re: #54 e_e

In all your hypothetical motions above you use “conversion”, and that’s just factually wrong. Try to rewrite them without this incorrect equivalence, and see what happens. It certainly is relevant. How it can be not? No automatic conversion was either performed, or even intended. It’s an equivalent of someone praying for someone else’s conversion to another religion. It may be obnoxious, but it’s not illegal.

Look, we’re not going to agree. I see the baptisms as an active intervention meant to interfere with the religious practice of others. I quickly backed away from the pure conversion argument. But the baptism, to my mind, is an unwanted, active intervention in the religious freedom of others (and to my mind, illegal as a result). If I sit across the table from Mormon who has posthumously baptized my grandmother, we have a completely different opinion on the state of her soul. If he had just prayed for my grandmother, we would not have this difference of opinion. There is a subjective change of state. That is the foundation of my discomfort.