In Italy, the Union of Rationalist Atheists and Agnostics has dropped a lawsuit on behalf of a plaintiff who was attempting to have his name deleted from a baptism register. The suit challenged the right of parents to have their children baptized. According to World Net Daily, the suit alleged that since the law does not allow parents to enroll their children in organizations like labor unions, parents should also not be able to decide that their children should become members of religious associations. The complaint cited protection of children's religious freedom and Italian Constitutional Court precedents on free will and personal privacy in religious decisions. Alliance Defense Fund, which was involved in convincing the group to drop its lawsuit as frivolous, warned that while "such lawsuits may seem far-fetched, ... foreign legal decisions are increasingly cited in American courts."
Friday, August 15, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
.jpg)
Posts
4 comments:
There are three kinds of people in the world: those who are for a thing, those who against the thing, and the rest of us who really don't care one way or another.
I don't see the URAA suit as being anti-religion, but more neutral in outlook for the future possibility that a child will turn away from the choices of his parents and insist on his own choices. He may choose to follow his parents, and if so, fine. But he must be allowed to choose for himself.
In several societies around the world, there is no choice of religion. You are what your parents say you are, and you may not change your mind or your status. In some cases, there is even a death penalty attached to trying to change.
If the custom of baptism is continued, it should be provisional until the child reaches an age when he can choose for himself whether or not to continue that path. Then, if he decides to stay with his provisional religion, he can go for permanent staus.
Who can argue with free choice on personal matters that affect only the one making the choices?
"Americans should be aware..." but of untruth.
The UAAR association never proposed "such lawsuit" demanding Christian baptisms of children be banned. This is an enormous nonsense for an association how promotes freedom and individual rights.
Only the legal effects of Catholic-Christian baptisms have been under discussion: the fact that a foreign country, the Holy See, states that Catholic baptised people are "sudditi e sottomessi" ("subject and subdued") to it.
This medieval pretence is reflected in the Italian legislature through the pacts made by Vatican with fascist govern in 1930s (later only slightly modified in 1980s) and through the presence of Vatican politic sycophants such as Mr. Gianfranco Amato.
Be aware, yes. And - perhaps - is better to visit the UAAR site [http://www.uaar.it/news/2008/08/18/disinformazione-cristiana-su-uaar-sbattezzo/] before blogging false news (I'm sorry, the only avaible site language is Italian).
Dear Sirs,
on 08/15/12008 an article entitled “Italian Suit Challenging Baptism Dropped” was posted on page http://religionclause.blogspot.com/2008/08/italian-suit-challenging-baptism.html of your website.
This article contains incorrect and misleading information regarding the activities of our association, and in the interests of fairness and accuracy we request that you publish the following rectification:
- Your headline is erroneous and in fact a careful reading of account provided in your article fails to support your accusation. UAAR has never requested that the Italian government ban the rite of baptism.
- Furthermore, UAAR has never requested that the government proscribe the baptism of infants specifically.
- On the contrary, ten years ago UAAR did provide its support for a lawsuit filed by his former secretary seeking to establish that an adult who has been baptised as an infant (and who therefore is automatically considered by both the church and state to be a member of the church) can request to no longer be considered a member of the Catholic Church. As a result of this initiative, in 1999 the Garante italiano della privacy (the government office charged with protecting the information privacy of Italian citizens “in every sector of the social, economic and cultural spheres”) acknowledged this right.
- At present, individuals who have been baptised can file a request with their bishop for a certificate recognizing their wish to no longer be considered as belonging to the Catholic Church. In practical terms – since baptism in the eyes of the Church is an act that, like marriage, cannot be annulled – this request simply signifies that the individual no longer considers him/herself a member of the Catholic Church and as such, should no longer be subject to canon law, whose jurisdiction in the civil sphere has been legally recognized by an Italian court.
- Furthermore, the Garante recognized that this right pertains not only to atheists and agnostics, but also to members of other religions, including Christians who wish to obtain certification that they no longer belong to the Catholic Church.
- UAAR is also seeking – but has not yet obtained – the right to have his/her certificate of baptism cancelled by his diocese. On the general principal that an adult should have the right to ask that an act undertaken on his behalf by others be cancelled, UAAR contends that persons of adult age who no longer consider themselves Catholic have the legitimate right to request the cancellation of an act that they do not recognize and which was imposed on them when they were minors. This position does not in any way imply a desire that the baptism of infants be proscribed. We instead ask that individuals – once they have reach maturity and if they no longer consider themselves Catholic – be allowed to request that their act of baptism be cancelled by the Church, likewise the Catholic marriage can be declared null by the Rota Romana.
- On this point it is relevant to note that, in sentence no. 239/1984, the Constitutional Court of Italy established that an individual’s decision to join a religious community can only be considered valid if the decision was taken of the individual’s own free will.
- It is also pertinent to note that the baptism of children is criticized by various Christian denominations. We are convinced that it would be preferable for parents to leave their children free to choose their faith when they reach maturity, but clearly this is a decision that must be left to the parents themselves.
- It is obvious that, as non-believers, we do not believe in the spiritual effects of baptism. The rite nevertheless does have specific consequences in the eyes of Italian jurisprudence and affects the civil status of the individual. Baptised persons are considered to be subject to the ecclesiastical authorities; indeed, a sentence of the Appeals Court of Florence declared that they are subject specifically to the authority of their bishop. In Italian law, bishops have jurisdiction over the members of their diocese and can emit censures and condemnations based on the Code of Canon Law. This jurisdiction extends even to persons who no longer consider themselves to be Catholic (since the sacrament cannot be expunged). The only legal means for such individuals to remove themselves from this jurisdiction is through the formality of ‘de-baptism’.
- The sole initiative undertaken by UAAR with regard to de-baptism was a case tried before a court eight years ago, in 2000, and we are not aware that any Christian organization – in America or Italy – took any interest or action in the affair.
- Finally, that particular case was filed by an individual, our former secretary Lucian Franceschetti, and not by UAAR since in Italy such cases can only be brought by private citizens.
Trusting in your wish to publish only accurate information, we respectfully request that you post this rectification on your site.
Best regards
Raffaele Carcano
UAAR secretary (www.uaar.it)
On this point it is relevant to note that, in sentence no. 239/1984, the Constitutional Court of Italy established that an individual’s decision to join a religious community can only be considered valid if the decision was taken of the individual’s own free will.
Post a Comment