Church Raised Adult Children who Reject their Religion and are Raising Kids Without Church

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“Infants must be generally baptized in the parish that at least one of their parent's attend. For Baptisms at a different church, shrine, or oratory, a permission letter from your pastor may be needed
The child's birth certificate should be available for presentation to the parish.”

This alone shows that at least one parent must be present at the baptism of a child, at least in the Catholic church. I don’t know of any pastor in non-Catholic churches that would baptize a child without at least one parent present. This thread is based on atheist and anti-theist obsessive-hysteria, and should be used as an example of ignorance and misinformation that at times dominates this forum.

Do not use this forum to learn about religion or religious practices or religious people.

First, there is no citation for this quote.
Second, there are a lot of Christin sects that are not catholic.
Third, there are many instances of catholic sects, priests, and individuals that do things that are not "officially" condoned by the formal Catholic church.

https://www.catechismclass.com/catholic_baptism_requirements.php

https://getordained.org/blog/process-baptized-christian

Here are citations.

Where are the citations for claims made throughout the thread that churches/sects will baptize a kid without parental involvement?

Citations directly from the sect/church, not news stories about randos doing weird stuff.

As I have said, multiple times, I agree that it would be impossible to find a citation from any church/sect going on record saying that they do this.
The question was whether it ever happens, even when it is "randos doing weird stuff." It happens.

But you have not a single news story or cite that a (specifically) grandmother took a grandchild to church and had said grandchild baptized w/o permission?

But everyone else has to post citations, links, etc.

Grandparents have killed their grandchildren, sadly. A grandfather on a cruise ship held his granddaughter out of a cruise ship window and the child accidentally fell to her death!

A grandfather has been spared jail after he admitted killing his toddler granddaughter by dropping her off the side of a cruise ship. Salvatore Anello pleaded guilty to the negligent homicide of 18 month-old Chloe Wiegand at a court in San Juan, Puerto Rico, on Thursday.

Anello was sentenced to probation over the July 2019 incident, and will serve out his probation at his home in South Bend, Indiana. Family attorney Michael Winkelman said after Thursday’s hearing: ‘This decision was an incredibly difficult one for Sam and the family.

https://metro.co.uk/2020/10/15/granddad-spared-jail-after-admitting-dropping-toddler-to-her-death-from-cruise-ship-13430011/amp/

However, I don’t see evidence that grandpa usually holds a grandbaby out a cruise ship window and lets baby fall to her death.

There is no evidence given here to support any claims of grandparents doing as you claim. I have presented more evidence to not let grandpa hold baby on a cruise ship than you have presented of illicit grandchild baptism.

Again, I think we are agreeing with each other and you provided an example of just what I am saying.

Can you cite an instance of a cruise line policy or guideline that specifically allows for grandparents to dangle babies off the side of a ship? And it has to come directly from the cruise line, not a news article about some rando.

Would the absence of such an official rule or guideline from the cruise line lead you to conclude that no grandparent had ever dangled a baby off the side of a ship?

Why are there no news stories of churches baptizing kids without parental permission? If it was a common occurrence, the church would be called out. That’s not how churches should operate.

Note the cruise ship didn’t dangle a baby out the window-grandpa did. Cruise lines don’t have to publish information for the passengers on how to not dangle your precious grandchildren out a window and let it fall to their death- because only a completely ridiculous and negligent grandfather would do such a thing. Most grandparents are careful and loving and safe with their grandchildren.

I have repeatedly said that I do not believe it is a "common occurrence." Let's call that point conceded (and never actually asserted in the first place.)

And see just this one answer of where I have answered your bolded question above: ""People do crazy and weird things" and there have been instances of baptism without consent. Some have been documented in this thread. And BECAUSE it is not in keeping with the formal rules of most organized religions, other instances would necessarily happen in secret, such that it would be unlikely for a parent to find out, much less for it to make it to the internet in a way that lends itself to "proof.""

And, notwithstanding the above, there are news stories about religious organizations baptizing without parental consent.

Where? A Christian school in NC and 2 stories behind a paid firewall is your evidence?

Yes the school in NC and the stories behind the firewall.
Also the settlement agreement that was linked in that same post: https://apnews.com/article/2d6fc1d745f8db6042b4dbe99160ecaf
If it helps, here are some news stories about it:
https://www.cleveland.com/court-justice/2020/05/geauga-county-couple-settles-lawsuit-that-claimed-evangelical-church-forcibly-baptized-disabled-son.html
https://www.wkyc.com/article/news/local/geauga-county/mother-special-needs-son-forcibly-baptized/95-315765150
And yes to the to the Orlando articles, which you can see before the firewall if you don't want to pay. I'll paste one of them below for you:

LAKE HELEN CHURCH HIT WITH 2ND SUIT
By Charlene Hager-Van Dyke of The Sentinel Staff
Orlando Sentinel
•
Oct 30, 1996 at 12:00 am





DELAND — A second mother and child have sued a Lake Helen church saying the pastor and two directors "committed battery" on the boy who was baptized without his or his parents' consent.

The suit - filed in Volusia County court by Heidi Zawacki and her 10-year-old son, David - is against the Rev. Lamar Breedlove, pastor of Central Fellowship Baptist Church on Kicklighter Road, and church directors Randy Taylor and George Reaser.

The action seeks a jury trial, compensatory damages, court costs and more than $5,000 for counseling and medical treatment.

"My clients aren't out to recover an astronomical amount in damages, but the child has AD-HD (attention-deficit hyper disorder) and they've incurred costs because of this," Randy Griffiths, attorney for the Zawackis said Tuesday.

Eight-year-old Sarah Xanders and her mother, Sherry Braithwaite, filed a similar suit last month against Breedlove and the church saying the two "intentionally forced baptism upon her, without consent of her parents."

An attorney representing Breedlove, the directors and the church in both suits has filed motions to dismiss both cases.

David Zawacki was baptized March 17 after sleeping at a friend's and going to church the next day.

"He came home and said he was saved, but then he started crying and told me they wanted him to take off all of his clothes," his mother said. Later he had nightmares and refused to go to his church, where he was baptized as an infant.

Taylor has said the church did not have a signed permission slip for David before the baptism, and Breedlove has said he will no longer perform baptisms without consent.

“They also sued CASA for Kids of Geauga County, which employed a guardian the court-appointed to monitor care for the boy. The couple said guardian Margaret Vaughan, who also attended the church, recruited Guarnera to mentor the boy. A judge threw out the claims against the organization.

The original lawsuit said the couple reported the baptism to the Geauga County Sheriff’s Office, but a deputy declined to press charges against Guarnera and Chesnes because the child suffered no physical injuries, and the pair did not have criminal intent to harm.“

Cleveland lawyer Kenneth Myers, who represented the family along with American Atheists, said in a news release that the settlement allows the family to move forward.

The couple’s lawyers did not disclose the terms of the settlement.

Seems like a money grab to me. The parents had to have a guardian monitor their care of their own child. That’s never a good sign.

I'm not sure the point you are trying to make. Can you explain?

Kids have court appointed guardians for a reason.

Parents suing everyone possible and receiving cash for this incident is suspect because the court says they aren’t great parents so the court appointed a guardian to help the kid make decisions on his own because parents are sus.

So I gather you are saying one of two things in relation to the specific issue:
1. The whole thing is made up as a money grab and no baptism ever occurred.
2. The parents don't need to consent in this instance-- because they are "sus" and/or because the guardian had such authority to consent

Which one?

I say neither.

The child in this case was a victim of abuse or neglect by his mother, father, or both. The disabled child had a court appointed guardian because a judge saw evidence the parents weren’t properly caring for their child, and possibly abusing him. CASA only works with rough cases.

When the parents found out the child had been baptized, they sued and received a settlement for cash, although they were such sucky (and possibly abusive parents) the court had to appoint an outside person to be their child’s guardian.

Got it! So this is a documented instance of baptism without parental consent.

Why are you ignoring the fact his parents abused him, most probably? You are ignoring that very important point.

I’m not ignoring it. What I’m trying to do is ascertain whether this is an instance of baptism without parental consent. I even posed the question of whether consent was still required if the parents are bad/“sus”. Are we saying that it is no longer required in those instances? Where would we draw the line?

parents who abuse their kids are not good people. If a kid has a court appointed guardian, the judge put someone in charge of the child for their safety.

We draw no lines, as it is not out business how people choose to worship.

Which person’s choice are we talking about here? The parent? The child? The guardian? The church that baptized?

You decide for you, I decide for me. Etc. Apply the freedom of choice you have and appreciate to others, even if you disagree with their choices. It’s not hard.

So just to be clear, you don’t have an opinion at all on under what conditions a child should be baptized?

My child? Or yours?

An unrelated child. Just trying to understand your take. Most of this thread generally seems to agree that, at a minimum, a baby shouldn't be secretly baptized by a grandparent and no religious organization should administer such a baptism. But your post indicated that we just shouldn't look into or care about what is happening with any other when it comes to religion.

The question was about whether and under what circumstances it would be OK for a child to be baptized without parental consent. You answered, "we draw no lines". So I want to be sure I am understanding.

It’s not our business. Take care of your own life, gawd you must have some major damage to be so deeply entrenched in this issue.

I'm curious why you would post anything at all on this Board. Isn't it all opining on somebody else's business?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“Infants must be generally baptized in the parish that at least one of their parent's attend. For Baptisms at a different church, shrine, or oratory, a permission letter from your pastor may be needed
The child's birth certificate should be available for presentation to the parish.”

This alone shows that at least one parent must be present at the baptism of a child, at least in the Catholic church. I don’t know of any pastor in non-Catholic churches that would baptize a child without at least one parent present. This thread is based on atheist and anti-theist obsessive-hysteria, and should be used as an example of ignorance and misinformation that at times dominates this forum.

Do not use this forum to learn about religion or religious practices or religious people.

First, there is no citation for this quote.
Second, there are a lot of Christin sects that are not catholic.
Third, there are many instances of catholic sects, priests, and individuals that do things that are not "officially" condoned by the formal Catholic church.

https://www.catechismclass.com/catholic_baptism_requirements.php

https://getordained.org/blog/process-baptized-christian

Here are citations.

Where are the citations for claims made throughout the thread that churches/sects will baptize a kid without parental involvement?

Citations directly from the sect/church, not news stories about randos doing weird stuff.

As I have said, multiple times, I agree that it would be impossible to find a citation from any church/sect going on record saying that they do this.
The question was whether it ever happens, even when it is "randos doing weird stuff." It happens.

But you have not a single news story or cite that a (specifically) grandmother took a grandchild to church and had said grandchild baptized w/o permission?

But everyone else has to post citations, links, etc.

Grandparents have killed their grandchildren, sadly. A grandfather on a cruise ship held his granddaughter out of a cruise ship window and the child accidentally fell to her death!

A grandfather has been spared jail after he admitted killing his toddler granddaughter by dropping her off the side of a cruise ship. Salvatore Anello pleaded guilty to the negligent homicide of 18 month-old Chloe Wiegand at a court in San Juan, Puerto Rico, on Thursday.

Anello was sentenced to probation over the July 2019 incident, and will serve out his probation at his home in South Bend, Indiana. Family attorney Michael Winkelman said after Thursday’s hearing: ‘This decision was an incredibly difficult one for Sam and the family.

https://metro.co.uk/2020/10/15/granddad-spared-jail-after-admitting-dropping-toddler-to-her-death-from-cruise-ship-13430011/amp/

However, I don’t see evidence that grandpa usually holds a grandbaby out a cruise ship window and lets baby fall to her death.

There is no evidence given here to support any claims of grandparents doing as you claim. I have presented more evidence to not let grandpa hold baby on a cruise ship than you have presented of illicit grandchild baptism.

Again, I think we are agreeing with each other and you provided an example of just what I am saying.

Can you cite an instance of a cruise line policy or guideline that specifically allows for grandparents to dangle babies off the side of a ship? And it has to come directly from the cruise line, not a news article about some rando.

Would the absence of such an official rule or guideline from the cruise line lead you to conclude that no grandparent had ever dangled a baby off the side of a ship?

Why are there no news stories of churches baptizing kids without parental permission? If it was a common occurrence, the church would be called out. That’s not how churches should operate.

Note the cruise ship didn’t dangle a baby out the window-grandpa did. Cruise lines don’t have to publish information for the passengers on how to not dangle your precious grandchildren out a window and let it fall to their death- because only a completely ridiculous and negligent grandfather would do such a thing. Most grandparents are careful and loving and safe with their grandchildren.

I have repeatedly said that I do not believe it is a "common occurrence." Let's call that point conceded (and never actually asserted in the first place.)

And see just this one answer of where I have answered your bolded question above: ""People do crazy and weird things" and there have been instances of baptism without consent. Some have been documented in this thread. And BECAUSE it is not in keeping with the formal rules of most organized religions, other instances would necessarily happen in secret, such that it would be unlikely for a parent to find out, much less for it to make it to the internet in a way that lends itself to "proof.""

And, notwithstanding the above, there are news stories about religious organizations baptizing without parental consent.

Where? A Christian school in NC and 2 stories behind a paid firewall is your evidence?

Yes the school in NC and the stories behind the firewall.
Also the settlement agreement that was linked in that same post: https://apnews.com/article/2d6fc1d745f8db6042b4dbe99160ecaf
If it helps, here are some news stories about it:
https://www.cleveland.com/court-justice/2020/05/geauga-county-couple-settles-lawsuit-that-claimed-evangelical-church-forcibly-baptized-disabled-son.html
https://www.wkyc.com/article/news/local/geauga-county/mother-special-needs-son-forcibly-baptized/95-315765150
And yes to the to the Orlando articles, which you can see before the firewall if you don't want to pay. I'll paste one of them below for you:

LAKE HELEN CHURCH HIT WITH 2ND SUIT
By Charlene Hager-Van Dyke of The Sentinel Staff
Orlando Sentinel
•
Oct 30, 1996 at 12:00 am





DELAND — A second mother and child have sued a Lake Helen church saying the pastor and two directors "committed battery" on the boy who was baptized without his or his parents' consent.

The suit - filed in Volusia County court by Heidi Zawacki and her 10-year-old son, David - is against the Rev. Lamar Breedlove, pastor of Central Fellowship Baptist Church on Kicklighter Road, and church directors Randy Taylor and George Reaser.

The action seeks a jury trial, compensatory damages, court costs and more than $5,000 for counseling and medical treatment.

"My clients aren't out to recover an astronomical amount in damages, but the child has AD-HD (attention-deficit hyper disorder) and they've incurred costs because of this," Randy Griffiths, attorney for the Zawackis said Tuesday.

Eight-year-old Sarah Xanders and her mother, Sherry Braithwaite, filed a similar suit last month against Breedlove and the church saying the two "intentionally forced baptism upon her, without consent of her parents."

An attorney representing Breedlove, the directors and the church in both suits has filed motions to dismiss both cases.

David Zawacki was baptized March 17 after sleeping at a friend's and going to church the next day.

"He came home and said he was saved, but then he started crying and told me they wanted him to take off all of his clothes," his mother said. Later he had nightmares and refused to go to his church, where he was baptized as an infant.

Taylor has said the church did not have a signed permission slip for David before the baptism, and Breedlove has said he will no longer perform baptisms without consent.

“They also sued CASA for Kids of Geauga County, which employed a guardian the court-appointed to monitor care for the boy. The couple said guardian Margaret Vaughan, who also attended the church, recruited Guarnera to mentor the boy. A judge threw out the claims against the organization.

The original lawsuit said the couple reported the baptism to the Geauga County Sheriff’s Office, but a deputy declined to press charges against Guarnera and Chesnes because the child suffered no physical injuries, and the pair did not have criminal intent to harm.“

Cleveland lawyer Kenneth Myers, who represented the family along with American Atheists, said in a news release that the settlement allows the family to move forward.

The couple’s lawyers did not disclose the terms of the settlement.

Seems like a money grab to me. The parents had to have a guardian monitor their care of their own child. That’s never a good sign.

I'm not sure the point you are trying to make. Can you explain?

Kids have court appointed guardians for a reason.

Parents suing everyone possible and receiving cash for this incident is suspect because the court says they aren’t great parents so the court appointed a guardian to help the kid make decisions on his own because parents are sus.

So I gather you are saying one of two things in relation to the specific issue:
1. The whole thing is made up as a money grab and no baptism ever occurred.
2. The parents don't need to consent in this instance-- because they are "sus" and/or because the guardian had such authority to consent

Which one?

I say neither.

The child in this case was a victim of abuse or neglect by his mother, father, or both. The disabled child had a court appointed guardian because a judge saw evidence the parents weren’t properly caring for their child, and possibly abusing him. CASA only works with rough cases.

When the parents found out the child had been baptized, they sued and received a settlement for cash, although they were such sucky (and possibly abusive parents) the court had to appoint an outside person to be their child’s guardian.

Got it! So this is a documented instance of baptism without parental consent.

Why are you ignoring the fact his parents abused him, most probably? You are ignoring that very important point.

I’m not ignoring it. What I’m trying to do is ascertain whether this is an instance of baptism without parental consent. I even posed the question of whether consent was still required if the parents are bad/“sus”. Are we saying that it is no longer required in those instances? Where would we draw the line?

parents who abuse their kids are not good people. If a kid has a court appointed guardian, the judge put someone in charge of the child for their safety.

We draw no lines, as it is not out business how people choose to worship.

Which person’s choice are we talking about here? The parent? The child? The guardian? The church that baptized?

You decide for you, I decide for me. Etc. Apply the freedom of choice you have and appreciate to others, even if you disagree with their choices. It’s not hard.

So just to be clear, you don’t have an opinion at all on under what conditions a child should be baptized?

What religion are you? Why do you have an opinion about other people’s children?

I don't ascribe to any particular religion.

I have all sorts of opinions about other people's children- how they should be parented, and whether those parenting decisions should be respected by grandparents and other people.

Do I or anyone else get to make decisions for your child/children? If so, what do I get to decide?

You absolutely do not get to decide. This entire thread, and likely 90% of threads on this site, are discussions of what people think should occur in a given situation.

We shouldn't do that any more?

“I don't ascribe to any particular religion.

I have all sorts of opinions about other people's children- how they should be parented, and whether those parenting decisions should be respected by grandparents and other people. “

So you have all sorts of opinions, but my opinions for your child are an absolute no-go. lol. Mind your own business. You choose for your kid only. You don’t decide anything for the children of other people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“Infants must be generally baptized in the parish that at least one of their parent's attend. For Baptisms at a different church, shrine, or oratory, a permission letter from your pastor may be needed
The child's birth certificate should be available for presentation to the parish.”

This alone shows that at least one parent must be present at the baptism of a child, at least in the Catholic church. I don’t know of any pastor in non-Catholic churches that would baptize a child without at least one parent present. This thread is based on atheist and anti-theist obsessive-hysteria, and should be used as an example of ignorance and misinformation that at times dominates this forum.

Do not use this forum to learn about religion or religious practices or religious people.

First, there is no citation for this quote.
Second, there are a lot of Christin sects that are not catholic.
Third, there are many instances of catholic sects, priests, and individuals that do things that are not "officially" condoned by the formal Catholic church.

https://www.catechismclass.com/catholic_baptism_requirements.php

https://getordained.org/blog/process-baptized-christian

Here are citations.

Where are the citations for claims made throughout the thread that churches/sects will baptize a kid without parental involvement?

Citations directly from the sect/church, not news stories about randos doing weird stuff.

As I have said, multiple times, I agree that it would be impossible to find a citation from any church/sect going on record saying that they do this.
The question was whether it ever happens, even when it is "randos doing weird stuff." It happens.

But you have not a single news story or cite that a (specifically) grandmother took a grandchild to church and had said grandchild baptized w/o permission?

But everyone else has to post citations, links, etc.

Grandparents have killed their grandchildren, sadly. A grandfather on a cruise ship held his granddaughter out of a cruise ship window and the child accidentally fell to her death!

A grandfather has been spared jail after he admitted killing his toddler granddaughter by dropping her off the side of a cruise ship. Salvatore Anello pleaded guilty to the negligent homicide of 18 month-old Chloe Wiegand at a court in San Juan, Puerto Rico, on Thursday.

Anello was sentenced to probation over the July 2019 incident, and will serve out his probation at his home in South Bend, Indiana. Family attorney Michael Winkelman said after Thursday’s hearing: ‘This decision was an incredibly difficult one for Sam and the family.

https://metro.co.uk/2020/10/15/granddad-spared-jail-after-admitting-dropping-toddler-to-her-death-from-cruise-ship-13430011/amp/

However, I don’t see evidence that grandpa usually holds a grandbaby out a cruise ship window and lets baby fall to her death.

There is no evidence given here to support any claims of grandparents doing as you claim. I have presented more evidence to not let grandpa hold baby on a cruise ship than you have presented of illicit grandchild baptism.

Again, I think we are agreeing with each other and you provided an example of just what I am saying.

Can you cite an instance of a cruise line policy or guideline that specifically allows for grandparents to dangle babies off the side of a ship? And it has to come directly from the cruise line, not a news article about some rando.

Would the absence of such an official rule or guideline from the cruise line lead you to conclude that no grandparent had ever dangled a baby off the side of a ship?

Why are there no news stories of churches baptizing kids without parental permission? If it was a common occurrence, the church would be called out. That’s not how churches should operate.

Note the cruise ship didn’t dangle a baby out the window-grandpa did. Cruise lines don’t have to publish information for the passengers on how to not dangle your precious grandchildren out a window and let it fall to their death- because only a completely ridiculous and negligent grandfather would do such a thing. Most grandparents are careful and loving and safe with their grandchildren.

I have repeatedly said that I do not believe it is a "common occurrence." Let's call that point conceded (and never actually asserted in the first place.)

And see just this one answer of where I have answered your bolded question above: ""People do crazy and weird things" and there have been instances of baptism without consent. Some have been documented in this thread. And BECAUSE it is not in keeping with the formal rules of most organized religions, other instances would necessarily happen in secret, such that it would be unlikely for a parent to find out, much less for it to make it to the internet in a way that lends itself to "proof.""

And, notwithstanding the above, there are news stories about religious organizations baptizing without parental consent.

Where? A Christian school in NC and 2 stories behind a paid firewall is your evidence?

Yes the school in NC and the stories behind the firewall.
Also the settlement agreement that was linked in that same post: https://apnews.com/article/2d6fc1d745f8db6042b4dbe99160ecaf
If it helps, here are some news stories about it:
https://www.cleveland.com/court-justice/2020/05/geauga-county-couple-settles-lawsuit-that-claimed-evangelical-church-forcibly-baptized-disabled-son.html
https://www.wkyc.com/article/news/local/geauga-county/mother-special-needs-son-forcibly-baptized/95-315765150
And yes to the to the Orlando articles, which you can see before the firewall if you don't want to pay. I'll paste one of them below for you:

LAKE HELEN CHURCH HIT WITH 2ND SUIT
By Charlene Hager-Van Dyke of The Sentinel Staff
Orlando Sentinel
•
Oct 30, 1996 at 12:00 am





DELAND — A second mother and child have sued a Lake Helen church saying the pastor and two directors "committed battery" on the boy who was baptized without his or his parents' consent.

The suit - filed in Volusia County court by Heidi Zawacki and her 10-year-old son, David - is against the Rev. Lamar Breedlove, pastor of Central Fellowship Baptist Church on Kicklighter Road, and church directors Randy Taylor and George Reaser.

The action seeks a jury trial, compensatory damages, court costs and more than $5,000 for counseling and medical treatment.

"My clients aren't out to recover an astronomical amount in damages, but the child has AD-HD (attention-deficit hyper disorder) and they've incurred costs because of this," Randy Griffiths, attorney for the Zawackis said Tuesday.

Eight-year-old Sarah Xanders and her mother, Sherry Braithwaite, filed a similar suit last month against Breedlove and the church saying the two "intentionally forced baptism upon her, without consent of her parents."

An attorney representing Breedlove, the directors and the church in both suits has filed motions to dismiss both cases.

David Zawacki was baptized March 17 after sleeping at a friend's and going to church the next day.

"He came home and said he was saved, but then he started crying and told me they wanted him to take off all of his clothes," his mother said. Later he had nightmares and refused to go to his church, where he was baptized as an infant.

Taylor has said the church did not have a signed permission slip for David before the baptism, and Breedlove has said he will no longer perform baptisms without consent.

“They also sued CASA for Kids of Geauga County, which employed a guardian the court-appointed to monitor care for the boy. The couple said guardian Margaret Vaughan, who also attended the church, recruited Guarnera to mentor the boy. A judge threw out the claims against the organization.

The original lawsuit said the couple reported the baptism to the Geauga County Sheriff’s Office, but a deputy declined to press charges against Guarnera and Chesnes because the child suffered no physical injuries, and the pair did not have criminal intent to harm.“

Cleveland lawyer Kenneth Myers, who represented the family along with American Atheists, said in a news release that the settlement allows the family to move forward.

The couple’s lawyers did not disclose the terms of the settlement.

Seems like a money grab to me. The parents had to have a guardian monitor their care of their own child. That’s never a good sign.

I'm not sure the point you are trying to make. Can you explain?

Kids have court appointed guardians for a reason.

Parents suing everyone possible and receiving cash for this incident is suspect because the court says they aren’t great parents so the court appointed a guardian to help the kid make decisions on his own because parents are sus.

So I gather you are saying one of two things in relation to the specific issue:
1. The whole thing is made up as a money grab and no baptism ever occurred.
2. The parents don't need to consent in this instance-- because they are "sus" and/or because the guardian had such authority to consent

Which one?

I say neither.

The child in this case was a victim of abuse or neglect by his mother, father, or both. The disabled child had a court appointed guardian because a judge saw evidence the parents weren’t properly caring for their child, and possibly abusing him. CASA only works with rough cases.

When the parents found out the child had been baptized, they sued and received a settlement for cash, although they were such sucky (and possibly abusive parents) the court had to appoint an outside person to be their child’s guardian.

Got it! So this is a documented instance of baptism without parental consent.

Why are you ignoring the fact his parents abused him, most probably? You are ignoring that very important point.

I’m not ignoring it. What I’m trying to do is ascertain whether this is an instance of baptism without parental consent. I even posed the question of whether consent was still required if the parents are bad/“sus”. Are we saying that it is no longer required in those instances? Where would we draw the line?

parents who abuse their kids are not good people. If a kid has a court appointed guardian, the judge put someone in charge of the child for their safety.

We draw no lines, as it is not out business how people choose to worship.

Which person’s choice are we talking about here? The parent? The child? The guardian? The church that baptized?

You decide for you, I decide for me. Etc. Apply the freedom of choice you have and appreciate to others, even if you disagree with their choices. It’s not hard.

So just to be clear, you don’t have an opinion at all on under what conditions a child should be baptized?

What religion are you? Why do you have an opinion about other people’s children?

I don't ascribe to any particular religion.

I have all sorts of opinions about other people's children- how they should be parented, and whether those parenting decisions should be respected by grandparents and other people.

Do I or anyone else get to make decisions for your child/children? If so, what do I get to decide?

You absolutely do not get to decide. This entire thread, and likely 90% of threads on this site, are discussions of what people think should occur in a given situation.

We shouldn't do that any more?

“I don't ascribe to any particular religion.

I have all sorts of opinions about other people's children- how they should be parented, and whether those parenting decisions should be respected by grandparents and other people. “

So you have all sorts of opinions, but my opinions for your child are an absolute no-go. lol. Mind your own business. You choose for your kid only. You don’t decide anything for the children of other people.

THERE it is! So you DO agree that parents should get to decide for a child! Therefore baptism without parental consent would be wrong, correct?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“Infants must be generally baptized in the parish that at least one of their parent's attend. For Baptisms at a different church, shrine, or oratory, a permission letter from your pastor may be needed
The child's birth certificate should be available for presentation to the parish.”

This alone shows that at least one parent must be present at the baptism of a child, at least in the Catholic church. I don’t know of any pastor in non-Catholic churches that would baptize a child without at least one parent present. This thread is based on atheist and anti-theist obsessive-hysteria, and should be used as an example of ignorance and misinformation that at times dominates this forum.

Do not use this forum to learn about religion or religious practices or religious people.

First, there is no citation for this quote.
Second, there are a lot of Christin sects that are not catholic.
Third, there are many instances of catholic sects, priests, and individuals that do things that are not "officially" condoned by the formal Catholic church.

https://www.catechismclass.com/catholic_baptism_requirements.php

https://getordained.org/blog/process-baptized-christian

Here are citations.

Where are the citations for claims made throughout the thread that churches/sects will baptize a kid without parental involvement?

Citations directly from the sect/church, not news stories about randos doing weird stuff.

As I have said, multiple times, I agree that it would be impossible to find a citation from any church/sect going on record saying that they do this.
The question was whether it ever happens, even when it is "randos doing weird stuff." It happens.

But you have not a single news story or cite that a (specifically) grandmother took a grandchild to church and had said grandchild baptized w/o permission?

But everyone else has to post citations, links, etc.

Grandparents have killed their grandchildren, sadly. A grandfather on a cruise ship held his granddaughter out of a cruise ship window and the child accidentally fell to her death!

A grandfather has been spared jail after he admitted killing his toddler granddaughter by dropping her off the side of a cruise ship. Salvatore Anello pleaded guilty to the negligent homicide of 18 month-old Chloe Wiegand at a court in San Juan, Puerto Rico, on Thursday.

Anello was sentenced to probation over the July 2019 incident, and will serve out his probation at his home in South Bend, Indiana. Family attorney Michael Winkelman said after Thursday’s hearing: ‘This decision was an incredibly difficult one for Sam and the family.

https://metro.co.uk/2020/10/15/granddad-spared-jail-after-admitting-dropping-toddler-to-her-death-from-cruise-ship-13430011/amp/

However, I don’t see evidence that grandpa usually holds a grandbaby out a cruise ship window and lets baby fall to her death.

There is no evidence given here to support any claims of grandparents doing as you claim. I have presented more evidence to not let grandpa hold baby on a cruise ship than you have presented of illicit grandchild baptism.

Again, I think we are agreeing with each other and you provided an example of just what I am saying.

Can you cite an instance of a cruise line policy or guideline that specifically allows for grandparents to dangle babies off the side of a ship? And it has to come directly from the cruise line, not a news article about some rando.

Would the absence of such an official rule or guideline from the cruise line lead you to conclude that no grandparent had ever dangled a baby off the side of a ship?

Why are there no news stories of churches baptizing kids without parental permission? If it was a common occurrence, the church would be called out. That’s not how churches should operate.

Note the cruise ship didn’t dangle a baby out the window-grandpa did. Cruise lines don’t have to publish information for the passengers on how to not dangle your precious grandchildren out a window and let it fall to their death- because only a completely ridiculous and negligent grandfather would do such a thing. Most grandparents are careful and loving and safe with their grandchildren.

I have repeatedly said that I do not believe it is a "common occurrence." Let's call that point conceded (and never actually asserted in the first place.)

And see just this one answer of where I have answered your bolded question above: ""People do crazy and weird things" and there have been instances of baptism without consent. Some have been documented in this thread. And BECAUSE it is not in keeping with the formal rules of most organized religions, other instances would necessarily happen in secret, such that it would be unlikely for a parent to find out, much less for it to make it to the internet in a way that lends itself to "proof.""

And, notwithstanding the above, there are news stories about religious organizations baptizing without parental consent.

Where? A Christian school in NC and 2 stories behind a paid firewall is your evidence?

Yes the school in NC and the stories behind the firewall.
Also the settlement agreement that was linked in that same post: https://apnews.com/article/2d6fc1d745f8db6042b4dbe99160ecaf
If it helps, here are some news stories about it:
https://www.cleveland.com/court-justice/2020/05/geauga-county-couple-settles-lawsuit-that-claimed-evangelical-church-forcibly-baptized-disabled-son.html
https://www.wkyc.com/article/news/local/geauga-county/mother-special-needs-son-forcibly-baptized/95-315765150
And yes to the to the Orlando articles, which you can see before the firewall if you don't want to pay. I'll paste one of them below for you:

LAKE HELEN CHURCH HIT WITH 2ND SUIT
By Charlene Hager-Van Dyke of The Sentinel Staff
Orlando Sentinel
•
Oct 30, 1996 at 12:00 am





DELAND — A second mother and child have sued a Lake Helen church saying the pastor and two directors "committed battery" on the boy who was baptized without his or his parents' consent.

The suit - filed in Volusia County court by Heidi Zawacki and her 10-year-old son, David - is against the Rev. Lamar Breedlove, pastor of Central Fellowship Baptist Church on Kicklighter Road, and church directors Randy Taylor and George Reaser.

The action seeks a jury trial, compensatory damages, court costs and more than $5,000 for counseling and medical treatment.

"My clients aren't out to recover an astronomical amount in damages, but the child has AD-HD (attention-deficit hyper disorder) and they've incurred costs because of this," Randy Griffiths, attorney for the Zawackis said Tuesday.

Eight-year-old Sarah Xanders and her mother, Sherry Braithwaite, filed a similar suit last month against Breedlove and the church saying the two "intentionally forced baptism upon her, without consent of her parents."

An attorney representing Breedlove, the directors and the church in both suits has filed motions to dismiss both cases.

David Zawacki was baptized March 17 after sleeping at a friend's and going to church the next day.

"He came home and said he was saved, but then he started crying and told me they wanted him to take off all of his clothes," his mother said. Later he had nightmares and refused to go to his church, where he was baptized as an infant.

Taylor has said the church did not have a signed permission slip for David before the baptism, and Breedlove has said he will no longer perform baptisms without consent.

“They also sued CASA for Kids of Geauga County, which employed a guardian the court-appointed to monitor care for the boy. The couple said guardian Margaret Vaughan, who also attended the church, recruited Guarnera to mentor the boy. A judge threw out the claims against the organization.

The original lawsuit said the couple reported the baptism to the Geauga County Sheriff’s Office, but a deputy declined to press charges against Guarnera and Chesnes because the child suffered no physical injuries, and the pair did not have criminal intent to harm.“

Cleveland lawyer Kenneth Myers, who represented the family along with American Atheists, said in a news release that the settlement allows the family to move forward.

The couple’s lawyers did not disclose the terms of the settlement.

Seems like a money grab to me. The parents had to have a guardian monitor their care of their own child. That’s never a good sign.

I'm not sure the point you are trying to make. Can you explain?

Kids have court appointed guardians for a reason.

Parents suing everyone possible and receiving cash for this incident is suspect because the court says they aren’t great parents so the court appointed a guardian to help the kid make decisions on his own because parents are sus.

So I gather you are saying one of two things in relation to the specific issue:
1. The whole thing is made up as a money grab and no baptism ever occurred.
2. The parents don't need to consent in this instance-- because they are "sus" and/or because the guardian had such authority to consent

Which one?

I say neither.

The child in this case was a victim of abuse or neglect by his mother, father, or both. The disabled child had a court appointed guardian because a judge saw evidence the parents weren’t properly caring for their child, and possibly abusing him. CASA only works with rough cases.

When the parents found out the child had been baptized, they sued and received a settlement for cash, although they were such sucky (and possibly abusive parents) the court had to appoint an outside person to be their child’s guardian.

Got it! So this is a documented instance of baptism without parental consent.

Why are you ignoring the fact his parents abused him, most probably? You are ignoring that very important point.

I’m not ignoring it. What I’m trying to do is ascertain whether this is an instance of baptism without parental consent. I even posed the question of whether consent was still required if the parents are bad/“sus”. Are we saying that it is no longer required in those instances? Where would we draw the line?

parents who abuse their kids are not good people. If a kid has a court appointed guardian, the judge put someone in charge of the child for their safety.

We draw no lines, as it is not out business how people choose to worship.

Which person’s choice are we talking about here? The parent? The child? The guardian? The church that baptized?

You decide for you, I decide for me. Etc. Apply the freedom of choice you have and appreciate to others, even if you disagree with their choices. It’s not hard.

So just to be clear, you don’t have an opinion at all on under what conditions a child should be baptized?

My child? Or yours?

An unrelated child. Just trying to understand your take. Most of this thread generally seems to agree that, at a minimum, a baby shouldn't be secretly baptized by a grandparent and no religious organization should administer such a baptism. But your post indicated that we just shouldn't look into or care about what is happening with any other when it comes to religion.

The question was about whether and under what circumstances it would be OK for a child to be baptized without parental consent. You answered, "we draw no lines". So I want to be sure I am understanding.

It’s not our business. Take care of your own life, gawd you must have some major damage to be so deeply entrenched in this issue.

I'm curious why you would post anything at all on this Board. Isn't it all opining on somebody else's business?

No. only a few crazies think they get to decide other people’s lives. Our opinions about our lives are not the same as our opinion on other people’s lives.

Scary you have to be told the difference.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“Infants must be generally baptized in the parish that at least one of their parent's attend. For Baptisms at a different church, shrine, or oratory, a permission letter from your pastor may be needed
The child's birth certificate should be available for presentation to the parish.”

This alone shows that at least one parent must be present at the baptism of a child, at least in the Catholic church. I don’t know of any pastor in non-Catholic churches that would baptize a child without at least one parent present. This thread is based on atheist and anti-theist obsessive-hysteria, and should be used as an example of ignorance and misinformation that at times dominates this forum.

Do not use this forum to learn about religion or religious practices or religious people.

First, there is no citation for this quote.
Second, there are a lot of Christin sects that are not catholic.
Third, there are many instances of catholic sects, priests, and individuals that do things that are not "officially" condoned by the formal Catholic church.

https://www.catechismclass.com/catholic_baptism_requirements.php

https://getordained.org/blog/process-baptized-christian

Here are citations.

Where are the citations for claims made throughout the thread that churches/sects will baptize a kid without parental involvement?

Citations directly from the sect/church, not news stories about randos doing weird stuff.

As I have said, multiple times, I agree that it would be impossible to find a citation from any church/sect going on record saying that they do this.
The question was whether it ever happens, even when it is "randos doing weird stuff." It happens.

But you have not a single news story or cite that a (specifically) grandmother took a grandchild to church and had said grandchild baptized w/o permission?

But everyone else has to post citations, links, etc.

Grandparents have killed their grandchildren, sadly. A grandfather on a cruise ship held his granddaughter out of a cruise ship window and the child accidentally fell to her death!

A grandfather has been spared jail after he admitted killing his toddler granddaughter by dropping her off the side of a cruise ship. Salvatore Anello pleaded guilty to the negligent homicide of 18 month-old Chloe Wiegand at a court in San Juan, Puerto Rico, on Thursday.

Anello was sentenced to probation over the July 2019 incident, and will serve out his probation at his home in South Bend, Indiana. Family attorney Michael Winkelman said after Thursday’s hearing: ‘This decision was an incredibly difficult one for Sam and the family.

https://metro.co.uk/2020/10/15/granddad-spared-jail-after-admitting-dropping-toddler-to-her-death-from-cruise-ship-13430011/amp/

However, I don’t see evidence that grandpa usually holds a grandbaby out a cruise ship window and lets baby fall to her death.

There is no evidence given here to support any claims of grandparents doing as you claim. I have presented more evidence to not let grandpa hold baby on a cruise ship than you have presented of illicit grandchild baptism.

Again, I think we are agreeing with each other and you provided an example of just what I am saying.

Can you cite an instance of a cruise line policy or guideline that specifically allows for grandparents to dangle babies off the side of a ship? And it has to come directly from the cruise line, not a news article about some rando.

Would the absence of such an official rule or guideline from the cruise line lead you to conclude that no grandparent had ever dangled a baby off the side of a ship?

Why are there no news stories of churches baptizing kids without parental permission? If it was a common occurrence, the church would be called out. That’s not how churches should operate.

Note the cruise ship didn’t dangle a baby out the window-grandpa did. Cruise lines don’t have to publish information for the passengers on how to not dangle your precious grandchildren out a window and let it fall to their death- because only a completely ridiculous and negligent grandfather would do such a thing. Most grandparents are careful and loving and safe with their grandchildren.

I have repeatedly said that I do not believe it is a "common occurrence." Let's call that point conceded (and never actually asserted in the first place.)

And see just this one answer of where I have answered your bolded question above: ""People do crazy and weird things" and there have been instances of baptism without consent. Some have been documented in this thread. And BECAUSE it is not in keeping with the formal rules of most organized religions, other instances would necessarily happen in secret, such that it would be unlikely for a parent to find out, much less for it to make it to the internet in a way that lends itself to "proof.""

And, notwithstanding the above, there are news stories about religious organizations baptizing without parental consent.

Where? A Christian school in NC and 2 stories behind a paid firewall is your evidence?

Yes the school in NC and the stories behind the firewall.
Also the settlement agreement that was linked in that same post: https://apnews.com/article/2d6fc1d745f8db6042b4dbe99160ecaf
If it helps, here are some news stories about it:
https://www.cleveland.com/court-justice/2020/05/geauga-county-couple-settles-lawsuit-that-claimed-evangelical-church-forcibly-baptized-disabled-son.html
https://www.wkyc.com/article/news/local/geauga-county/mother-special-needs-son-forcibly-baptized/95-315765150
And yes to the to the Orlando articles, which you can see before the firewall if you don't want to pay. I'll paste one of them below for you:

LAKE HELEN CHURCH HIT WITH 2ND SUIT
By Charlene Hager-Van Dyke of The Sentinel Staff
Orlando Sentinel
•
Oct 30, 1996 at 12:00 am





DELAND — A second mother and child have sued a Lake Helen church saying the pastor and two directors "committed battery" on the boy who was baptized without his or his parents' consent.

The suit - filed in Volusia County court by Heidi Zawacki and her 10-year-old son, David - is against the Rev. Lamar Breedlove, pastor of Central Fellowship Baptist Church on Kicklighter Road, and church directors Randy Taylor and George Reaser.

The action seeks a jury trial, compensatory damages, court costs and more than $5,000 for counseling and medical treatment.

"My clients aren't out to recover an astronomical amount in damages, but the child has AD-HD (attention-deficit hyper disorder) and they've incurred costs because of this," Randy Griffiths, attorney for the Zawackis said Tuesday.

Eight-year-old Sarah Xanders and her mother, Sherry Braithwaite, filed a similar suit last month against Breedlove and the church saying the two "intentionally forced baptism upon her, without consent of her parents."

An attorney representing Breedlove, the directors and the church in both suits has filed motions to dismiss both cases.

David Zawacki was baptized March 17 after sleeping at a friend's and going to church the next day.

"He came home and said he was saved, but then he started crying and told me they wanted him to take off all of his clothes," his mother said. Later he had nightmares and refused to go to his church, where he was baptized as an infant.

Taylor has said the church did not have a signed permission slip for David before the baptism, and Breedlove has said he will no longer perform baptisms without consent.

“They also sued CASA for Kids of Geauga County, which employed a guardian the court-appointed to monitor care for the boy. The couple said guardian Margaret Vaughan, who also attended the church, recruited Guarnera to mentor the boy. A judge threw out the claims against the organization.

The original lawsuit said the couple reported the baptism to the Geauga County Sheriff’s Office, but a deputy declined to press charges against Guarnera and Chesnes because the child suffered no physical injuries, and the pair did not have criminal intent to harm.“

Cleveland lawyer Kenneth Myers, who represented the family along with American Atheists, said in a news release that the settlement allows the family to move forward.

The couple’s lawyers did not disclose the terms of the settlement.

Seems like a money grab to me. The parents had to have a guardian monitor their care of their own child. That’s never a good sign.

I'm not sure the point you are trying to make. Can you explain?

Kids have court appointed guardians for a reason.

Parents suing everyone possible and receiving cash for this incident is suspect because the court says they aren’t great parents so the court appointed a guardian to help the kid make decisions on his own because parents are sus.

So I gather you are saying one of two things in relation to the specific issue:
1. The whole thing is made up as a money grab and no baptism ever occurred.
2. The parents don't need to consent in this instance-- because they are "sus" and/or because the guardian had such authority to consent

Which one?

I say neither.

The child in this case was a victim of abuse or neglect by his mother, father, or both. The disabled child had a court appointed guardian because a judge saw evidence the parents weren’t properly caring for their child, and possibly abusing him. CASA only works with rough cases.

When the parents found out the child had been baptized, they sued and received a settlement for cash, although they were such sucky (and possibly abusive parents) the court had to appoint an outside person to be their child’s guardian.

Got it! So this is a documented instance of baptism without parental consent.

Why are you ignoring the fact his parents abused him, most probably? You are ignoring that very important point.

I’m not ignoring it. What I’m trying to do is ascertain whether this is an instance of baptism without parental consent. I even posed the question of whether consent was still required if the parents are bad/“sus”. Are we saying that it is no longer required in those instances? Where would we draw the line?

parents who abuse their kids are not good people. If a kid has a court appointed guardian, the judge put someone in charge of the child for their safety.

We draw no lines, as it is not out business how people choose to worship.

Which person’s choice are we talking about here? The parent? The child? The guardian? The church that baptized?

You decide for you, I decide for me. Etc. Apply the freedom of choice you have and appreciate to others, even if you disagree with their choices. It’s not hard.

So just to be clear, you don’t have an opinion at all on under what conditions a child should be baptized?

What religion are you? Why do you have an opinion about other people’s children?

I don't ascribe to any particular religion.

I have all sorts of opinions about other people's children- how they should be parented, and whether those parenting decisions should be respected by grandparents and other people.

Do I or anyone else get to make decisions for your child/children? If so, what do I get to decide?

You absolutely do not get to decide. This entire thread, and likely 90% of threads on this site, are discussions of what people think should occur in a given situation.

We shouldn't do that any more?

“I don't ascribe to any particular religion.

I have all sorts of opinions about other people's children- how they should be parented, and whether those parenting decisions should be respected by grandparents and other people. “

So you have all sorts of opinions, but my opinions for your child are an absolute no-go. lol. Mind your own business. You choose for your kid only. You don’t decide anything for the children of other people.

THERE it is! So you DO agree that parents should get to decide for a child! Therefore baptism without parental consent would be wrong, correct?

Unless the child wants to be baptized, it’s the child’s choice then.

If an older child doesn’t want to be baptized, the parents should let the child decide.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“Infants must be generally baptized in the parish that at least one of their parent's attend. For Baptisms at a different church, shrine, or oratory, a permission letter from your pastor may be needed
The child's birth certificate should be available for presentation to the parish.”

This alone shows that at least one parent must be present at the baptism of a child, at least in the Catholic church. I don’t know of any pastor in non-Catholic churches that would baptize a child without at least one parent present. This thread is based on atheist and anti-theist obsessive-hysteria, and should be used as an example of ignorance and misinformation that at times dominates this forum.

Do not use this forum to learn about religion or religious practices or religious people.

First, there is no citation for this quote.
Second, there are a lot of Christin sects that are not catholic.
Third, there are many instances of catholic sects, priests, and individuals that do things that are not "officially" condoned by the formal Catholic church.

https://www.catechismclass.com/catholic_baptism_requirements.php

https://getordained.org/blog/process-baptized-christian

Here are citations.

Where are the citations for claims made throughout the thread that churches/sects will baptize a kid without parental involvement?

Citations directly from the sect/church, not news stories about randos doing weird stuff.

As I have said, multiple times, I agree that it would be impossible to find a citation from any church/sect going on record saying that they do this.
The question was whether it ever happens, even when it is "randos doing weird stuff." It happens.

But you have not a single news story or cite that a (specifically) grandmother took a grandchild to church and had said grandchild baptized w/o permission?

But everyone else has to post citations, links, etc.

Grandparents have killed their grandchildren, sadly. A grandfather on a cruise ship held his granddaughter out of a cruise ship window and the child accidentally fell to her death!

A grandfather has been spared jail after he admitted killing his toddler granddaughter by dropping her off the side of a cruise ship. Salvatore Anello pleaded guilty to the negligent homicide of 18 month-old Chloe Wiegand at a court in San Juan, Puerto Rico, on Thursday.

Anello was sentenced to probation over the July 2019 incident, and will serve out his probation at his home in South Bend, Indiana. Family attorney Michael Winkelman said after Thursday’s hearing: ‘This decision was an incredibly difficult one for Sam and the family.

https://metro.co.uk/2020/10/15/granddad-spared-jail-after-admitting-dropping-toddler-to-her-death-from-cruise-ship-13430011/amp/

However, I don’t see evidence that grandpa usually holds a grandbaby out a cruise ship window and lets baby fall to her death.

There is no evidence given here to support any claims of grandparents doing as you claim. I have presented more evidence to not let grandpa hold baby on a cruise ship than you have presented of illicit grandchild baptism.

Again, I think we are agreeing with each other and you provided an example of just what I am saying.

Can you cite an instance of a cruise line policy or guideline that specifically allows for grandparents to dangle babies off the side of a ship? And it has to come directly from the cruise line, not a news article about some rando.

Would the absence of such an official rule or guideline from the cruise line lead you to conclude that no grandparent had ever dangled a baby off the side of a ship?

Why are there no news stories of churches baptizing kids without parental permission? If it was a common occurrence, the church would be called out. That’s not how churches should operate.

Note the cruise ship didn’t dangle a baby out the window-grandpa did. Cruise lines don’t have to publish information for the passengers on how to not dangle your precious grandchildren out a window and let it fall to their death- because only a completely ridiculous and negligent grandfather would do such a thing. Most grandparents are careful and loving and safe with their grandchildren.

I have repeatedly said that I do not believe it is a "common occurrence." Let's call that point conceded (and never actually asserted in the first place.)

And see just this one answer of where I have answered your bolded question above: ""People do crazy and weird things" and there have been instances of baptism without consent. Some have been documented in this thread. And BECAUSE it is not in keeping with the formal rules of most organized religions, other instances would necessarily happen in secret, such that it would be unlikely for a parent to find out, much less for it to make it to the internet in a way that lends itself to "proof.""

And, notwithstanding the above, there are news stories about religious organizations baptizing without parental consent.

Where? A Christian school in NC and 2 stories behind a paid firewall is your evidence?

Yes the school in NC and the stories behind the firewall.
Also the settlement agreement that was linked in that same post: https://apnews.com/article/2d6fc1d745f8db6042b4dbe99160ecaf
If it helps, here are some news stories about it:
https://www.cleveland.com/court-justice/2020/05/geauga-county-couple-settles-lawsuit-that-claimed-evangelical-church-forcibly-baptized-disabled-son.html
https://www.wkyc.com/article/news/local/geauga-county/mother-special-needs-son-forcibly-baptized/95-315765150
And yes to the to the Orlando articles, which you can see before the firewall if you don't want to pay. I'll paste one of them below for you:

LAKE HELEN CHURCH HIT WITH 2ND SUIT
By Charlene Hager-Van Dyke of The Sentinel Staff
Orlando Sentinel
•
Oct 30, 1996 at 12:00 am





DELAND — A second mother and child have sued a Lake Helen church saying the pastor and two directors "committed battery" on the boy who was baptized without his or his parents' consent.

The suit - filed in Volusia County court by Heidi Zawacki and her 10-year-old son, David - is against the Rev. Lamar Breedlove, pastor of Central Fellowship Baptist Church on Kicklighter Road, and church directors Randy Taylor and George Reaser.

The action seeks a jury trial, compensatory damages, court costs and more than $5,000 for counseling and medical treatment.

"My clients aren't out to recover an astronomical amount in damages, but the child has AD-HD (attention-deficit hyper disorder) and they've incurred costs because of this," Randy Griffiths, attorney for the Zawackis said Tuesday.

Eight-year-old Sarah Xanders and her mother, Sherry Braithwaite, filed a similar suit last month against Breedlove and the church saying the two "intentionally forced baptism upon her, without consent of her parents."

An attorney representing Breedlove, the directors and the church in both suits has filed motions to dismiss both cases.

David Zawacki was baptized March 17 after sleeping at a friend's and going to church the next day.

"He came home and said he was saved, but then he started crying and told me they wanted him to take off all of his clothes," his mother said. Later he had nightmares and refused to go to his church, where he was baptized as an infant.

Taylor has said the church did not have a signed permission slip for David before the baptism, and Breedlove has said he will no longer perform baptisms without consent.

“They also sued CASA for Kids of Geauga County, which employed a guardian the court-appointed to monitor care for the boy. The couple said guardian Margaret Vaughan, who also attended the church, recruited Guarnera to mentor the boy. A judge threw out the claims against the organization.

The original lawsuit said the couple reported the baptism to the Geauga County Sheriff’s Office, but a deputy declined to press charges against Guarnera and Chesnes because the child suffered no physical injuries, and the pair did not have criminal intent to harm.“

Cleveland lawyer Kenneth Myers, who represented the family along with American Atheists, said in a news release that the settlement allows the family to move forward.

The couple’s lawyers did not disclose the terms of the settlement.

Seems like a money grab to me. The parents had to have a guardian monitor their care of their own child. That’s never a good sign.

I'm not sure the point you are trying to make. Can you explain?

Kids have court appointed guardians for a reason.

Parents suing everyone possible and receiving cash for this incident is suspect because the court says they aren’t great parents so the court appointed a guardian to help the kid make decisions on his own because parents are sus.

So I gather you are saying one of two things in relation to the specific issue:
1. The whole thing is made up as a money grab and no baptism ever occurred.
2. The parents don't need to consent in this instance-- because they are "sus" and/or because the guardian had such authority to consent

Which one?

I say neither.

The child in this case was a victim of abuse or neglect by his mother, father, or both. The disabled child had a court appointed guardian because a judge saw evidence the parents weren’t properly caring for their child, and possibly abusing him. CASA only works with rough cases.

When the parents found out the child had been baptized, they sued and received a settlement for cash, although they were such sucky (and possibly abusive parents) the court had to appoint an outside person to be their child’s guardian.

Got it! So this is a documented instance of baptism without parental consent.

Why are you ignoring the fact his parents abused him, most probably? You are ignoring that very important point.

I’m not ignoring it. What I’m trying to do is ascertain whether this is an instance of baptism without parental consent. I even posed the question of whether consent was still required if the parents are bad/“sus”. Are we saying that it is no longer required in those instances? Where would we draw the line?

parents who abuse their kids are not good people. If a kid has a court appointed guardian, the judge put someone in charge of the child for their safety.

We draw no lines, as it is not out business how people choose to worship.

Which person’s choice are we talking about here? The parent? The child? The guardian? The church that baptized?

You decide for you, I decide for me. Etc. Apply the freedom of choice you have and appreciate to others, even if you disagree with their choices. It’s not hard.

So just to be clear, you don’t have an opinion at all on under what conditions a child should be baptized?

My child? Or yours?

An unrelated child. Just trying to understand your take. Most of this thread generally seems to agree that, at a minimum, a baby shouldn't be secretly baptized by a grandparent and no religious organization should administer such a baptism. But your post indicated that we just shouldn't look into or care about what is happening with any other when it comes to religion.

The question was about whether and under what circumstances it would be OK for a child to be baptized without parental consent. You answered, "we draw no lines". So I want to be sure I am understanding.

It’s not our business. Take care of your own life, gawd you must have some major damage to be so deeply entrenched in this issue.

I'm curious why you would post anything at all on this Board. Isn't it all opining on somebody else's business?

No. only a few crazies think they get to decide other people’s lives. Our opinions about our lives are not the same as our opinion on other people’s lives.

Scary you have to be told the difference.

I'm not sure you understand the difference between "getting to decide" and voicing an opinion.

Are you saying that you have never read about a situation on this site and responded about what you would do or what you think should happen? No once?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“Infants must be generally baptized in the parish that at least one of their parent's attend. For Baptisms at a different church, shrine, or oratory, a permission letter from your pastor may be needed
The child's birth certificate should be available for presentation to the parish.”

This alone shows that at least one parent must be present at the baptism of a child, at least in the Catholic church. I don’t know of any pastor in non-Catholic churches that would baptize a child without at least one parent present. This thread is based on atheist and anti-theist obsessive-hysteria, and should be used as an example of ignorance and misinformation that at times dominates this forum.

Do not use this forum to learn about religion or religious practices or religious people.

First, there is no citation for this quote.
Second, there are a lot of Christin sects that are not catholic.
Third, there are many instances of catholic sects, priests, and individuals that do things that are not "officially" condoned by the formal Catholic church.

https://www.catechismclass.com/catholic_baptism_requirements.php

https://getordained.org/blog/process-baptized-christian

Here are citations.

Where are the citations for claims made throughout the thread that churches/sects will baptize a kid without parental involvement?

Citations directly from the sect/church, not news stories about randos doing weird stuff.

As I have said, multiple times, I agree that it would be impossible to find a citation from any church/sect going on record saying that they do this.
The question was whether it ever happens, even when it is "randos doing weird stuff." It happens.

But you have not a single news story or cite that a (specifically) grandmother took a grandchild to church and had said grandchild baptized w/o permission?

But everyone else has to post citations, links, etc.

Grandparents have killed their grandchildren, sadly. A grandfather on a cruise ship held his granddaughter out of a cruise ship window and the child accidentally fell to her death!

A grandfather has been spared jail after he admitted killing his toddler granddaughter by dropping her off the side of a cruise ship. Salvatore Anello pleaded guilty to the negligent homicide of 18 month-old Chloe Wiegand at a court in San Juan, Puerto Rico, on Thursday.

Anello was sentenced to probation over the July 2019 incident, and will serve out his probation at his home in South Bend, Indiana. Family attorney Michael Winkelman said after Thursday’s hearing: ‘This decision was an incredibly difficult one for Sam and the family.

https://metro.co.uk/2020/10/15/granddad-spared-jail-after-admitting-dropping-toddler-to-her-death-from-cruise-ship-13430011/amp/

However, I don’t see evidence that grandpa usually holds a grandbaby out a cruise ship window and lets baby fall to her death.

There is no evidence given here to support any claims of grandparents doing as you claim. I have presented more evidence to not let grandpa hold baby on a cruise ship than you have presented of illicit grandchild baptism.

Again, I think we are agreeing with each other and you provided an example of just what I am saying.

Can you cite an instance of a cruise line policy or guideline that specifically allows for grandparents to dangle babies off the side of a ship? And it has to come directly from the cruise line, not a news article about some rando.

Would the absence of such an official rule or guideline from the cruise line lead you to conclude that no grandparent had ever dangled a baby off the side of a ship?

Why are there no news stories of churches baptizing kids without parental permission? If it was a common occurrence, the church would be called out. That’s not how churches should operate.

Note the cruise ship didn’t dangle a baby out the window-grandpa did. Cruise lines don’t have to publish information for the passengers on how to not dangle your precious grandchildren out a window and let it fall to their death- because only a completely ridiculous and negligent grandfather would do such a thing. Most grandparents are careful and loving and safe with their grandchildren.

I have repeatedly said that I do not believe it is a "common occurrence." Let's call that point conceded (and never actually asserted in the first place.)

And see just this one answer of where I have answered your bolded question above: ""People do crazy and weird things" and there have been instances of baptism without consent. Some have been documented in this thread. And BECAUSE it is not in keeping with the formal rules of most organized religions, other instances would necessarily happen in secret, such that it would be unlikely for a parent to find out, much less for it to make it to the internet in a way that lends itself to "proof.""

And, notwithstanding the above, there are news stories about religious organizations baptizing without parental consent.

Where? A Christian school in NC and 2 stories behind a paid firewall is your evidence?

Yes the school in NC and the stories behind the firewall.
Also the settlement agreement that was linked in that same post: https://apnews.com/article/2d6fc1d745f8db6042b4dbe99160ecaf
If it helps, here are some news stories about it:
https://www.cleveland.com/court-justice/2020/05/geauga-county-couple-settles-lawsuit-that-claimed-evangelical-church-forcibly-baptized-disabled-son.html
https://www.wkyc.com/article/news/local/geauga-county/mother-special-needs-son-forcibly-baptized/95-315765150
And yes to the to the Orlando articles, which you can see before the firewall if you don't want to pay. I'll paste one of them below for you:

LAKE HELEN CHURCH HIT WITH 2ND SUIT
By Charlene Hager-Van Dyke of The Sentinel Staff
Orlando Sentinel
•
Oct 30, 1996 at 12:00 am





DELAND — A second mother and child have sued a Lake Helen church saying the pastor and two directors "committed battery" on the boy who was baptized without his or his parents' consent.

The suit - filed in Volusia County court by Heidi Zawacki and her 10-year-old son, David - is against the Rev. Lamar Breedlove, pastor of Central Fellowship Baptist Church on Kicklighter Road, and church directors Randy Taylor and George Reaser.

The action seeks a jury trial, compensatory damages, court costs and more than $5,000 for counseling and medical treatment.

"My clients aren't out to recover an astronomical amount in damages, but the child has AD-HD (attention-deficit hyper disorder) and they've incurred costs because of this," Randy Griffiths, attorney for the Zawackis said Tuesday.

Eight-year-old Sarah Xanders and her mother, Sherry Braithwaite, filed a similar suit last month against Breedlove and the church saying the two "intentionally forced baptism upon her, without consent of her parents."

An attorney representing Breedlove, the directors and the church in both suits has filed motions to dismiss both cases.

David Zawacki was baptized March 17 after sleeping at a friend's and going to church the next day.

"He came home and said he was saved, but then he started crying and told me they wanted him to take off all of his clothes," his mother said. Later he had nightmares and refused to go to his church, where he was baptized as an infant.

Taylor has said the church did not have a signed permission slip for David before the baptism, and Breedlove has said he will no longer perform baptisms without consent.

“They also sued CASA for Kids of Geauga County, which employed a guardian the court-appointed to monitor care for the boy. The couple said guardian Margaret Vaughan, who also attended the church, recruited Guarnera to mentor the boy. A judge threw out the claims against the organization.

The original lawsuit said the couple reported the baptism to the Geauga County Sheriff’s Office, but a deputy declined to press charges against Guarnera and Chesnes because the child suffered no physical injuries, and the pair did not have criminal intent to harm.“

Cleveland lawyer Kenneth Myers, who represented the family along with American Atheists, said in a news release that the settlement allows the family to move forward.

The couple’s lawyers did not disclose the terms of the settlement.

Seems like a money grab to me. The parents had to have a guardian monitor their care of their own child. That’s never a good sign.

I'm not sure the point you are trying to make. Can you explain?

Kids have court appointed guardians for a reason.

Parents suing everyone possible and receiving cash for this incident is suspect because the court says they aren’t great parents so the court appointed a guardian to help the kid make decisions on his own because parents are sus.

So I gather you are saying one of two things in relation to the specific issue:
1. The whole thing is made up as a money grab and no baptism ever occurred.
2. The parents don't need to consent in this instance-- because they are "sus" and/or because the guardian had such authority to consent

Which one?

I say neither.

The child in this case was a victim of abuse or neglect by his mother, father, or both. The disabled child had a court appointed guardian because a judge saw evidence the parents weren’t properly caring for their child, and possibly abusing him. CASA only works with rough cases.

When the parents found out the child had been baptized, they sued and received a settlement for cash, although they were such sucky (and possibly abusive parents) the court had to appoint an outside person to be their child’s guardian.

Got it! So this is a documented instance of baptism without parental consent.

Why are you ignoring the fact his parents abused him, most probably? You are ignoring that very important point.

I’m not ignoring it. What I’m trying to do is ascertain whether this is an instance of baptism without parental consent. I even posed the question of whether consent was still required if the parents are bad/“sus”. Are we saying that it is no longer required in those instances? Where would we draw the line?

parents who abuse their kids are not good people. If a kid has a court appointed guardian, the judge put someone in charge of the child for their safety.

We draw no lines, as it is not out business how people choose to worship.

Which person’s choice are we talking about here? The parent? The child? The guardian? The church that baptized?

You decide for you, I decide for me. Etc. Apply the freedom of choice you have and appreciate to others, even if you disagree with their choices. It’s not hard.

So just to be clear, you don’t have an opinion at all on under what conditions a child should be baptized?

What religion are you? Why do you have an opinion about other people’s children?

I don't ascribe to any particular religion.

I have all sorts of opinions about other people's children- how they should be parented, and whether those parenting decisions should be respected by grandparents and other people.

Do I or anyone else get to make decisions for your child/children? If so, what do I get to decide?

You absolutely do not get to decide. This entire thread, and likely 90% of threads on this site, are discussions of what people think should occur in a given situation.

We shouldn't do that any more?

“I don't ascribe to any particular religion.

I have all sorts of opinions about other people's children- how they should be parented, and whether those parenting decisions should be respected by grandparents and other people. “

So you have all sorts of opinions, but my opinions for your child are an absolute no-go. lol. Mind your own business. You choose for your kid only. You don’t decide anything for the children of other people.

THERE it is! So you DO agree that parents should get to decide for a child! Therefore baptism without parental consent would be wrong, correct?

Unless the child wants to be baptized, it’s the child’s choice then.

If an older child doesn’t want to be baptized, the parents should let the child decide.

Are you the same poster I have been exchanging with? If so, I thought you "draw not lines" and don't have an opinion?

[Anonymous]

MYOFB, they got away from you and the religious insanity. Don't make them regret having you in their life at all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“Infants must be generally baptized in the parish that at least one of their parent's attend. For Baptisms at a different church, shrine, or oratory, a permission letter from your pastor may be needed
The child's birth certificate should be available for presentation to the parish.”

This alone shows that at least one parent must be present at the baptism of a child, at least in the Catholic church. I don’t know of any pastor in non-Catholic churches that would baptize a child without at least one parent present. This thread is based on atheist and anti-theist obsessive-hysteria, and should be used as an example of ignorance and misinformation that at times dominates this forum.

Do not use this forum to learn about religion or religious practices or religious people.

First, there is no citation for this quote.
Second, there are a lot of Christin sects that are not catholic.
Third, there are many instances of catholic sects, priests, and individuals that do things that are not "officially" condoned by the formal Catholic church.

https://www.catechismclass.com/catholic_baptism_requirements.php

https://getordained.org/blog/process-baptized-christian

Here are citations.

Where are the citations for claims made throughout the thread that churches/sects will baptize a kid without parental involvement?

Citations directly from the sect/church, not news stories about randos doing weird stuff.

As I have said, multiple times, I agree that it would be impossible to find a citation from any church/sect going on record saying that they do this.
The question was whether it ever happens, even when it is "randos doing weird stuff." It happens.

But you have not a single news story or cite that a (specifically) grandmother took a grandchild to church and had said grandchild baptized w/o permission?

But everyone else has to post citations, links, etc.

Grandparents have killed their grandchildren, sadly. A grandfather on a cruise ship held his granddaughter out of a cruise ship window and the child accidentally fell to her death!

A grandfather has been spared jail after he admitted killing his toddler granddaughter by dropping her off the side of a cruise ship. Salvatore Anello pleaded guilty to the negligent homicide of 18 month-old Chloe Wiegand at a court in San Juan, Puerto Rico, on Thursday.

Anello was sentenced to probation over the July 2019 incident, and will serve out his probation at his home in South Bend, Indiana. Family attorney Michael Winkelman said after Thursday’s hearing: ‘This decision was an incredibly difficult one for Sam and the family.

https://metro.co.uk/2020/10/15/granddad-spared-jail-after-admitting-dropping-toddler-to-her-death-from-cruise-ship-13430011/amp/

However, I don’t see evidence that grandpa usually holds a grandbaby out a cruise ship window and lets baby fall to her death.

There is no evidence given here to support any claims of grandparents doing as you claim. I have presented more evidence to not let grandpa hold baby on a cruise ship than you have presented of illicit grandchild baptism.

Again, I think we are agreeing with each other and you provided an example of just what I am saying.

Can you cite an instance of a cruise line policy or guideline that specifically allows for grandparents to dangle babies off the side of a ship? And it has to come directly from the cruise line, not a news article about some rando.

Would the absence of such an official rule or guideline from the cruise line lead you to conclude that no grandparent had ever dangled a baby off the side of a ship?

Why are there no news stories of churches baptizing kids without parental permission? If it was a common occurrence, the church would be called out. That’s not how churches should operate.

Note the cruise ship didn’t dangle a baby out the window-grandpa did. Cruise lines don’t have to publish information for the passengers on how to not dangle your precious grandchildren out a window and let it fall to their death- because only a completely ridiculous and negligent grandfather would do such a thing. Most grandparents are careful and loving and safe with their grandchildren.

I have repeatedly said that I do not believe it is a "common occurrence." Let's call that point conceded (and never actually asserted in the first place.)

And see just this one answer of where I have answered your bolded question above: ""People do crazy and weird things" and there have been instances of baptism without consent. Some have been documented in this thread. And BECAUSE it is not in keeping with the formal rules of most organized religions, other instances would necessarily happen in secret, such that it would be unlikely for a parent to find out, much less for it to make it to the internet in a way that lends itself to "proof.""

And, notwithstanding the above, there are news stories about religious organizations baptizing without parental consent.

Where? A Christian school in NC and 2 stories behind a paid firewall is your evidence?

Yes the school in NC and the stories behind the firewall.
Also the settlement agreement that was linked in that same post: https://apnews.com/article/2d6fc1d745f8db6042b4dbe99160ecaf
If it helps, here are some news stories about it:
https://www.cleveland.com/court-justice/2020/05/geauga-county-couple-settles-lawsuit-that-claimed-evangelical-church-forcibly-baptized-disabled-son.html
https://www.wkyc.com/article/news/local/geauga-county/mother-special-needs-son-forcibly-baptized/95-315765150
And yes to the to the Orlando articles, which you can see before the firewall if you don't want to pay. I'll paste one of them below for you:

LAKE HELEN CHURCH HIT WITH 2ND SUIT
By Charlene Hager-Van Dyke of The Sentinel Staff
Orlando Sentinel
•
Oct 30, 1996 at 12:00 am





DELAND — A second mother and child have sued a Lake Helen church saying the pastor and two directors "committed battery" on the boy who was baptized without his or his parents' consent.

The suit - filed in Volusia County court by Heidi Zawacki and her 10-year-old son, David - is against the Rev. Lamar Breedlove, pastor of Central Fellowship Baptist Church on Kicklighter Road, and church directors Randy Taylor and George Reaser.

The action seeks a jury trial, compensatory damages, court costs and more than $5,000 for counseling and medical treatment.

"My clients aren't out to recover an astronomical amount in damages, but the child has AD-HD (attention-deficit hyper disorder) and they've incurred costs because of this," Randy Griffiths, attorney for the Zawackis said Tuesday.

Eight-year-old Sarah Xanders and her mother, Sherry Braithwaite, filed a similar suit last month against Breedlove and the church saying the two "intentionally forced baptism upon her, without consent of her parents."

An attorney representing Breedlove, the directors and the church in both suits has filed motions to dismiss both cases.

David Zawacki was baptized March 17 after sleeping at a friend's and going to church the next day.

"He came home and said he was saved, but then he started crying and told me they wanted him to take off all of his clothes," his mother said. Later he had nightmares and refused to go to his church, where he was baptized as an infant.

Taylor has said the church did not have a signed permission slip for David before the baptism, and Breedlove has said he will no longer perform baptisms without consent.

“They also sued CASA for Kids of Geauga County, which employed a guardian the court-appointed to monitor care for the boy. The couple said guardian Margaret Vaughan, who also attended the church, recruited Guarnera to mentor the boy. A judge threw out the claims against the organization.

The original lawsuit said the couple reported the baptism to the Geauga County Sheriff’s Office, but a deputy declined to press charges against Guarnera and Chesnes because the child suffered no physical injuries, and the pair did not have criminal intent to harm.“

Cleveland lawyer Kenneth Myers, who represented the family along with American Atheists, said in a news release that the settlement allows the family to move forward.

The couple’s lawyers did not disclose the terms of the settlement.

Seems like a money grab to me. The parents had to have a guardian monitor their care of their own child. That’s never a good sign.

I'm not sure the point you are trying to make. Can you explain?

Kids have court appointed guardians for a reason.

Parents suing everyone possible and receiving cash for this incident is suspect because the court says they aren’t great parents so the court appointed a guardian to help the kid make decisions on his own because parents are sus.

So I gather you are saying one of two things in relation to the specific issue:
1. The whole thing is made up as a money grab and no baptism ever occurred.
2. The parents don't need to consent in this instance-- because they are "sus" and/or because the guardian had such authority to consent

Which one?

I say neither.

The child in this case was a victim of abuse or neglect by his mother, father, or both. The disabled child had a court appointed guardian because a judge saw evidence the parents weren’t properly caring for their child, and possibly abusing him. CASA only works with rough cases.

When the parents found out the child had been baptized, they sued and received a settlement for cash, although they were such sucky (and possibly abusive parents) the court had to appoint an outside person to be their child’s guardian.

Got it! So this is a documented instance of baptism without parental consent.

Why are you ignoring the fact his parents abused him, most probably? You are ignoring that very important point.

I’m not ignoring it. What I’m trying to do is ascertain whether this is an instance of baptism without parental consent. I even posed the question of whether consent was still required if the parents are bad/“sus”. Are we saying that it is no longer required in those instances? Where would we draw the line?

parents who abuse their kids are not good people. If a kid has a court appointed guardian, the judge put someone in charge of the child for their safety.

We draw no lines, as it is not out business how people choose to worship.

Which person’s choice are we talking about here? The parent? The child? The guardian? The church that baptized?

You decide for you, I decide for me. Etc. Apply the freedom of choice you have and appreciate to others, even if you disagree with their choices. It’s not hard.

So just to be clear, you don’t have an opinion at all on under what conditions a child should be baptized?

What religion are you? Why do you have an opinion about other people’s children?

I don't ascribe to any particular religion.

I have all sorts of opinions about other people's children- how they should be parented, and whether those parenting decisions should be respected by grandparents and other people.

Do I or anyone else get to make decisions for your child/children? If so, what do I get to decide?

You absolutely do not get to decide. This entire thread, and likely 90% of threads on this site, are discussions of what people think should occur in a given situation.

We shouldn't do that any more?

“I don't ascribe to any particular religion.

I have all sorts of opinions about other people's children- how they should be parented, and whether those parenting decisions should be respected by grandparents and other people. “

So you have all sorts of opinions, but my opinions for your child are an absolute no-go. lol. Mind your own business. You choose for your kid only. You don’t decide anything for the children of other people.

THERE it is! So you DO agree that parents should get to decide for a child! Therefore baptism without parental consent would be wrong, correct?

Unless the child wants to be baptized, it’s the child’s choice then.

If an older child doesn’t want to be baptized, the parents should let the child decide.

Are you the same poster I have been exchanging with? If so, I thought you "draw not lines" and don't have an opinion?

My opinion is the child decides for themselves.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:MYOFB, they got away from you and the religious insanity. Don't make them regret having you in their life at all.

NP. Yeah, that's not how it works for the vast majority of people who leave religion--they just drift away or they can't find belief or other mundane reasons.

Only a few atheists like you are ranting haters who spend their entire lives spewing vitriol on a mom's discussion board.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OMG, you do not baptize a kid without parental consent! That's an excellent way to lose access to your grandkids, among other things.

You should ask yourself why your adult children left the church. You should consider their values -- are they so different from yours, really? Are they good people, teaching their kids to be honest, kind, compassionate, etc.? Do you trust that you did a good job raising them?

No one can baptize a child without parental consent.

Not in a church. My brother went to a camp that wanted to re-baptize him and didn't want to allow a phone call home first.

I could see an over enthusiastic religious grandparent trying to do it in a scenario like that. The big group baptisms in a lake.

So your brother was already baptized, and your parents sent him to a religious camp, and you think he needed to call home to be re-baptized?

Once you are baptized, you are baptized.

That's not what I said.

The group running the camp wanted to re-baptize him. We had both been to that camp before without any talk of baptism. A new director had taken over that year.

Various kids wanted to call home because they knew they didn't need to be baptized again. They wanted their parents to stop it.

There are groups who will baptize without parental consent.

What group was running the camp?

“Rebaptizing” someone isn’t the same thing as baptizing a child without parental consent.

Did this group (who you need to name) baptize kids w/o parental consent?

What groups do you know of who will baptize children w/o parental consent, links and citations mandatory.

Well, it was about 40 years ago. I don't recall which group this director and his staff were associated with. Not a mainstream religion if I recall correctly. It was a multidenomination camp. Now closed. The camp nurse told me that I am disabled because I'm not close enough to God. It was that kind of group.

Given that this is personal experience and decades ago, there are no citations.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:MYOFB, they got away from you and the religious insanity. Don't make them regret having you in their life at all.

NP. Yeah, that's not how it works for the vast majority of people who leave religion--they just drift away or they can't find belief or other mundane reasons.

Only a few atheists like you are ranting haters who spend their entire lives spewing vitriol on a mom's discussion board.

+1 agreed. But these are anti-theists, who not only don’t believe-they militantly want others to not believe.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OMG, you do not baptize a kid without parental consent! That's an excellent way to lose access to your grandkids, among other things.

You should ask yourself why your adult children left the church. You should consider their values -- are they so different from yours, really? Are they good people, teaching their kids to be honest, kind, compassionate, etc.? Do you trust that you did a good job raising them?

No one can baptize a child without parental consent.

Not in a church. My brother went to a camp that wanted to re-baptize him and didn't want to allow a phone call home first.

I could see an over enthusiastic religious grandparent trying to do it in a scenario like that. The big group baptisms in a lake.

So your brother was already baptized, and your parents sent him to a religious camp, and you think he needed to call home to be re-baptized?

Once you are baptized, you are baptized.

That's not what I said.

The group running the camp wanted to re-baptize him. We had both been to that camp before without any talk of baptism. A new director had taken over that year.

Various kids wanted to call home because they knew they didn't need to be baptized again. They wanted their parents to stop it.

There are groups who will baptize without parental consent.

What group was running the camp?

“Rebaptizing” someone isn’t the same thing as baptizing a child without parental consent.

Did this group (who you need to name) baptize kids w/o parental consent?

What groups do you know of who will baptize children w/o parental consent, links and citations mandatory.

Well, it was about 40 years ago. I don't recall which group this director and his staff were associated with. Not a mainstream religion if I recall correctly. It was a multidenomination camp. Now closed. The camp nurse told me that I am disabled because I'm not close enough to God. It was that kind of group.

Given that this is personal experience and decades ago, there are no citations.

40 years ago your parents sent you and your brother to a non-denominational camp and you are aggrieved that your already baptized brother was going to be baptized again?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OMG, you do not baptize a kid without parental consent! That's an excellent way to lose access to your grandkids, among other things.

You should ask yourself why your adult children left the church. You should consider their values -- are they so different from yours, really? Are they good people, teaching their kids to be honest, kind, compassionate, etc.? Do you trust that you did a good job raising them?

No one can baptize a child without parental consent.

Not in a church. My brother went to a camp that wanted to re-baptize him and didn't want to allow a phone call home first.

I could see an over enthusiastic religious grandparent trying to do it in a scenario like that. The big group baptisms in a lake.

So your brother was already baptized, and your parents sent him to a religious camp, and you think he needed to call home to be re-baptized?

Once you are baptized, you are baptized.

That's not what I said.

The group running the camp wanted to re-baptize him. We had both been to that camp before without any talk of baptism. A new director had taken over that year.

Various kids wanted to call home because they knew they didn't need to be baptized again. They wanted their parents to stop it.

There are groups who will baptize without parental consent.

What group was running the camp?

“Rebaptizing” someone isn’t the same thing as baptizing a child without parental consent.

Did this group (who you need to name) baptize kids w/o parental consent?

What groups do you know of who will baptize children w/o parental consent, links and citations mandatory.

Well, it was about 40 years ago. I don't recall which group this director and his staff were associated with. Not a mainstream religion if I recall correctly. It was a multidenomination camp. Now closed. The camp nurse told me that I am disabled because I'm not close enough to God. It was that kind of group.

Given that this is personal experience and decades ago, there are no citations.

40 years ago your parents sent you and your brother to a non-denominational camp and you are aggrieved that your already baptized brother was going to be baptized again?

Goodness, PP did not say they were "aggrieved" in any way. The discussion was about whether baptism without consent happens. She gave a personal experience relevant to the conversation- and actually did so entirely without snark or judgment.
Why the hostility?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OMG, you do not baptize a kid without parental consent! That's an excellent way to lose access to your grandkids, among other things.

You should ask yourself why your adult children left the church. You should consider their values -- are they so different from yours, really? Are they good people, teaching their kids to be honest, kind, compassionate, etc.? Do you trust that you did a good job raising them?

No one can baptize a child without parental consent.

Not in a church. My brother went to a camp that wanted to re-baptize him and didn't want to allow a phone call home first.

I could see an over enthusiastic religious grandparent trying to do it in a scenario like that. The big group baptisms in a lake.

So your brother was already baptized, and your parents sent him to a religious camp, and you think he needed to call home to be re-baptized?

Once you are baptized, you are baptized.

That's not what I said.

The group running the camp wanted to re-baptize him. We had both been to that camp before without any talk of baptism. A new director had taken over that year.

Various kids wanted to call home because they knew they didn't need to be baptized again. They wanted their parents to stop it.

There are groups who will baptize without parental consent.

What group was running the camp?

“Rebaptizing” someone isn’t the same thing as baptizing a child without parental consent.

Did this group (who you need to name) baptize kids w/o parental consent?

What groups do you know of who will baptize children w/o parental consent, links and citations mandatory.

Well, it was about 40 years ago. I don't recall which group this director and his staff were associated with. Not a mainstream religion if I recall correctly. It was a multidenomination camp. Now closed. The camp nurse told me that I am disabled because I'm not close enough to God. It was that kind of group.

Given that this is personal experience and decades ago, there are no citations.

40 years ago your parents sent you and your brother to a non-denominational camp and you are aggrieved that your already baptized brother was going to be baptized again?

Nope. Just giving an example. You're so sure it wouldn't happen... it did.

You have just a lovely day now.