Typical bullshit

I perform "baptisms" though I tend to call them "baby blessings" or various other names for the event. I just did one last week, for a couple who had a baby, and wanted a "baptism" to please their religious parents, but were fine with the island style humanistic celebration of new life I performed.

Instead of dipping the baby's head in the water, we dipped her feet in the ocean, after welcoming this new life and describing the humanistic values the parents will be enshrining while raising the child.

It was beautiful, meaningful and memorable for all, no matter what religious background those in attendance (and those attending via video.) The event was recorded and I printed the script and the letters from the grandparents which will be keepsakes, along with the photos for the child, to enjoy later in her life. She will have these memories about how much she's loved and what values the parents and grandparents hope she will carry and reflect throughout her life.

I'm not keen on religious baptisms, where it is pretended that the innocent baby is somehow marred by a sin that a fictional character committed thousands of years ago and it needs to be washed away, and so the child can be reborn into Christianity.

I prefer to just keep it natural and down to earth, with human values, and with the understanding the baby is pure to begin with and will absorb the character traits taught and demonstrated by her elders.

Therefore I prefer the "We" rather than the "I" when raising a child. It takes a village, as they say. Parents, grandparents, extended family, neighbors, teachers, etc. to set examples for living a good life, with positive interaction with society.

Oh , No!! Baptism invalid?? I feel a Repossession coming on.

I think this might be a good one for Freedom From Religion Foundation to take up. Sue the priest for malpractice. Their obvious defense is that no harm was done.

An excellent example of how stupid belief can be.

The link is broken sorry. But based on your description, I would say that if the priest is a true literal believer himself then he has no choice, and he is at least honest, even if deluded.

If he is not a true believer however, then he is committing a far worse act of dishonesty by leading people to think they should need a baptism, in the first place, and if he thinks that doing the right thing with regards to the words makes it alright, then he is suffering cognitive dissonance to an extreme degree.

While if he is a metaphoricalist, then it is a small unimportant matter about exact words, but it is at least honest of him to think that people should get exactly what they pay for.

To me this is funny. What a thing to worry about!