Kentucky Students Forecefully Baptized

[LoneMateria]

It's one thing to just say things.  It's another to provide stories that illustrate that illustrate the ideas.  Also, then you have a text, you can quote from and claim that your holy text is superior because it corresponds with science.  Also, there are a lot of tax perks to being a religious organization (at least in the states.)

You shouldn't need stories to illustrate the ideas.  You always run the risk of conveying the wrong message.  Look at the OT, is it saying listening to god is good?  Or is it saying killing in the name of god good?  Is it saying that knocking up your dead brothers wife is a good thing?  Or that if you don't do it god is a prick and will get you? And so on.

About the tax perks I don't think any religious organization should get a tax perk, especially with the economy the way it is.  Look at the catholic church, the pope lives in a palace of gold, but they need a tax break?  The Mormons in the U.S. is arguably the most wealthy religious group we have with money in the billions of dollars.  Do they need a tax break?  No Fuck them they need to pay taxes like every other business.  Lets use their money and then get everyone out of financial crisis.

[rlrose328]

Fence sitting this one... excuse me while I think in print.  Of course, I would be very pissed if this happened with my son.  I'm the only one who has the right to brainwash him.  

But honestly, the church/coach side said that students had to go forward to be baptised so her son must have gone forward.  Maybe it was peer pressure?  Does that excuse it?  If he was weakwilled enough to follow the crowd, is it the coach's fault?  They also said it's okay because a teacher paid for the gas, but if they took a bus, that is still school district property that was used to transport the students.  Did he lie to his mom by telling her it was a motivational speaker and a steak dinner when other parents said their kids told them it was church?  Knowing his parents have different religions, did he keep it from them for fear they wouldn't allow him to go but he wanted to go because all his friends were going?

So there you have it... the stream of consciousness re: this issue.  I don't think she should sue because it seems her kid had some hand in what happened (lied to/midled her, went up to be baptised himself), but the school didn't have the right to take the kids to a church service in school property without specific permission forms requiring signatures with the exact details of what the event entailed.  It's a tie.

[LoneMateria]

Did it say how old the kids were?  I mean it could be iffy if the "kid" is 17.  But if the kid is 14 and got baptized I can see why it would piss off the parents.

[rlrose328]

Did it say how old the kids were?  I mean it could be iffy if the "kid" is 17.  But if the kid is 14 and got baptized I can see why it would piss off the parents.

The boy whose mom is all pissed of is 16.  The school district said if it were 6 to 7 year olds, they could understand the fuss, but they feel that kids who are 16 to 17 can make up their own mind about if they can attend such an event.

[LoneMateria]

Did it say how old the kids were?  I mean it could be iffy if the "kid" is 17.  But if the kid is 14 and got baptized I can see why it would piss off the parents.

The boy whose mom is all pissed of is 16.  The school district said if it were 6 to 7 year olds, they could understand the fuss, but they feel that kids who are 16 to 17 can make up their own mind about if they can attend such an event.

Yeah its still an iffy age.  I guess it would have to depend how mature the "child" is.  I'd make a big deal about it if I was a parent too, mostly because the coach is using his authority to push his religious beliefs on kids.  But I don't know if i'd go as far as to sue.  Honestly is it much different then Sargents in the military using their influence on recruits with potential punishment for disobedience?

[Whitney]

We should develop an unbaptism ceremony for people new to atheism.

I hear they will be performing debaptism ceremonies at the Texas Freethought Convention.  I have no clue what it involves but it could be really funny if it is actually a ceremony and not just handing someone a certificate of debaptism.

[LoneMateria]

We should develop an unbaptism ceremony for people new to atheism.

I hear they will be performing debaptism ceremonies at the Texas Freethought Convention.  I have no clue what it involves but it could be really funny if it is actually a ceremony and not just handing someone a certificate of debaptism.

If there is a ceremony whoever goes should videotape it and throw it on YouTube

[navvelline]

We should develop an unbaptism ceremony for people new to atheism. It would be a nice way to celebrate the end of a person's journey to free-thinking and to piss off people like those mentioned in the OP.

Maybe what we can do is have someone get their head wet, and then dry it off with a towel that has the scarlet A on it? Then we can have cake. Or we can have someone read the silly parts of his or her religious text. Then we can have cake. Or we can have friends and family each say a short statement about how proud we are or how we also made it. Then we can have cake.

That reminded me of something I found on the National Secular Society where people could purchase de-baptism certificates.  

[Big Mac]

Did it say how old the kids were?  I mean it could be iffy if the "kid" is 17.  But if the kid is 14 and got baptized I can see why it would piss off the parents.

The boy whose mom is all pissed of is 16.  The school district said if it were 6 to 7 year olds, they could understand the fuss, but they feel that kids who are 16 to 17 can make up their own mind about if they can attend such an event.

Yeah but then they will be up in arms if that kid took  up smoking or got a tattoo. Then they'd say he was too young to understand what he was doing but you can make big life choices such as baptism at that age. Lovely. I'd sue the shit out of all parties involved in it.

[LoneMateria]

Yeah but then they will be up in arms if that kid took  up smoking or got a tattoo. Then they'd say he was too young to understand what he was doing but you can make big life choices such as baptism at that age. Lovely. I'd sue the shit out of all parties involved in it.

The kid is at that iffy age.  He is old enough now to decide if he is going to go to college or not.  What degree he is going for which will effect the rest of his life (well at least a good chunk of his life).  The kid is old enough to drive a car (at least here) which is the #1 killer in America.  He is old enough to do all these major things.  What makes religion different?  Most evangelical christians are "born-again" before the age of 13.

I'm not saying that what happened was right.  The way it was put in the article it seems as if the coach did it behind the parents back.  However he shouldn't have sole blame, though some peer pressure MAY have been involved it was the kids decision in the end.

[Big Mac]

Yeah but then they will be up in arms if that kid took  up smoking or got a tattoo. Then they'd say he was too young to understand what he was doing but you can make big life choices such as baptism at that age. Lovely. I'd sue the shit out of all parties involved in it.

The kid is at that iffy age.  He is old enough now to decide if he is going to go to college or not.  What degree he is going for which will effect the rest of his life (well at least a good chunk of his life).  The kid is old enough to drive a car (at least here) which is the #1 killer in America.  He is old enough to do all these major things.  What makes religion different?  Most evangelical christians are "born-again" before the age of 13.

I'm not saying that what happened was right.  The way it was put in the article it seems as if the coach did it behind the parents back.  However he shouldn't have sole blame, though some peer pressure MAY have been involved it was the kids decision in the end.

Kids are not really capable of making the right choice because their brains are still developing. I know I used an extreme example but I believe if you are given those kinds of responsibilities to make good choices you are equally allowed to make "bad" ones as long as you aren't going around hurting others. If you can drive, enlist in the military (technically at 17 with parental consent), etc. then let kids graduate at 16 and live on their own.

Otherwise the school is being arbitrary and merely trying to cover their ass.

[LoneMateria]

Kids are not really capable of making the right choice because their brains are still developing. I know I used an extreme example but I believe if you are given those kinds of responsibilities to make good choices you are equally allowed to make "bad" ones as long as you aren't going around hurting others. If you can drive, enlist in the military (technically at 17 with parental consent), etc. then let kids graduate at 16 and live on their own.

Otherwise the school is being arbitrary and merely trying to cover their ass.

Our brains develop until we are 24.  I'm 22 so am I incapable of making the right choice?  Is there really a cut and dry age which a kid becomes mature?  Of course not.  Choices are part of the human experience.  We all make good choices and bad ones (both of which we don't always know if we are).  If a kid can demonstrate he is mature then why should we stop him from driving, smoking, joining religion, enlisting in the military, getting married and so on?  We may not agree with their decisions but do we have the right to stop them from making it?

Also if I was the school i'd cover my ass too.  Schools always get sued of this crap whether its justified or not.  Cover ass would be number 1 on my list if I was them.

[Big Mac]

Kids are not really capable of making the right choice because their brains are still developing. I know I used an extreme example but I believe if you are given those kinds of responsibilities to make good choices you are equally allowed to make "bad" ones as long as you aren't going around hurting others. If you can drive, enlist in the military (technically at 17 with parental consent), etc. then let kids graduate at 16 and live on their own.

Otherwise the school is being arbitrary and merely trying to cover their ass.

Our brains develop until we are 24.  I'm 22 so am I incapable of making the right choice?  Is there really a cut and dry age which a kid becomes mature?  Of course not.  Choices are part of the human experience.  We all make good choices and bad ones (both of which we don't always know if we are).  If a kid can demonstrate he is mature then why should we stop him from driving, smoking, joining religion, enlisting in the military, getting married and so on?  We may not agree with their decisions but do we have the right to stop them from making it?

Also if I was the school i'd cover my ass too.  Schools always get sued of this crap whether its justified or not.  Cover ass would be number 1 on my list if I was them.

I'm 23, buckeroo. I consider myself fairly level headed for the most part. I joke around but I do not impulsively jump into something stupid. I know there is no cut and dry age. I'm just annoyed by this blatant bullshit the school district is dancing with. The proper way would be to reprimand the coach for this action. Not do mental gymnastics and try to ignore the obvious fact one of their faculty did something blatantly illegal.

[LoneMateria]

Reprimanding the coach won't stop the school from getting sued nor will it "un-baptize" the kid.  I'm sure they've reprimanded the coach.  I'm pretty sure they will fire him if this costs them money.  I'm annoyed that this happened as well, but putting sole responsibility on the coach and the school makes me even more annoyed.  The kid participated and i'm sure the parents inadvertently had influence here.  I'd be pissed if this happened in any form to someone much younger but the kid is 16 and hes at that transitional age between adolescent and adult.  At some point he has to take responsibility for his actions and the parents will have no say in it.

To be fair I understand it from the parents perspective whether or not they were very religious.  I'd probably go so far as to say the coach is using his authority to press this belief onto his players.  But at some point that kid was a willing participant and unless he comes forward saying that they forced this on him and he didn't want this then I don't think there is much of a case especially against the school.  What could they do if this coach has no prior problems?  You can't discriminate against teachers based on their religion.  This is just one of those times where everything is grey and its a little bit of everyones fault.

[Big Mac]

Reprimanding the coach won't stop the school from getting sued nor will it "un-baptize" the kid.  I'm sure they've reprimanded the coach.  I'm pretty sure they will fire him if this costs them money.  I'm annoyed that this happened as well, but putting sole responsibility on the coach and the school makes me even more annoyed.  The kid participated and i'm sure the parents inadvertently had influence here.  I'd be pissed if this happened in any form to someone much younger but the kid is 16 and hes at that transitional age between adolescent and adult.  At some point he has to take responsibility for his actions and the parents will have no say in it.

To be fair I understand it from the parents perspective whether or not they were very religious.  I'd probably go so far as to say the coach is using his authority to press this belief onto his players.  But at some point that kid was a willing participant and unless he comes forward saying that they forced this on him and he didn't want this then I don't think there is much of a case especially against the school.  What could they do if this coach has no prior problems?  You can't discriminate against teachers based on their religion.  This is just one of those times where everything is grey and its a little bit of everyones fault.

I should have articulated better. By reprimanding the coach severely it would have helped in covering their ass instead of offering a weak "Well, he is 16". In the eyes of the law the boy is still a under his parents guardianship. Until he hits 18 if they want him to be a catholic/jew/muslim/hindu/atheist/scilog he officially is one until he hits the magical 18.

I agree it's not as cut and dry. I know people who are 24 and still live with their parents and barely pass their classes at a community college. I know kids who are 15 and fully capable of making grown up decisions that the former example would whine about.

I don't disagree with your assertion about the transitional age, however the law doesn't really see it that way. He's still not legally capable of making major life decisions like marriage, alcohol use, voting, etc. Why should this baptism be any different? Religious choices are serious matters, not something taken lightly.