The media have been running a range of variations on a single theme during the last couple of weeks. It is time it was realised that it is a non-story aimed at getting lots of publicity for a marginalised minority. Some people want to be ‘de-baptised’ and the media are lapping it up. Well, by ‘lapping it up’, what I really mean is that they have re-hashed a story put out by the BBC for which I did a half-hour interview resulting in a seven-second broadcast and there is even a marked similarity in the wording in several of the printed or online versions I have read. In other words, a single non-story is turned into a story by one media agent milking another – and so it goes on. Exactly what Nick Davies is questioning in his Flat Earth News.
The campaign, being promoted mischievously by the National Secular Society, is to put pressure on the Church of England to allow people to be ‘de-baptised’. You can read the details elsewhere, but there are several matters arising from this debate that need a more cogent airing. So, here goes.
1. If an atheist believes baptism is just a load of voodoo and that nothing happens, what is there to ‘de-do’ (if you see what I mean)?
2. One of the criticisms of the Church is that babies or children who are baptised without their consent are somehow being indoctrinated into something sinister and that this infringes their human rights. Apart from the obvious retort that we do lots of things to young children without their consent (like feeding them, dressing them, cutting their hair, making them go to school, telling them off, not letting them play on the motorway, etc), this betrays a pile of dodgy assumptions. For example, it assumes that life is neutral and children are born as blank sheets. Apparently, if you bring up a child in a family shaped by a ‘religious’ world view, you are damaging them psychologically; but if you bring them up in a ‘non-religious’ context, they will grow up free and able to make their own mind up about the meaning and purpose of their life.
What utter nonsense. The atheist assumes a worldview and brings up the child in a non-neutral context in which certain views of the world, meaning and morality are being represented – and into which the child is being indoctrinated. That is to say, the atheist’s world view is not neutral and, therefore, not inherently preferable to that of a theist. Both assume and construct world views and bring up their children within them; but neither is neutral.
So, the atheist does not simply protect the child from something ‘extra’ that is dangerous to an otherwise neutral way of seeing and being, but is shaping that child’s world view according to other assumptions about the way the world is and why it is that way. I fail to understand why people who claim to be ‘rationalists’ become so irrational that they cannot grasp this obvious fact.
3. I am hearing allegations that the EU is protecting the ‘evangelical noises getting louder and louder’ by its legislation and that this is a bad thing. Well, I don’t know about that, but I do know (because I was marginally involved in it) that there was a long and protracted attempt by elements in the EU (France in particular) to remove from the putative European Constitution any reference to the Christian history of Europe. How stupidly irrational and illiberal is that?
As I have observed elsewhere, it is impossible to understand the history (and, therefore, the present – to say nothing of the future) of Europe without understanding its Christian history – for both good and ill. Germany – including Hitler, etc. – cannot be understood for one second without an appreciation of the Reformation. I could go on, but I begin to lose the will to type at this point…
So, we need to challenge the so-called ‘myth of neutrality’ – not on privileged religious grounds, but on grounds of intellectual and rational consistency. And theists need to be more confident in seeing off the arrogant assumptions of the campaigning atheists who betray a little more blind faith in their own assumptions than is healthy for their own internal consistency.
Nick Baines's Blog 
March 20, 2009 at 5:02 pm
What is surpising is that a minority group, who alleged that they have no beliefs or faith, are so sensitive about those who do.
Surely in a free rational world, people are entitled to believe whatever they wish to believe.
If you subscribe to Christianity, you are choosing to believe in Jesus Christ, of your own free will. Baptism provides a framework for life, which you can hold do. You are opting not to be neutral.
March 20, 2009 at 6:56 pm
Thanks, Nick. I’d seen this story and feel exactly the same way as you do about it — a bit of ludicrous puff. The re-writing of history, though, does strke me as childish to sinister. Whatever next — demarriages for people who don’t want anyone to know they were ever married?
I think this particular bit of onsense started in Spain where I believe there is a much fuller use made of baptism statistics, perhaps.
March 20, 2009 at 8:14 pm
What I find disconcerting is that many, I fear, actually believe the a non theist home really IS a neutral home. They aren’t just playing with words. They believe this. The dumbing down of our society is scary.
March 20, 2009 at 10:24 pm
It’s not about whether you are or are not “entitled” to believe anything in particular. The NSS is in favour of freedom of belief, including religious belief. What they are against is the idea that adhering to certain categories of belief gives you more rights than people who don’t. They oppose, in other words, religious privilege.
One of the reasons that there is political sensitivity on the part of nonbelievers is precisely that (some, and some powerful) believers seem to want to treat them like second class citizens.
I don’t know what this “myth of neutrality” is supposed to be – I don’t recognise anything in the complaint. But I do think that debaptism is a) vaguely amusing (it started out in the UK as a joke), and b) a good way of smoking out religious arrogance.
Here we have the story of a bloke who went a bit further than most people do who print out the “debaptism” certificates. He actually paid to announce it in the London Gazette.
Certainly i wouldn’t want to falsify history. If you were baptised, then you were baptised. If you were married, then you were married. But if you divorced, then your divorce is noted in the records. Why not have a way of recording those who choose to leave the church? After all, if (and this is not true of all churches, I know), baptism is seen partly as a way of declaring membership, then baptism records are, partly, membership records and should therefore be accurate.
It’s surely not a completely obscene request, is it, to ask to have apostasy recorded by the church you leave?
Why is that a problem for anyone, exactly?
Dan
March 21, 2009 at 9:04 am
Well said, Dan.
March 21, 2009 at 9:29 am
I blogged in an altogether less intellignet manner on this last weekend:
http://huggyhannah.blogspot.com/2009/03/evangelical-atheists.html
March 21, 2009 at 11:14 am
Looking at the NSS website to see exactly how mischievous it is, it seemed to me that some of this is driven by people’ s fear that they will be counted as adult members of a church because they were baptised as babies. This persists in their comments even though the video on that site clearly stated that the CofE does not count baptism as membership.
When I was an atheist I wouldn’t have known whether this was true or not. Maybe one thing the churches could do would be to make it more clear how they count numbers, so that non-attenders have no grounds to worry that statistics are being manipulated to imply a view is more popular than it really is or get more government money or airtime.
Given that some of the recent discussion around the Anglican Communion has pointed out that African Anglican churches DO tend to count all baptised people as members forever, and similarly that there are several states in the EU where people pay a church element of their taxes as adults according to church of infant baptism, unless they repudiate that, it’s not surprising people don’t all know this.
Of course, I have no sympathy with the offensive type on there talking about “men wearing dresses who are probable child abusers” and all that.
March 21, 2009 at 11:20 am
Dan, thanks for an intelligent response and challenge. I would argue with one or two points, though. The point of irritation for me is that this campaign is being pursued by the NSS which (if you look at Barbara Smoker’s encouragement on their website) wants to cause mischief and tie ‘us’ up in administrative and legal time-wasting. I am totally with you on smoking out rleigious arrogance – but there is also a ‘rationalist’ arrogance and ignorance that needs to be exposed and challenged. I am well up for intelligent and respectful debate, but what I encounter from the NSS is arrogant and ignorant ridicule.
You will note that we have said we will place a record on a sheet of paper in the baptism register; we won’t change or delete the register entry. That isn’t a problem.
Thanks again.
March 23, 2009 at 11:03 pm
It’s worth noting that baptism statistics are in fact widely used, despite the denials:
http://timescolumns.typepad.com/gledhill/2009/03/baptism-church-attendance-and-statistics.html
In response to Nickbaines’ comments on “rationalist” arrogance and ignorance, expose away! Ridicule, of course, need be neither arrogant nor ignorant. It’s a perfectly good reaction to the actions of institutions which hold social power, as the Church does.
So far as I’m concerned there’s nothing arrogant in wanting to be treated fairly, and that’s what all of this is fundamentally about. That’s why the NSS still exists.
Dan
March 23, 2009 at 11:31 pm
The problem is that the Church of England does not use statistics in this way, but others do. We are constantly compared with ‘state’ churches in European countries where people pay church taxes according to baptism or e.g. Nigeria where the numbers are used to claim support. We have to cite figures in some cirumstances, but we do not make the claims others do.
Ridicule might be effective sometimes. But I expect ‘rationalists’ to be rational. ‘Fairness’ doesn’t come into it.
March 27, 2009 at 8:30 pm
I just wanted to say thank you for your intelligent representation of the Church’s point of view on Radio 2. I know you were disappointed at how little they used of your wider argument but I heard it and, having been reading and musing about it for a few days previously, found it refreshing to hear such a down to earth view. I’d just like to say that just because your parents made me wear my hair in bunches when I was a child doesn’t mean I have to as an adult – we do have choice and those who choose not to go to church are not to my mind in any way discriminated against in fact I think it more likely to be the other way around. I have been attending my church with various frequency over the last 18 years but unless I complete a form (which I have not done because I hate forms!) I am not actually counted as a member.
March 28, 2009 at 5:05 pm
´Membership´is a fraught matter because we are never comparing like with like. Thanks for your reply.
March 30, 2009 at 2:26 pm
Have just seen an article on the internet saying that the National Secular Society now produces “certificates of de-baptism” at £3 a time! and supposedly 100,000 people have down-loaded one.
Nice work if you can get it, I suppose.
My question/problem is, as Electoral Roll Officer for our Parish Church, what does the Diocesan Office do with the number I submit to them each year of people on the ER. Does it go to a head office somewhere and form part of calculation of total CofE membership? or is it just for helping to work out the bills for Parish Share?
Have just phoned the Dio Office but the answer from the Assistant Diocesan Secretary left me none the wiser!
Anne.
April 8, 2009 at 3:23 pm
>Have just seen an article on the internet saying that the National Secular Society now produces “certificates of de-baptism” at £3 a time! and supposedly 100,000 people have down-loaded one.
Which compares with precisely one “successful” case.
If they have 100,000 downloads, 60-80% of them may well be search engines (that would be typical) unless they can give a list of names.
It’s mainly hot air.
April 6, 2010 at 9:39 pm
I hope you don’t mind me bringing up an old thread, but I’m waiting for the police to arrive to give a statement, and having recently found your blog, am looking at some of the older posts, at it’s an interesting way to pass the time.
Before the NSS charged for them, I printed out a de-baptism certificate and got it signed by Richard Dawkins after a talk at the Cheltenham Science festival. It was the first he’d heard of it! Being a big fan of Dawkins since reading his books on biology, I wanted his autograph (you’re more than welcome to call me sad, but such behaviour makes me happy), and the de-baptism certificate had a nice amusing novelty value to it (and he signed my copy of Unweaving the Rainbow too!).
I know that baptism was (to me, but not to all involved at the time) a meaningless ritual. I would only seek to be “officially” de-baptised in that I wouldn’t want that baptism to add to any stats about the numbers of religious people, as I am not religious (any more), and so including me in any such stats makes them inaccurate, and being quite a geek, I like accurate numbers.
Also, surely atheism is the neutral state? As babies are born atheist, it, to mind, is the only neutral state there is.
April 7, 2010 at 10:54 am
David Wood, thank for following this up. Firstly, I am glad Dawkins made you happy and not sad! Secondly, the NSS keeps on about stats and refuses to listen when we say that these numbers are not used for any purpose whatsoever. The Church of England does not have ‘membership’ (unlike other denominations), so baptism figures cannot count towards it.
Thirdly, I think your assumption is wrong. It is by no means certain that babies are born ‘athiest’. But, it is clear that an atheist worldview is as much an assumed or fabricated/generated worldview as a religious one. Therefore, there is and can be no neutrality when it comes to worldviews. I think this is partly our problem: the Christian says that all worldviews are open to scrutiny and others (the NSS, for example) claim theirs is neutral.
April 7, 2010 at 12:12 pm
Thanks for the reply Nick!
Knowing that stats aren’t used in that way is why I’ve not gone to the effort of pursuing de-baptism any further.
When I say babies are born atheist, I mean in the sense that they have no religious beliefs whatsoever. It is their upbrining that will make them religious or not.
I was a practising Christian myself until my teens when I started to have questions about my faith and Christianity, to which the only answers made sense in an atheist world view. Thankfully I was raised in an environment where such questioning was ok, and I was free to explore wherever my enquiries would take me.
I would have to say that there can be neutrality in a world view, when one is open to honest enquiry, and also willing to admit when one is wrong. It doesn’t mean one will be right, but it is the way to get closer to the truth, and is, to mind mind, as neutral as one can be.
There are too many contradictions in Christianity, and religions in general for me to be able to believe in them. I can’t take anything on a “leap of faith”, I need evidence. It is intgeresting that you say the Christian world view is open to scrutiny – may I ask if you have ever had questions relating to your faith, and what answers you found to resolve them?
If you would like them, I am happy to list the questions that led me away from Christianity to atheism (I was an atheist before reading any of the “New Atheist” literature).
I do sometimes feel the NSS can take things a bit too far, and are a little over sensitive in some situations, but they often do raise valuable issues.
I’ve very much enjoyed discovering your blog (via the Radio Times), thank you for it.