Catholic Ping
Please freepmail me if you want on/off this list
Posted on 08/15/2008 9:48:59 AM PDT by NYer
An atheism-promoting organization has withdrawn its lawsuit demanding that Christian baptisms of children be banned in Italy, after a U.S.-based legal team took on the defense of a bishop and the Roman Catholic Church there.
"This was a preposterous lawsuit, and we are pleased that it has been dropped," said Joseph Infranco, senior counsel for the Arizona-based Alliance Defense Fund.
However, he said, "Americans should be aware that such lawsuits may seem far-fetched, but they really are happening … foreign legal decisions are increasingly cited in American courts."
The ADF battled back when the Italian Union of Rationalist Atheists and Agnostics filed a lawsuit seeking an end to all baptisms of children in Italy. The organization alleged the practice encroached on its religious freedom and violated Italian Constitutional Court precedents regarding free will and personal privacy in religious decisions.
The organization alleged the law does not allow parents to enroll their children in certain groups such as trade unions, therefore the law also "does not allow, as well, that the parents may decide their children become members of a religious association."
The Alliance Defense Fund reported the plaintiff in the case was demanding that his name be erased from a baptism registry in what was described as a type of "debaptism."
But the petition was withdrawn just before a court hearing was to take place.
Gianfranco Amato, an ADF-allied attorney, said the plaintiff became convinced that the nation's legal precedents would not support such demands.
"It's unthinkable to ask the government to force the church to abandon one of its sacraments to appease a radical, anti-religious agenda, yet that's what this activist group did,” said Amato.
"According to Italian law, the demand to remove a name from the register must be made by an individual with a personal interest, rather than by a private association such as UAAR,"
(Excerpt) Read more at worldnetdaily.com ...
Catholic Ping
Please freepmail me if you want on/off this list
I have just about had it with these radical, intolerant Atheists.
They will be suing to prevent parents from taking their children to church next.
They are blind to truth and should be lifted up in prayer.
Psalm 14:1
The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.” They are corrupt, their deeds are vile; there is no one who does good.
I Corinthians 2:14
But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised.
Luke 23:34A
Jesus said, “Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing.”
Especially in a state where a judge of the supreme court can call traditional marriage “irrational and bigoted.”
Especially in a state where a judge of the supreme court can call traditional marriage “irrational and bigoted.”
Especially in a state where a judge of the supreme court can call traditional marriage “irrational and bigoted.”
Unbelievable.
Newdow would have to sue the custodial spouse as the church doing the baptism is not a public institution. Newdow would have to go some to prohibit a church from baptizing, though I imagine he would try and the Ninth Circuit would likely help him along.
I imagine circumcision on the eighth day is next on the agenda.
I'd imagine it would be an easier one for them to argue against since circumcision would be "wounding" and "disfiguring" the child. Baptism causes no outward physical effects.
It seems to me that these Atheists believe that there is some merit to Baptism. Otherwise, there would be no reason for them to be seeking legal action to prevent them from taking place.
If it's a meaningless ritual, then whether or not the name is on the rolls doesn't matter.
There's been a leftist anti-circumcision movement for a long time. Even referring to a cliterectomy as a "female circumcision" is intended to turn people against the practice.
Ironically, the Left used to give the Jews a pass because everything they did was interpreted as a symbolic act of defending "religious minorities" from the chr*stian majority. I don't think they get that pass anymore, and it's a their rituals were ever interpreted that way.
Some Proddie was saying that it was abuse to expose a child to Jesus bleeding on the cross and I think it was Judith Anne who stated that it probably wouldn’t be too long before some people tried to stop it. I guess she wasn’t far off.
Yes, I recall that discussion.
Dr. E’s point was that a child viewing a realistic crucifix, at age 3 or 4, was being abused.
I disagreed, and speculated that it wouldn’t be long before there was a lawsuit about it, unthinkable as that is.
Somehow that doesn't surprise me. Thank you for passing along the info.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.