Sunday, March 30, 2008 | Reason : Commentary | print version

My quest to get de-baptised

by Danny Carr

Reposted from:
http://lifeandhealth.guardian.co.uk/wellbeing/story/0,,2269465,00.html#article_continue

My plan for de-baptism started to formulate when travelling on the Trans-Siberian Railway. While reading Richard Dawkins' atheist polemic The God Delusion, I had a friendly argument with a Russian babushka about our differing beliefs in an Almighty (not an easy task, given the state of my Russian).

When I got home, my parents told me how difficult it was to get me baptised in the first place. The rector even came round for tea, presumably to see if I was the sort of baby acceptable to the Church of England. It seemed to me that my divorce from the church would hinge on getting my name taken off the baptism register.

I am an atheist, but for me there was also a political dimension: why should my name be placed on the church's record and be used as a statistic to claim political and social influence?

I joined the National Secular Society and was pleased to hear that de-baptism had been successfully attempted in this country, albeit in Roman Catholicism. What happens is that the NSS sends you a form to sign and have witnessed. I was informed by a spokesman that de-baptism "was a bit of a joke" but this made me more determined to do it for real. I therefore wrote to the rector of St Mary Newington, south London, where my baptism took place 22 years ago, outlining my intentions.

After three weeks without a reply, I decided to give him a call. He didn't sound too pleased, informing me that I was on his "to-do list". A few days later a letter arrived informing me that the procedure was impossible as "the register of baptisms is a public legal record which may not be altered or deletions made".

Further messages and emails went unanswered so I decided to go over his head and put in a call to the Church of England. My proposal was met with much laughter before I was asked if I was "gay or straight", presumably as this variable would explain why I was planning to "divorce" religion. After being passed between various departments, I was finally told that baptism was "once and for all time and could not be redone or undone".

Could the refusal to remove my name from church records be against the Data Protection Act? What about the European court of human rights? Clearly, splitting from a whole religion was never going to be easy, but I'm still considering my options.

Add to del.icio.us Posted: Sunday, March 30, 2008 | Permalink

Comments 1 - 50 of 86 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #152396 by Andre Weststrate on March 31, 2008 at 12:09 am

I was planning to get myself de-baptised.... Doesn't look to hopeful.

Other Comments by Andre Weststrate

2. Comment #152397 by Dr Doctor on March 31, 2008 at 12:18 am

A great endeavour, which we could symbolise by the logo of a towel or a hairdryer.

Other Comments by Dr Doctor

3. Comment #152399 by sarah95 on March 31, 2008 at 12:19 am

On the face of it the idea seems rather silly: de-baptising? It's not as though you need to physically un-do something. However, the fact that they could use your name to fluff up the statistics is a bit annoying. I may look into that with my old church. They're all rather nice people, and I'd hate to hassle them, but I think I might like to have my name removed IF it's used as a statistic for covering up their empty-pew syndrome. I don't want to hassle them, but I don't want them taking advantage of my sympathy to inflate their reputation either.

Other Comments by sarah95

4. Comment #152401 by mmurray on March 31, 2008 at 12:29 am

More info here

http://www.secularism.org.uk/debaptism.html?CPID=f15cef8de0721f7ab3794095272ed352

Getting out of the Catholic Church seems fairly straightforward although it is not exactly the same thing as getting debaptized. Maybe the CofE's could convert to RC first ? I wonder if this is Tony Blair's master plan ?

Michael

Other Comments by mmurray

5. Comment #152404 by YssiBoo on March 31, 2008 at 1:06 am

Are they really this difficult in the CoE? Here in Norway it is a straight-forward process to have ones name removed from the church records. (Although it has happened that people who were removed have been included again without consent.)

I think you should do your best to have your name removed from their records. It should be a basic freedom in any society to be able to choose which organisations one is a member of!

Other Comments by YssiBoo

6. Comment #152409 by hmcook87 on March 31, 2008 at 1:21 am

I'm so glad my parents had the sense to let me make the decision on baptism. I can scarcely think of a more stupid idea than dunking a baby in water then simply declaring it a christian.

Other Comments by hmcook87

7. Comment #152419 by dobiemum on March 31, 2008 at 1:56 am

"why should my name be placed on the church's record and be used as a statistic to claim political and social influence?"

Why bother with the churches? It would be more effective to set up a separate list in the UK of those wishing to de-baptise themselves. The information would be in the public domain and could be used constructively to refute some of the statistics the church(es) spew out.

Other Comments by dobiemum

8. Comment #152421 by fides_et_ratio on March 31, 2008 at 2:10 am

I blame the parents.

Other Comments by fides_et_ratio

9. Comment #152423 by SharrieG on March 31, 2008 at 2:16 am

For those who are panicking about being included in official stats - I'm not sure that most churches use baptism figures in the stats (maybe CofE and RC do, I'm not sure). I know my own church conducts a census every few years which tots up the number of people who attend and wish to be considered as members of the church, and as far as I know, this is passed to the headquarters for official use.

Babies who were baptised might have their names on a list somewhere, but that's just kept as a record, it's not used for anything.

Other Comments by SharrieG

10. Comment #152425 by mmurray on March 31, 2008 at 2:18 am

I blame the parents.

Except that the churches used to say children needed to be baptized, first communioned, confirmed etc or they wouldn't get to heaven if they died. And in the past children died a lot.

But don't worry I didn't baptize mine :-)

Michael

Other Comments by mmurray

11. Comment #152433 by Mitchell Gilks on March 31, 2008 at 2:39 am

I was never baptized. Yay me. I was never officially a member of any church or religion. My parents were baptized in "The world wide church of god" but they only baptized adults that consented to it, and was willing to go through with it. As they consider being baptized and then leaving their church to be a super big no-no.

I think I was like "blessed" or something when I was a baby, (which is creepy enough) but I was never baptized.

Other Comments by Mitchell Gilks

12. Comment #152439 by LeeC on March 31, 2008 at 3:02 am

I've not baptized my son (2 1/2 years old) but the mother-in-law wants it done (however, being the other side of the globe works wonders in causing a delay)

The problem is, she is planning to get it done at her local church (CoE) the next time we are back to England. Since it isn't costing me any money I have not said no but if it helps in the stats on the religious I may have to put my foot down.

Maybe I will just tattoo 666 on the back of his head to scare the vicar.

Lee

Other Comments by LeeC

13. Comment #152440 by eoinc on March 31, 2008 at 3:03 am

How does De-baptism work? Being baptised - for those of us who have been - is something which has already happened, and cannot be changed. If it happened, it happened. We may no longer be members of the religion into which we were baptised, but that's a seperate matter. Indeed, former Catholics (like me) who no longer attend mass or partake of the sacraments, have secured for ourselves an automatic excommunication, so de-baptism wouldn't be necessary anyway.

This sounds much more like an excuse to annoy some clerics.

Other Comments by eoinc

14. Comment #152441 by Tycho the Dog on March 31, 2008 at 3:04 am

It wouldn't be appropriate to remove anyone from the record of baptisms simply because it's a record of historical fact and you can't alter that. What you should be able to do is add youself to an 'I've left the church' list.

Other Comments by Tycho the Dog

15. Comment #152444 by Quetzalcoatl on March 31, 2008 at 3:20 am

I wasn't aware that being baptised was something that actually got recorded and used in official stats. Might be wrong though.

I think I was baptised, but I'm not so worried about getting de-baptised, since the whole thing clearly didn't work to begin with!

Lee-

try teaching your son some Latin as well. That should freak the vicar out quite nicely.

Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl

16. Comment #152447 by Colwyn Abernathy on March 31, 2008 at 3:58 am

My plan for de-baptism started to formulate when travelling on the Trans-Siberian Railway.

HA! Reminds me of the time Henry Rollins told of taking the same trip...a week straight with the Angry Woman of the People's Hallway, The Voice, The People's Toilet, and examining his vomit up close and personal. Good times...

Other Comments by Colwyn Abernathy

17. Comment #152449 by hungarianelephant on March 31, 2008 at 4:01 am

AFAIK, it is correct that the CofE is obliged to maintain a record of baptisms and therefore can't delete records.

On top of that, there's a decision in Ireland that the (Catholic) church can't be told to delete the record anyway, since it's "essential to the administration of church affairs". In that case the church did offer to add a note that the person no longer wished to be associated with the church. Just rechecked and it is now on www.dataprotection.ie with the snappy title "Case Study 8".

This was probably because of a Spanish case where the court actually ordered the church to add such a note. Sorry, can't find that reference.

Data protection law is pretty much the same througout the EU and you'd expect similar results. So if you really care about this stuff, you should probably write to the church you were baptised in and ask them to update their records.

Bizarrely, the CofE isn't considered a government body under the Freedom of Information Act 2000. So if you want to get information it holds about you, you'll have to pay your £10 under the Data Protection Act.

LeeC's approach sounds more fun, as long as you're confident that there's no male pattern baldness in your family. So I'm screwed.

Edit: Hey, Josh, we might all be a bit backwards over here, but don't you know that RD is British AND still used pounds sterling? How's about a little htmlentities() for us limeys?

Other Comments by hungarianelephant

18. Comment #152451 by Alrischa on March 31, 2008 at 4:33 am

Although I wish you luck, I don't really understand the practical need to be 'de-baptised'. It doesn't really matter if I'm still a statistic on the 'Successfully Indoctrinated' list (I was a 'Christian' once, but I never bought it anyhow. I didn't voice my opinions, so who knows?). Besides, if they ever try to use the statistics to their advantage, we can always say 'ad populum'.

Other Comments by Alrischa

19. Comment #152454 by old-toy-boy on March 31, 2008 at 4:46 am

Comment #152409 by hmcook87
I can scarcely think of a more stupid idea than dunking a baby in water then simply declaring it a christian.

Er, how about having one's foreskin cut or bitten off by an aids infected Rabbi?

On the other hand why bother de-baptizing? why not simply have a 'dont know, dont care attitude?'

Other Comments by old-toy-boy

20. Comment #152456 by Matt7895 on March 31, 2008 at 4:50 am

I was baptised as a baby into the Church of England. That's just a fact of life. I can't pretend it didn't happen by trying to remove all historical records of it. That would just be silly.

Other Comments by Matt7895

21. Comment #152459 by rod-the-farmer on March 31, 2008 at 5:07 am

This reminds me of the 1858 case of Edgardo Mortara, the jewish boy who was "baptised" by a catholic servant girl, when his parents were away and he took ill. The servant girl was afraid he would die and go to hell, as he had not been baptised. The baptism was reported to the RC authorities, who took the boy away from his parents, as it was illegal in the Papal States for jews to have catholic children, not even their own. We have progressed some in the intervening years.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edgardo_Mortara

I too did not want our son baptised, and refused to attend, but did not prevent my wife from doing it. Our son is now an atheist.

Other Comments by rod-the-farmer

22. Comment #152461 by Valiant on March 31, 2008 at 5:15 am

I'm not sure there is such a record in the protestant church. But probably there is, might be interesting to see if it can be removed. But that doesn't change the fact that I was baptised I suppose.

Other Comments by Valiant

23. Comment #152462 by mmurray on March 31, 2008 at 5:16 am

While we are on the topic a little light hearted poetry:

http://www.middlemiss.org/lit/authors/patersonab/poetry/christen.html

For background Australian priests were Irish Catholic and not unknown to take the odd drop of alcoholic beverage. They were in short supply when you lived a long way from anywhere and outback Australia was definitely a long way from anywhere when this was written in 1893. I have heard stories of marriage ceremonies held well after cohabitation started due to the difficulties in finding a priest.

Michael

Other Comments by mmurray

24. Comment #152464 by petengeth on March 31, 2008 at 5:24 am

The person who baptised me was my father, he is now a very out and loud atheist.
I saw the darkness before him, but if religion, god and baptism are all a load of mumbo jumbo, why dignify it with getting unbaptised.
It is totally meaningless, and unlike having bits of you cut off, nothing to really get worked up about.
Gethin

Other Comments by petengeth

25. Comment #152466 by mmurray on March 31, 2008 at 5:31 am

I was baptised as a baby into the Church of England. That's just a fact of life. I can't pretend it didn't happen by trying to remove all historical records of it. That would just be silly.

But they could offer an Unbaptism and the historical record could show Baptised on date xxx, Unbaptised on date yyy. It would be no different to Married on date xxx and Divorced on date yyy.

And continuing with the marriage example the Catholic Church offers marriage annulment (as they don't allow divorce). An annulled marriage is regarded as having never happened. So why not annul a baptism and it never happened. It's all mumbo-jumbo so they can do anything if they want to.

Michael

Other Comments by mmurray

26. Comment #152471 by Peacebeuponme on March 31, 2008 at 5:47 am

Matt7895

I tend to agree, except that the church would be underhand of they still counted you amongst their statistics as a believer as a result. There is also a data protection issue.

It is only a bit water being splashed on your head, so no need worry about "unbaptising" yourself.

Other Comments by Peacebeuponme

27. Comment #152482 by mmurray on March 31, 2008 at 6:09 am

Actually the more I think about this the more I think a campaign for the right to be unbaptised would be a good thing. It would highlight the fact that baptism is being performed mostly on children who cannot give informed consent and link into the `consciousness raising' about `catholic children' etc that Richard is keen on. It could be coupled to a campaign to make an addition to the UN convention of human rights which gives children the right not to be made a member of a religion until they are adult and can make an informed choice. It would be interesting to hear the argument against. There was a recent debate with Richard in it which got onto this topic and I thought the Islamic guy was at his scariest when he talked about his right to raise his children in his religion.

I am sure we would lose the first few times we tried but that doesn't make it a bad idea to try.

Michael

PS: There is a thread in the forums about whether or not you should baptise your children here.

Other Comments by mmurray

28. Comment #152484 by Peacebeuponme on March 31, 2008 at 6:19 am

mmurray

Actually the more I think about this the more I think a campaign for the right to be unbaptised would be a good thing. It would highlight the fact that baptism is being performed mostly on children who cannot give informed consent and link into the `consciousness raising' about `catholic children' etc that Richard is keen on.

I'm not sure I'd go along with that. Its just a splash of water on the head. There are many things parents do the infants cannot give informed consent to. I think we should limit state intervention to cases where harm can be done.

Other Comments by Peacebeuponme

29. Comment #152491 by ACJames on March 31, 2008 at 6:33 am

I'd say you're de-Baptized the moment you realize you dont need to be de-Baptized.

Other Comments by ACJames

30. Comment #152492 by coretemprising on March 31, 2008 at 6:35 am

If something was done to one in a "baptism" that left a lasting physical scar, say a tatoo or some such, I would be all for eliminating it. But since it is just a bogus ceremony with no attending bodily mark... ? I was both baptised and "confirmed" but of what possible relevance is that today, so many years later? If there was some sort of actual public listing of people who wish to declare their break with what was done to them as children, as Tycho said, I'd be all for it. And my name would be on it. But to expect religious officials to go along with a request for an "unbaptism" is ridiculous, even if imagining their emotional reaction is funny as heck. Closest they'd come to "WTF?" possibly.

Lee, you write as though you are under the thumb of your mother-in-law. I do hope that's not the case--may you not make your own decision for your OWN childrn?

Other Comments by coretemprising

31. Comment #152494 by al-rawandi on March 31, 2008 at 6:39 am

Well he may have a better time than a Jew trying to get de-circumcised.

Other Comments by al-rawandi

32. Comment #152497 by DamnDirtyApe on March 31, 2008 at 6:44 am

I was held at the airport up by Homeland Security when I visited my brother in the states. One of the questions I was asked was 'were you baptised?'

Did they maybe cross a line there?

Other Comments by DamnDirtyApe

33. Comment #152499 by annabanana on March 31, 2008 at 6:49 am

Why on earth did they ask you if you had been baptized? What an odd question. And what on earth does it have to do with "homeland security"?

Other Comments by annabanana

34. Comment #152500 by headcold on March 31, 2008 at 6:53 am

I share the opinion with some others here that de-baptism is silly. I understand that the Church of England is taking credit for your soul in statistics, but it's all a big scam anyway. It's a bit like writing Microsoft to say that in retrospect you've decided that you don't agree to the Terms and Conditions of Windows 98. (Not a perfect analogy, I admit.) Whether you like it or not, the Church does deserve credit for your baptism. They did spent 2000 years deceiving people in order to someday be able to trick your elders into splashing some water on your head. It's evil, but it was hard work! :)

I'd rather show a bit of respect to my parents' beliefs at the time. They did it out of a deep love for you even if they were misguided by the Church or bad memes.

Instead of spending time fighting the system over an arguably pointless gesture, you could save that time for yourself: read a book that cheers you up rather than frustrates you endlessly as religion tends to do.

Other Comments by headcold

35. Comment #152501 by Rettet181 on March 31, 2008 at 6:54 am

I was actually just recently 'de-baptized' from the LDS church (Mormon). The process is... annoying, but easily done. Twenty years ago, it was impossible to have your 'name removed', but due to a string of lawsuits the church was forced to provide a way to strike yourself from the membership rolls. Because of these cases any organization in the United States, churches included, must provide a way to withdraw your membership.

I have no idea what it's like in England, however.

Other Comments by Rettet181

36. Comment #152503 by the_ultimate_samurai on March 31, 2008 at 6:59 am

actually you can become de-circumcised, if you attach a weight to the skin it will stretch it, the skin will naturally grow back. the worse part is going the other dirrection. de-circumcision as an adult is painless...circumcision as an adult is painful...

but anyhow, about de-baptism...i was never baptised so i dont quite know much about this, my church was never one that dealt in baptisms...i dont quite know what they would use the record for.

if they are using it to say how many people were baptised in this year compared to this year in order to track the downward trend then i see no reason to have the record removed (maybe the catholic church wants people to remove their names so the downward trend looks less steep) its just a mater of history. if they use it to say how many people ascribe to this religion thats another thing (id say like someone else mentioned have an apostasy list but if they didnt use it who would know, they could have the list and never reference it, they could trump up their list and again...never say why....churches tend to be closed book deals...of course i live in america...so...it may be different in england)

Other Comments by the_ultimate_samurai

37. Comment #152508 by sidelined on March 31, 2008 at 7:10 am

RE: Danny Carr

"Could the refusal to remove my name from church records be against the Data Protection Act? What about the European court of human rights? Clearly, splitting from a whole religion was never going to be easy, but I'm still considering my options."

Would it be possible to go to the Queen of England and ask her to use her position as Supreme Governor of the Church of England to remove the baptismal record? Henry the 8th managed to use it to annul his marriage to Catherine of Aragon so the possibility exists that her position will lend sufficient weight to enable the records to be erased.
Since you are a citizen of the nation she rules I think it would be interesting to she what power she has to grant the "spiritual" wishes of her subjects by confronting the Church on matters of applicability of doctrine.
Then again she might just release the hounds on you. Good luck.

Other Comments by sidelined

38. Comment #152515 by quickfics on March 31, 2008 at 7:31 am

You need to hang around a church during peak baptism hours (anybody know when that would be?) and intercept a family just before they throw water on a perfectly innocent and perfectly original-sin-free baby. Explain your situation and convince them that the only fair thing would be to not have their baby baptized, and that their god would consider it a wash.

Other Comments by quickfics

39. Comment #152519 by annabanana on March 31, 2008 at 7:35 am

the_ultimate_samurai,

First of all, is that even a practical solution to circumcision? Second, even if it is practical, it can't restore any sensitivity that may have been lost in the original procedure.

Other Comments by annabanana

40. Comment #152522 by Quetzalcoatl on March 31, 2008 at 7:38 am

First of all, is that even a practical solution to circumcision?

It's certainly not a pleasant one.

Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl

41. Comment #152525 by Geoff on March 31, 2008 at 7:39 am

33. Comment #152494 by al-rawandi

Well he may have a better time than a Jew trying to get de-circumcised.

Brief discussion here:
http://richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=1531

:)

Other Comments by Geoff

42. Comment #152527 by annabanana on March 31, 2008 at 7:41 am

Quetz,

It's certainly not a pleasant one.

Not that I'm the appropriate authority on the subject, but I would imagine not!

Other Comments by annabanana

43. Comment #152531 by al-rawandi on March 31, 2008 at 7:46 am

Leave your tallywhackers alone.

Other Comments by al-rawandi

44. Comment #152532 by shemp333 on March 31, 2008 at 7:48 am

No one ever forced my head under water. Thankfully I was stubborn enough as a child to refuse to go through it. In the church I was forced to attend you had to put on a white gown and the preacher baptized you in a tank behind where the pulpit was. (They moved it for this) Everyone in the congregation got to watch as you were dunked into the church.

I believe I was 12 or 13 at the time and having arguments with the parents about why I had to attend this church and what I was "being taught". I was and am quite pleased I refused. I had to sit and watch all the other kids go through it....

That year was when I refused to ever be taken to church again. My mother said, "Get up! Time to go to Sunday School!" I told her, "I refuse to get up, I refuse to get dressed, and I'm not going to church ever again!"....

and I haven't been back since. (I'm 34)

Other Comments by shemp333

45. Comment #152538 by alexmzk on March 31, 2008 at 7:53 am

presumably you have to blaspheme the holy spirit in church in front of a priest and they have no choice but to let you go.

Other Comments by alexmzk

46. Comment #152539 by Bonzai on March 31, 2008 at 7:54 am

This sounds kind of silly. It is nothing but grand standing knowing that it is safe to do so.

I was baptized as a Catholic when I was a baby. It has absolutely no significance in my life. If you don't want to be part of the religon, just stop going to Church and stop believing and tell people you are an atheist when asked. At least we have the freedom to do so.

Now it would be a lot more significant and worthy to campaign for the right to apostasy in Islam.

Other Comments by Bonzai

47. Comment #152546 by annabanana on March 31, 2008 at 8:00 am

What's a tallywhacker, and should I have one?

This is a surprising question coming from Richard Morgan whose mind is constantly in the gutter.

Other Comments by annabanana

48. Comment #152547 by Quetzalcoatl on March 31, 2008 at 8:02 am

Anna-

oh dear. You have fallen directly into his trap. Every time.

Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl

49. Comment #152561 by annabanana on March 31, 2008 at 8:12 am

Quetz,

I was wondering whether it was feigned ignorance, but I commented anyway.

Richard M.,

I'm assuming your google search has given you the answer? I won't elaborate if I don't have to.

Other Comments by annabanana

50. Comment #152565 by RobDinsmore on March 31, 2008 at 8:14 am

First of all, is that even a practical solution to circumcision? Second, even if it is practical, it can't restore any sensitivity that may have been lost in the original procedure.

From what I have read on the topic it is hit or miss when it comes to restoring some sensitivity. Probably has something to do with time spent circumcised and overall sensitivity. Also I do recall several devices on the market designed to pull the skin had names that made me chuckle.

Other Comments by RobDinsmore