Legally prevent minor chidren being baptized? Anybody done it? can it be done?

by Aussie Oz 20 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  creativhoney

  see that just proves God is on the Jews side.
• 

  Gayle

  Can you call your lawyer that handled your divorce to see if you can legally prevent a minor child from being baptized?
• 

  minimus

  The Catholic Church would be very upset if babies couldn't be baptized.
• 

  sinis

  The Catholic Church would be very upset if babies couldn't be baptized.

  True but they DO NOT shun, nor do they ask you two corporate questions either!!!
• 

  Goshawk

  Thinking back to a civics class. The laws used to read that anyone entering into a legal contract with a minor does so at their own risk as it is not binding. If the minor decides not to honor the agreement then the other party has no recourse.
• 

  Aussie Oz

  I,m not looking to take on the legal system or ban baptism of minors in society. Infant baptism is largely irrelivent these days, almost a quaint tradition.

  But my ex will use any trick she can to keep the kids away. At 16 and 13 i believe they are at risk of getting baptized. That means all the shunning that goes with it. Perfect to suit her plan.

  I just want to prevent this as long as i can

  @Blondie, the reference to 'print'. Do you have it? i have the watchtower lib 08, i'll see if i can find it in search. Thankyou

  @latinExjw, let me know how you go!

  i have mediation in 3 weeks.

  Oz
• 

  Lillith26

  Aussie- you have a PM... best of luck mate!
• 

  AllTimeJeff

  I personally believe that JW baptism of minors is a legal weakness, and their methods differ from other denominations. Typical christenings are as much cultural as anything. Sure, any family can take anything too seriously, that can't be stopped.

  But JW's institutionalize the trapping of minors into an irrevocable, lifelong committment before they are of age and before they have all the facts. The fact that they have to go through questions with elders and answer the 2 questions already alluded to.

  Although JW's will argue that their baptism is no different then any other baptism of churches, that isn't the case at all. No other church officially mandates and enforces institutionalized shunning for a decision some have made at the tender age of 8. Even 13, even 16, is too young.
• 

  Nick!

  Aussie,

  The subject of minor’s baptism was raised in my, let’s call it, “dissociation” letter.

  The argument was mentioned, not because I expected any recognition of it by the Watchtower, but as a valid argument against the practice, as currently adopted by Jehovah’s Witnesses, to be made known to the public in general and particularly to current JW of whom about 400 received a copy of my dissociation letter.

  I started by highlighting the fact that JW denigrate other religious groups because of their practice to baptize newborn babies, as, they say, these cannot be “disciples” of Christ and cannot use their free will to adhere to their parents faith.

  On the other hand, JW practice a kind of baptism which is open not only to major adults with a free will, but also to children a few years old, on the ground that these children got to “know” the truth and understand what dedicating oneself to Jehovah means.

  I myself got baptized at the age of 12 and had a given knowledge of what the WT was teaching at the time. Obviously, as I was brought up in a JW family, whatever was taught to me was basically OK and it was simply normal for a teenager of my age to pretend to understand what dedicating oneself to Jehovah meant.

  However, it is worth noting that, at that time there were no 120 questions reviewed by an elder with the candidate before his baptism to ascertain that he really understood what the teachings were at that time, and what it meant to become a dedicated JW.
  But this is not the point, as the same applied to minors and adults.

  In addition, the two questions regularly asked to the baptism candidates at the convention during the special talk were not the same back then in 1957 when I got baptized.
  None of the question ever made any to any “Organization”!
  Therefore, the act of undergoing baptism in any form practiced by the JW, never implied loyalty to an Organization, which is the case right now based on Question No.2 which states that the “baptism identifies you as a JW, associated to the Organization directed by the Holy Spirit”.

  Therefore, TODAY, no minor should be asked to sign a contract (which is what the baptism is) binding the candidate into a relationship not only with God, which may be considered as acceptable no matter the age, but to an Organization, that is to say a Human Legal Entity which forces minor into a lifelong contract signed before being legally capable of signing any kind of contract.
  In addition, being a minor, the act is never “approved” by the legal tutor or the parents, and remains an isolated contractual act made by a minor without any legal assistance under the influence of the stronger adult part represented by the WT Organization.

  Although it is true that in the Bible, we do not find any account of newborn being baptized, we do not find either any case of minor kids being baptized. The account of Timothy, although taught since his young age into the faith of his mother and grandmother, never mentions his baptism in an age which can be indicated as “minor”.

  Of course, you cannot condemn a religious group from instituting and practicing a type of ceremony which identifies you as a member of that faith, as in the case of circumcision by Jews and Muslims, or baptism by Christians, be it JW or not, but is illegal, from my viewpoint, to pretend that the act is to be considered binding to a human organization and that, deviating from the current or future teachings of that religious but human organization equates rejecting Christ and his teachings, as this is usually implied when a JW, baptized in his minor age, dissents from what he considers only a human teaching.

  But how could we bring up to court the issue that the baptism of minors or not, as practice by JW is not only a sign of religious identification but, above all and anything else, a sign of contractual submission to a human organization, as question number two to which all JW baptism candidates reply YES implies?

  Very hard to make the distinction and win a court case on it … to my opinion.
  But, if you have the means, it is worth trying.

  Nick!
• 

  aSphereisnotaCircle

  bump