Don’t you think societies have an obligation to steer their citizens in ways that ensure their health and well-being?

The words "steer" and ensure" raise flags for me. If we are not using scientific criteria and immanent danger (limiting disease outbreaks) and are using value judgements (force women to breastfeed, have natural childbirth without drugs becuase it is better, etc) then the "obligation" oversteps the bounds of privacy. The only time the US government should be forcing people to do things for health purposes is to avoid immanent death and public safety. Individual choices that may dismay some people (eating fast food, dancing, making bad choices of fashion and media taste, drinking alcohol in moderate doeses, etc) but that are not immanent dangers need to be left alone. Individuals are in the best position to make those decisions. That is the very foundation of this republic. Far too often "ensure" means "know what's best for you" and winds up as governmental abuse and invasion of privacy (Prohibition is a great example of that in American history). The individual must have agency to make certain decisions unless there is a truly compelling rationales. Spiritual decay, alienation, "empowerment" and the distaste for open sexuality should not be compelling rationales for governmental interference in the personal and the private. Not having the same vision of spirituality's necessity, not liking the same media, not having the same defintion of empowerment, and not having the same values or interpretations of pop culture do not warrant governmental interference.

To argue that individuals should not have these choices because some abuse them is to infantilize and support authoritarianism. Freedom of expression and religion is messy, and one person's abuse is the other's automony and empowerment. We Westerners forget that a significant amount of the world sees unlimited freedom as license and not as opportunity. Just as we should not tell them how to live their lives, they should not tell us how to live ours.

T

I agreed with Cary's advise here. He's spot on. LW needs to start thinking of this as a church ceremony.

I was baptized, confirmed, etc. For my child's christening, we had to take 6 weeks of classes before we could even schedule it, and those classes are on a schedule. We did not just "contact the church". This is NOT a Roman Catholic event. The Lutherans and Episcopalians here are similiar.

We did have out of town guests: the godmother and godfather. The rest were in town. We sent notices, not invitations, to the out of town guests. I'd say the invitations were mistake #1.

Referring to her relatives as "univited" is mistake #2. I'll bet her fiance' did invite them to stay. He didn't do it in earshot of her, because he knew how she felt about his relatives, and how she'd act. This may be the first time some of these people have seen the baby. She should be more gracious, and have better manners. I smell Bridezilla in the making here.

She has a child. They probably think they are helping her, not hijacking. Lighten up.

And yes, as a Catholic, the marriage comes before the Christening if the couple is engaged. Some priests and conservative dioceses enforce that rule for engaged couples. While other priests would not turn them down, they would be vocally frank about how disrespectful it is to christen the child in the Church while in a state of mortal sin. They have, in the past, tried to force the couple to live apart, etc. Conservative churches would see this as hypocritical, too. More liberal ones would not. I do know of a few Baptist ministers who would have thrown the couple out. They would have welcomed a single mother, but not a couple actively living in sin.

Good job, Cary. Spare us Bridezillas and now Christeningzillas.