Scotland's Named Person Scheme

[Hope]

Under this legislation, deemed by the Supreme Court in London as having elements that are both likely to "breach rights to privacy and a family life under the European Convention on Human Rights" and "not within the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament", each child would have an independent person assigned to oversee their wellbeing over the first 18 years of their lives (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-36903513).

When I heard about the idea on this morning's BBC Breakfast, it struck me that this system already exists under the tradition of god-parents and sponsors.  Does a government-appointed overseer work as well as or better than a number of people who probably see a child every week - even before they start at school?

[Brownie]

Hope, plenty of people have godparents whom they never see or even hear from.  There are some, of course, who take being a godparent or sponsor (I suppose that's what you call someone who undertakes some responsibility at a naming ceremony as opposed to a baptism), very seriously but an overwhelming number don't.  They like being a godparent on the day and that is the extent of their involvement except maybe Christmas and birthdays.

In some respects the idea of an independent state-appointment 'guardian', for want of a better word, is useful one because many children need someone they can go to who will listen and have their interests at heart.  However there is something a bit Big-Brotherish about it being mandatory.  Lots of kids are quite happy with their parents and whilst they will need other adults from time to time, in different ways, they don't need an appointed person with the level of involvement and responsibility that is outlined here.

So I would say,  a body of suitably qualified, empathetic and experienced people - who aren't social workers - available for children and youngsters to go to if and when necessary, is a very good idea - but it should not be a mandatory requirement. There are enough files on all of us already.

[L.A.]

The scheme, as I understand it, would be likely to be seen as Government interference/Nanny state by the vast majority of parents, but because these people wouldn't actually be social workers, they would probably fail to recognise the small percentage of children who desperately needed help.

[Hope]

Hope, plenty of people have godparents whom they never see or even hear from.  There are some, of course, who take being a godparent or sponsor (I suppose that's what you call someone who undertakes some responsibility at a naming ceremony as opposed to a baptism), very seriously but an overwhelming number don't.  They like being a godparent on the day and that is the extent of their involvement except maybe Christmas and birthdays.

I understand that, Brownie - for several years, our daughters' godparents didn't see them, because we were living in Nepal.  However, they both picked folk within the agency we worked with who they felt able to share stuff with if necessary.

[jeremyp]

I was a terrible godparent. Soon after I became a godfather, I decided Christianity is bunk.

[Hope]

I was a terrible godparent. Soon after I became a godfather, I decided Christianity is bunk.

So, you ditched the role you had been asked to fulfil?  I can think of Christian families who have non-Christians as godparents to their children because they are family friends.

[floo]

I can't say it ever occurred to me that the role of godparents was to keep an eye on youngsters. It was very much an honorary title where the godparents of my siblings and I were concerned, and those of my own children. My godparents are still alive but we have very little contact.

[Harrowby Hall]

So, you ditched the role you had been asked to fulfil?  I can think of Christian families who have non-Christians as godparents to their children because they are family friends.

The role of godparents is to ensure continuation of the religious indoctrination and brainwashing that the parents may neglect. It is another device that the old men in skirts employ in order to continue their control over compliant masses.

To most people, baptism is now little more than a social event which celebrates the birth of a new family member - a nice excuse for a party.

I suppose that, if the baptised infant eventually wants to visit Saudi Arabia, the existence of a baptismal certificate will make entry easier.

[Hope]

I can't say it ever occurred to me that the role of godparents was to keep an eye on youngsters. It was very much an honorary title where the godparents of my siblings and I were concerned, and those of my own children. My godparents are still alive but we have very little contact.

I would agree that for many families, godparents or sponsors are of little purpose, but I think that is just indicative of the way in which society has begun to build in distance between people.  If you look at the wording of the baptismal service or the dedication service in non-conformism, the wording is along the following lines:

Parents and godparents, the Church receives these children with joy.
Today we are trusting God for their growth in faith.
Will you pray for them,
draw them by your example into the community of faith
and walk with them in the way of Christ?
With the help of God, we will.

In baptism these children begin their journey in faith.
You speak for them today.
Will you care for them,
and help them to take their place
within the life and worship of Christ’s Church?
With the help of God, we will.

http://bit.ly/2aCMfmQ

This is from a modern Anglican liturgy, but the words we use at our Baptit church, when we dedicate children, their parents and their sponsors (note that the Baptist tradition is far more wide-ranging in its nature) are very similar.  In fact, the congregation as a whole pledge to help the parents in the role of bringing the child(ren) up.  The italicised piece above indicates that the process is more than just a spiritual thing.  We are more than just a physical entity, in the same way that we are more than just a spiritual one.  The phrase/question "Will you care for them" suggests so much more than just physical or just spiritual.

[Hope]

The role of godparents is to ensure continuation of the religious indoctrination and brainwashing that the parents may neglect. It is another device that the old men in skirts employ in order to continue their control over compliant masses.

Sorry to disappoint you, H, but I have never ever heard a baptismal or dedication sermon that suggest that to be the case.  Even the words of the respective services don't imply that.

Remember that, in the past - perhaps more so than today - godparents would often take overe the upbringing of the child or children if they were orphaned (though in most villages it seems that the village as a whole took on this role).

To most people, baptism is now little more than a social event which celebrates the birth of a new family member - a nice excuse for a party.

I believe that, nowadays, this is a rapidly declining attitude, simply because those who think along these lines don't bother getting a child baptised anyway.

I suppose that, if the baptised infant eventually wants to visit Saudi Arabia, the existence of a baptismal certificate will make entry easier.

Why would that be the case, H? 

[Brownie]

Harrowby, what Hope says is correct regarding godparents and sponsors, the idea behind them is they will stand in loco parentis in some circumstances.  It's quite an important role and in theory godparents - as long as they live - should always be part of children's lives as far as possible.  However, it is also important from a religious standpoint, certainly the Catholic Church officially states that they should make sure the kids are up to date on faith matters, though the Catholic Church do allow non-Catholic godparents nowadays and no-one checks.

What floo says is fairly typical though, the role is more often an honorary one.  (I was quite surprised, floo, in your case, as your parents were strong churchgoers.)   My godparents were relatives of my mother (her sister and husband and her niece), and I can't say they ever had any input at all worth mentioning, she only chose them because she needed to choose someone and didn't mix much outside the family.  She was also godmother to one of her niece's children and didn't do anything.

People I've known have not been particularly scrupulous in choosing godparents or sponsors and many godparents feel flattered at being asked, enjoy 'the day' and do nothing worth mentioning.

'Christening' of infants is less common now anyway, most people believe kids should grow up a bit and make up their own minds, but there are other ceremonies. 

Non-Christian faiths have similar types of dedication, where godparents are involved, no doubt they take it far more seriously than nominal Christians!

Those of no faith often having 'naming ceremonies' in which other people are asked to stand in loco parentis and make promises.

It's nice to think that kids have someone solid and reliable in their life who is not a parent.  I have to say, I would have loved i and could have done with it.  I suppose that is the idea behind Scotland's Named Person Scheme but honestly I dislike the idea of the State should being involved.

[Harrowby Hall]

I suppose that, if the baptised infant wants to visit Saudi Arabia, the existence of a baptismal certificate will make entry easier.

Why would that be the case, H?

I was once informed that the Saudi officials would not allow entry to anyone who could not show that they had any religious adherence. It is possible, I suppose that this may no longer be the case.

As for the responsibilities of godparents, the following is a summary of Roman Catholic Canon Law:

Godparents provide spiritual guardianship for the baptized person throughout their lives

The most serious responsibility a godparent has is to make sure that the baptized person is given proper instruction in the faith, particularly when the parents neglect this duty or are otherwise unable to do so. If the parents die or become unable to teach their child the faith, it is the responsibility of the godparent to ensure that the child learns and loves the faith. Godparents are given a big task in fulfilling this duty, so they should be carefully chosen to make sure they can and will comply with this duty.

I suspect that there would be little different in Anglican Canon Law.

As for the social value of baptism. Never heard of Rite de Passage? or the desire of some parents to ensure that their offspring will be able to attend a desired school?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

The role of godparents is to ensure continuation of the religious indoctrination and brainwashing that the parents may neglect. It is another device that the old men in skirts employ in order to continue their control over compliant masses.

Bonkers.

[Hope]

Why would that be the case, H?


I was once informed that the Saudi officials would not allow entry to anyone who could not show that they had any religious adherence. It is possible, I suppose that this may no longer be the case.

I've been told by folk trying to gain a visa that any old religious affiliation nis less than likely to be of help; the affiliation that is impoirtant is that of Muslim.  If you're not that, keep schtumm.

As for the responsibilities of godparents, the following is a summary of Roman Catholic Canon Law:...
I suspect that there would be little different in Anglican Canon Law.

Below is the summary from the Anglican Canon Law

B 23 Of godparents and sponsors

1. For every child to be baptized there shall be not fewer than three
godparents, of whom at least two shall be of the same sex as the child and
of whom at least one shall be of the opposite sex; save that, when three
cannot conveniently be had, one godfather and godmother shall suffice.
Parents may be godparents for their own children provided that the child
have at least one other godparent.

2. The godparents shall be persons who will faithfully fulfil their
responsibilities both by their care for the children committed to their
charge and by the example of their own godly living.

3. When one who is of riper years is to be baptized he shall choose three,
or at least two, to be his sponsors, who shall be ready to present him at
the font and afterwards put him in mind of his Christian profession and
duties.

4. No person shall be admitted to be a sponsor or godparent who has not
been baptized and confirmed. Nevertheless the minister shall have
power to dispense with the requirement of con

http://www.baptism.org.uk/canons.htm

Clearly, spiritual issues are important, but for Anglicans (and probably Protestantism as a whole) the whole person is imporetant as well.

As for the social value of baptism. Never heard of Rite de Passage? or the desire of some parents to ensure that their offspring will be able to attend a desired school?

I've heard of them and don't deny that they occur; however, from what i have heard, both locally and otherwise, they are a declining practice, as i said previously.

[jeremyp]

So, you ditched the role you had been asked to fulfil?  I can think of Christian families who have non-Christians as godparents to their children because they are family friends.

Yes I did. I couldn't, in all honesty bring my godson up in the Christian faith when I believe it to be a lie. I would have to refuse if anybody asked me to do it again.

[Hope]

Yes I did. I couldn't, in all honesty bring my godson up in the Christian faith when I believe it to be a lie. I would have to refuse if anybody asked me to do it again.

I'm glad that you have added the second sentence.  However, if someone asked you to act as sponsor for their child would you agree?  Note, sponsors are common in both non-conformist proceedings as well as non-religious.  Not sure what happens in other, non-Christian faiths.

[jeremyp]

I'm glad that you have added the second sentence.  However, if someone asked you to act as sponsor for their child would you agree?  Note, sponsors are common in both non-conformist proceedings as well as non-religious.  Not sure what happens in other, non-Christian faiths.

I'm not sure what you are on about here. We are not talking about sponsors but godparents. As a godparent I had to reaffirm my faith in Christ and promise to bring the child up in the Christian faith. Neither of these are things I could do in good conscience any more.

[Hope]

I'm not sure what you are on about here. We are not talking about sponsors but godparents. As a godparent I had to reaffirm my faith in Christ and promise to bring the child up in the Christian faith. Neither of these are things I could do in good conscience any more.

I've never been asked to be a god-parent or a sponsor, but when we had our two daughters baptised, there was a great deal more to what their godparents promised to do that simply promise to bring them up in the Christian faith. 

[jeremyp]

I've never been asked to be a god-parent or a sponsor, but when we had our two daughters baptised, there was a great deal more to what their godparents promised to do that simply promise to bring them up in the Christian faith.

So what? What does it matter what other responsibilities there are if you can't promise to bring up the child in the Christian faith? Surely it only takes the refusal to perform one of your duties to disqualify you from the job.

I'm really not sure why you are still banging on about this, Hope.

[Hope]

I'm really not sure why you are still banging on about this, Hope.

To tell you the truth, nor am I!!  Must have been having the odd brain-storm.