice based on facts and non facts. We also don't know why ex is hundreds of miles away.

I don't think anyone on this thread either approves or disapproves of child baptism per se and no one is telling OP to amend her beliefs.

Ahem....posted above

'Imposing a religion on someone who has no choice in the matter is fundamentally wrong. No two ways about it.'