Christening in the UK

I can't speak for others only my experience. IME being a godparent isn't about religion. I am aware that wont be the same for everyone. The very first post was asking if godparent had become a generic term for someone you want your kids raised by when you die. IME, yes it has.

I would be honoured and flattered if someone asked me to look after their children should anything happen to them ... however, I would not consider that being a godparent and I would not want the title of godparent.

It's the issue of the g-word. 

I have never thought about godparents this much! I was christened (or maybe it was baptized? Is there a difference?), as was my brother, but neither of us have godparents. Are they more common with people raised in specific churches? I was raised Presbyterian, though I'm a whole lot of nothing now. Now I'm wondering if it's the Presbyterian thing, or if my parents just didn't bother!

I was raised Lutheran (although I don't consider myself Lutheran anymore) and was baptised when I was 1 month old.  My godparents are different from my brother's and our godparents are all church-goers (like my parents). 

My godparents weren't really involved in my church life as a kid (besides attending the same church) but I knew if anything had happened to my parents, they would be the ones to raise me (never thought about the fact my brother and I would have been separated.... wouldn't have minded it though, as a kid  ).  I suspect they were chosen to be my godparents because they had kids my age, were good friends of my parents and were very active in their church.  As a kid, I was always excited to see my godsisters and godparents at holidays and parties, but I don't remember ever doing anything religious with them....

I still get birthday cards and emails from my godparents, but it's not very 'churchy' besides my godfather telling me about the stuff he's doing at his church now that he's retired..... they're just friends who feel a special connection to me even though I only see them once every few years. 

I am Godmother to my cousin who is 16 years younger than me.  Her Godfather is her Uncle on her Dad's side who she has never met (he wasn't even at the Baptism, her then 15 year old brother stood in for him).  I'm thinking my Aunt & Uncle didn't intend either of us to raise her if anything happened to them.  By the tie she was a teen and about to be confirmed I had left the Catholic church but still felt I did my duty as her Godmother by having a chat with her about confirmation.

I'm Lutheran and my sister and I don't have godparents. It's not a requirement in the Lutheran church to have them. I used to teach confirmation and it was always a mixture of who had them and who didn't. My son is baptized and he doesn't have godparents, but he does have named guardians in case of an emergency. My husband and are in a friends' will as the guardians of their children, but we're not their godparents.

I would be honoured and flattered if someone asked me to look after their children should anything happen to them ... however, I would not consider that being a godparent and I would not want the title of godparent.

It's the issue of the g-word. 

This!!

Being a godparent means nothing in law. You might think that's who you want to look after your kids if anything happens to you but the law could view it differently.

Funny though as just last week I was talking to my sister and she reminded me that on her will she included myself and her husbands brothers to be appointed legal guardians should anything happen to them. She was mainly thinking of us having control over any money put into trust. Not something that is going to come into effect now that their youngest is 24, but at the time I think i was 28, single and thinking "so I could suddenly have to take care of 3 kids!"

Baptism/christening are the same deal, I believe, just depending on the denomination.

My dad's family are Baptists (American not Southern) but, although he was dedicated as a baby, he chose not to do the baptism as a teenager.  My mother, who came from a Presbyterian/Congregational background, used to worry about the fact that he was never baptized!  When my cousin's kids became old enough for baptism, they all had to really think about it and decide if they wanted to do it -- which I thought was a good thing.

Quakers and some other groups do not believe in baptism at all.

I would be honoured and flattered if someone asked me to look after their children should anything happen to them ... however, I would not consider that being a godparent and I would not want the title of godparent.

It's the issue of the g-word. 

You have just (more or less) hit the nail on the head, as far as my original question went. I was wondering why people who don't believe in God would ask others who don't believe in God to be Godparents of their children, when the purpose of being a Godparent is to continue the child/children on the path of learning about God and attending the church if something happened to prevent the parents from doing so.

I completely understand asking people if they would raise your children if something happened to you, and naming them in your will as guardians. Since that isn't the case with Godparents, unless you also name them in your will, what would be the point of having Godparents for children you wouldn't raise believing in God. Why have a christening when you could have a naming ceremony, or some other way of celebrating your child's birth?

Because it's easier than getting into the semantics?

Some people are just not that bothered to make the distinction because they have other things to think about. 

Well, it does seem strange to me and I'd be surprised if a Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, or pagan / wiccan / druid person would use the word Christening as other traditions have their own traditions and words for stuff.

Because it's easier than getting into the semantics?

Some people are just not that bothered to make the distinction because they have other things to think about. 

I think that's it. I feel VERY strongly about what I do and don't believe in, but a lot of people would rather just go along because it's easier than not going along.

Because it's easier than getting into the semantics?

Some people are just not that bothered to make the distinction because they have other things to think about. 

I think you're spot-on. 

I'm a natural thinker and analyser and picker-apart of life.  I spend a lot of time considering my beliefs and opinions, and have been accused (possibly justly) of taking life (any myself) too seriously.

My sister is very different.  She's every bit as intelligent as I am, and perfectly capable of forming and defending an opinion.  She has her own beliefs, and her own concerns, but she simply doesn't get bogged down in 'navel gazing' the way that I do.

For a long time, this drove me nuts!  I thought there must be something wrong with her.  How could she not care about all these things?  But she really doesn't.  And that's ok.

So, yes.  There are lots of very principled people who wouldn't dream of participating in any religious ceremony that didn't correspond to their beliefs.  But there are other people, just as sincere in their own beliefs (or lack thereof) who don't see what all the fuss is about.

I think that's it. I feel VERY strongly about what I do and don't believe in, but a lot of people would rather just go along because it's easier than not going along.

I'm the same.  Of course I'd participate wholeheartedly in a friend's celebration no matter what religious or non-religious flavour they are, just if it was my own child or whatever I'd call the ceremony something else.