Should the Atheists Baptize Their Future Baby?

I say no. Of the reasons for baptism (and believe me, I make lists too, and laying out the pros and cons is brilliant when faced with this sort of decision) only the child’s hypothetical future desire to follow Catholicism is in any way meaningful. If and when that time comes, the child can go ahead and get baptized.

Don’t go through with the baptism. It sounds like it’s just to placate family members, and the decision is not theirs to make. It will be your baby, and as neither you or your wife believe in Catholicism, why do it?

I would not.

That said, perhaps a naming ceremony – something to commemorate the birth of the child and present them to the family – might be nice.

I was baptised and confirmed before I was old enough to understand what I was consenting to. I have a lot of anger towards my parents because of that. For his own future relationship with his child, I would suggest Jordan not force beliefs he doesn’t even hold on his child. Remain informative and supportive, though, on matters of faith and the child’s own decision-making. The “pro” that the child would have already completed the baptismal rite is a bit silly: it can always be done in the future, but it can’t be undone.

Nobody has ever died from not being baptised, so why risk it?

Neither of us believe in the concept of salvation or damnation; our infant will be innocent and blameless without superstition.

Jordan might not, but I’m not so sure about his wife.

None of the pro choices have anything to do with the well-being of the child, so I’d say no. Even the bit about it already being done if he chooses to become Catholic. A quick glance at guides for Catholic baptisms say baptisms should be performed on infants to 1) show the parents are “accepting the responsibility of training them in the practice of the faith” and 2) to avoid risking the baby’s immortal soul. Neither of those are true.

The conversation should really be about whether or not you want to perform the ceremony as a sop to religious family members. Don’t pretend it’s about something else.

As an atheist with an only-because-her-family-is-Lutheran wife, this is a conversation that comes up often. I’m completely against it and have jokingly threatened the post-baptism hairdryer debaptism, but there’s one nagging idea that keeps coming up that offers softens my resolve a bit.

It seems like this ceremony is more about the parents than it is about the baby. The ritual depicts the baby being shown to the tribe with the expectation that the parents are promising the kid to be raised in what they deem the “right” way, and that the tribe is in some way responsible for keeping the parents accountable.

Going with that idea, I have tentatively agreed to be present if she absolutely must go forward with the magic water. Though we are not part of any church community, if she feels that she must absolutely do this thing, I only request that I am able to state my position during the ritual. This would involve some kind of short monologue about how I will raise the child with the secular beliefs I hold dear, with heavy emphasis on the critical thinking aspect of it.

A long shot, but I’m out of ideas.

No. The baby may drown to death.

I don’t know. I did find one good reason for infant baptism…

I think it all boils down to bullet point number 3…There could be a lot of criticism from/conflict with her Catholic family if the baby is not baptized… We didn’t baptize our son but did have a UU ceremony for him. Only great grandma kept asking “but if you don’t dedicate him to god WHO are you dedicating him to?” I said humanity and that didn’t go over well but when I told her there was no god to dedicate any child to she shut up. p.s. I’m not worried about my relatives giving me grief cause I’ll argue my side with no reservation.

Why would you want to make your child a member of the world’s largest pedophile ring?

No. Jordan should make a point of the corruption in the Catholic Church. I wouldn’t allow my son to be indoctrinated into the Evil Empire either.

Acquiesing to a ritual that you do not believe in is an insult to your Self and to the people that support the rite. How would they feel about someone taking communion who does not believe in transubstatiation or even the divinity of Jesus but just “doing it” because someone else told them to?

A sign of maturity is making decisons on your own for your own good or bad reasons–not allowing others to pressure you in to something you don’t want. What’s next if they are allowed to “force” you to baptize? Will you allow them to take the kiddo to Mass to make them happy? 1st communion? Penance?Confirmation? When does one stop making decisons based on what makes the extended family happy?

I do not want to pay homage to a corrupt, hate-filled church.

Well, there you have it. As good a reason as any. Since it appears most Catholics are pretending the church is not the least bit at fault for the atrocities it has caused, it’s up to reasonable people to state the obvious.

Also, there are other (non-religious) ways to “present the baby to the tribe,” as it were, if you choose.

I definitely understand the concept of “going along to get along.” Extended family can be troublesome, and you want to make sure things are smooth. I get that.

You have to choose your battles. If the extended family is all religious wackos who will take your kid off to the side later (or on day trips) and try to proselytize, or make you out to be evil because you don’t believe, or tell him he will go to hell, then you’d probably better do it. In other words, if your refusal to baptize him will mean that adults scare him before he is old enough to understand, then it may be wise.

I understand why you are torn. Family strife is never fun to deal with. But it’s true: YOU are the parent. Period.

It’s time to stand up for what you believe. Religious people do it all the time, and even die for it. I think we nonbelievers generally expect the worst when it comes to expressing our beliefs, and maybe we shouldn’t.

I don’t see how you can actually make it through a baptism ceremony, making the promises that you need to make, with everyone around you knowing that you’re lying through your teeth. What value is a phoney commitment like that going to have even for the extended family?

You shouldn’t, because the child cannot choose, so it would basically be forcing a faith on them and thus violating the poor kid.

The parents in a Catholic baptism ceremony don’t have to promise anything. It is the godparents who give the priest the formulaic responses about “rejecting the devil and all his works”, etc. (The last time I was with my parents at a mass service where the priest announced he was including a “renewal” of our baptismal vows, I had a remarkably easy time saying “I do” to the question, “Do you reject Satan?” Goodness, yes! (And a lot of other stuff, too.))

No one should tells lies throughout a sham ceremony just to please family members. However, if the parents have sincere Catholic family members who would want to serve as godparents, then the godparents can do the whole sincere schtick about the devil and all the rest. The parents don’t have to say a word.

The down side? The godparents might be sincere enough to harass the parents and child about further religious instruction or observance of religious holidays. Godparents may consider it their job to do so. Could be a pain.

The up side? The religious family members will be appeased and (except for the godparents) may give the parents and the kid some space. Also, the godparents are supposed to give the kid presents at Christmas and birthdays forever after. (It’s a sacred obligation.)

I think I’d give the whole thing a pass, myself, but it depends on the family situation and which battles you want to fight.

It would be a beautiful ceremony.

Not to the father it wouldn’t. It would be an ugly symbol of the fact that his wife puts his feelings and needs at the bottom of her priorities, somewhere below her affection for an ugly and hate-filled church institution. It would also likely leave him with lasting fears that she is suddenly going to start taking his child to church and indoctrinating his child with religious nonsense.

If the child grows up and wants to be Catholic, he or she would have completed the baptismal sacrament.

What a lame excuse. If the child grows up and wants to be Catholic, there will be no shortage of priests willing to dunk them.

Further, it’s an additional sign that she is thinking about taking the child to church. Otherwise, why wouldn’t she just be hoping that the child will grow up to be an atheist?

There could be a lot of criticism from/conflict with her Catholic family if the baby is not baptized.

That’s their problem. She needs to put her spouse and (hypothetical) child first. If she can’t do that, she should divorce the poor guy so he can go find a wife who actually cares about him, and never have children.

The baby wouldn’t remember the baptism, so what’s the big deal?

The father will.

I strongly advise Jordan not to have any children with his wife until and unless she moves away from her eagerness to appease her parents and church at all costs and shows some understanding that she is going to put her child and husband first and has solidly made up her mind to raise any children with rationalism, scientific fact, and atheism, not religion.

Much the same situation, just offset a generation.
It should be made clear to a lot of people that the catholic church actually gains much of its power through people thinking that other people think that they ought to get baptised.

In catholic areas of Europe, whole towns of non-believers get their children baptised – and confirmed – so that they will “not be singled out at school”, however, when I did an anonymous poll, HALF of everyone asked, said that it was “only so that the children wouldn’t be outsiders” that they were still members. More than 50% only went to church at Easter/Christmas, for weddings and christenings.

Had all those parents had the courage to admit that they are actually not interested, then the amount of money paid over to the vatican monthly (based on the number of ‘sheep’ in their flock) could probably be halved.

Out yourselves calmly to your relations, one at a time – in private where they don’t have to worry about what the others will think – and when you know how many actually give a damn – you can decide what is more important – your principles or your in-laws.

I think you may be surprised.

Like Jordan and commenter Sean, I have been in exactly this situation. I don’t come from a religious background, but my wife was raised Catholic (though doesn’t practice at all since moving in with me years ago).

We’ve been married for about four years, and I remember the arguments about whether or not we would have a wedding in the church. But I swallowed my pride, though I disliked having to lie before her family’s faith to get married.

Since then, we’ve gone through the same battle with our daughter being baptized. I never was, I’m Humanist, so I don’t believe in any of it. I’m in the camp that a child should be given the choice of religious involvement, not have it presumed. But again I bit my tongue long enough to get through it.

And really, it means nothing to me. However, it meant worlds to her family. We live near them, and rely on their help with household projects I cannot handle myself, so not burning that bridge has made a difference in how smoothly our lives with her family’s have been.

While it would be funny to hear someone answer the “Do you reject satan?” question with “yes, and jesus too” I think it would be better not to do the baptism.

First, he can tell the family that he is respecting catholic dogma the way he’d like catholics to respect his beliefs. The church teaches that a child should only be baptized if there’s an expectation he or she will be raised in the faith, which isn’t the case here.

Also, the church teaches that folks who are baptized have an obligation to submit to the rules of the church. For life. Since the parents aren’t willing to do this, it would be hypocritical of them to make this commitment on behalf of the child. As said before, if the child decides to become catholic someday, baptism is eay to obtain.

The more practical resaon is to avoid confusing the child growing up-if baptism is a meaningless ceremony, why did you do it to me? The catholic family members will always be bringing it up to the child and trying to get him or her to identify as catholic as a result.

Much better to put the church in a position of trying to explain away its faults and foibles in an effort to win over a mature freethinker than to have freethinkers trying to help a “demi-catholic” sort out the psychic dreck they accumulated as a result of being “sorta” catholic. The fact that the wife is wavering and conflicted is proof of this.

If you give your in-laws an inch, they will expect a mile. Put your foot down with regards to the Baptism, and you’ll have a much easier time saying no to Sunday School and the rest of the religious crap.

If that were my family’s list, I would go with no.

Our own list had some added items on the negatives column, so it was actually a very easy decision for me. But, like Jordan, I had a spouse who felt the “yes” reasons were quite compelling.

The deciding factor was that my husband eventually admitted that he assumed getting baptized would lead to getting confirmed. Then I put my foot down, saying my willingness to compromise was withdrawn if I’d be expected to compromise again and again later.

No consequences of note have arisen. My husband and even the devout members of our family have quietly grown accustomed to the idea.

When my brother and his wife got their baby baptized Catholic, they had to go to DAYS of training and classes, plus prove that they were members of a parish. It’s not as simple as just taking the baby in and handing it to the priest. Same deal with getting married in the Catholic church – you can’t just go do it, they make you prove yourself first.
I’m now an atheist, but I do respect the fact that Catholics put some weight on their sacraments, and they don’t just hand them out to everyone who wants a photo op.

Hemant writes “At what point does the lunacy stop?”

If this child is raised to have a skeptical mind and grows up to be agnostic or atheist, then by the time that child is old enough to have children of their own Catholic Grandpa and Grandma will have likely passed away. With a pair of skeptics for parents I’d say the chances of this child baptizing their own children is close to nil.

In all probability this is the last generation in this family where the baptism debate will matter (barring an adult conversion.)

As long as the baptism isn’t followed up by demands for religious indoctrination, then why not make the old folks happy?

In any case the whole situation, even positing the occasional church visit, is likely to be a medium for discussion of religion with their child. It’s much better for them to be exposed to the church, talk about it with their parents, and form their own opinion, than to hide the existence of religion. After all, folks didn’t discuss sex with their kids in times past, and think of the misunderstandings that people had, not to mention the lure of the forbidden fruit. Don’t make church the forbidden fruit- expose it for the show it is.

One of my favorite memories of church, growing up, was helping my grandma to clean the sacristy and the votive candles at our local Episcopal church. Nothing like getting to play with the props for taking the mystery out of religion!

On the other hand, if the Catholic Church receives money for every baptized person in their congregation, then that’s another issue entirely. I wouldn’t want to fund the church with a baptism, even if it was just to please the in-laws.

I think a blessing celebration might be a nice option. You could still dress up the baby in a nice white outfit, invite family over, and invite everyone or certain people to express their love for the child aloud or in writing. Then you get the family time and photo op without the religion.

I know that it’s not traditional, but everyone will feel the love, and perhaps it will open their eyes that religion is not the only necessary component of a loving family tradition.

We are considering doing this when our little one is born. It will give my parents an opportunity to see her in my christening gown, to take pictures with her, and to share them with people. They don’t have to even tell people that it wasn’t an official “Christian dedication” or baptism. If they call it a blessing, I have a feeling people will assume, which will make it easier for my parents and for other people, with no sweat off my back. 🙂

On the other hand, you could perform a satanic damning ceremony (I’m just making this up).

If a baby goes through an infant damning ceremony and then later in life (as an adult) confirms the damning, then the person will enter hell in a privileged position as a harpy. Harpies get to fly around in hell carrying pitch-forks to keep the damned masses in the lake of fire (kind of like border collies). Your in-laws will at least get to know that their grand-child will spend eternity in relative comfort (being able to fly and all) where as if he/she was an atheist and did not go through with the damning ceremony then he/she would merely be one of the ones being forced by the harpies to remain in the lake of fire. Just something to think about 😉

Are you planning on holding a Namkaran in case the child decides to become Hindu?

This.

Citizen Z nails it.

Here is a secular institute for secular ceremonies. I came across this yesterday.

CELEBRANT FOUNDATION & INSTITUTE
http://www.celebrantinstitute.org/

This might be interesting to look into.

I have to admit we did have our children baptised. My wife wanted it, it was several years ago and my atheism hadn’t really got a proper grounding then. But most important: it was in a fairly inoffensive church.

If it was now, in the Roman Catholic Church, given everything that has come to light in recent years, I would unquestionably refuse. I would not wish to be associated with that organisation in any way whatever.

Don’t do it. This is your kid, not the in-laws.

But if it’s impossible to overcome the family dynamics plan B should be:
You do not attend.
Better if your wife doesn’t attend also.
No party back at the house.
And NO money changes hands. Will the priest even do it if he’s not paid?

Either way you are making a statement about the future, and how you are rising your child.

Haven’t seen anyone bring up this point: what about Santa Claus? If you’re going to go along with that story “until the child works it out on their own”, you might as well baptize the child and explain that it’s a metaphor like Santa. (That’s basically the famous answer given in the “yes, Virginia, there is a Santa Claus” piece. Obviously, I lost the argument over Santa from birth; my oldest got this explanation when he was still 7.) And believe me, this is not a trivial decision.

Oh, Richard……..Bravo!!!!!!!!!!

Alright, well, I think I may have come up with a good comment that I do not believe has been made yet, at least not that I saw. Now keep in mind that I am coming from the Episcopal Church in Oregon, which I think is very much not a hate-filled church, and I may have a different view of baptism from the Romans, but I think it’s close enough to the same ceremony.

Anyway, the point I haven’t seen made is that the baptism of an infant is really a promise being made by the parents. In the ceremony the parents and godparents renounce sin and promise to raise the child in the Christian faith. Now if the parents have no intention of doing that, then they’re really just participating in a lie and making an empty promise. My feeling on the matter is that such a lie is not only unnecessary, but ultimately more insulting to the beliefs of the in-laws that Jordan would be trying to please. I’d probably try to explain it that way to the other parties involved as delicately as I could, and choose not to baptize the child (that is if I were an atheist in Jordan’s position 🙂 ).

Oh, and MayorHardin says to point out that I’m the son he’s referring to. I guess he’;s proud of me 🙂

Jordan, I think the key phrase here is “future child”. Once you have a child and experience the awesome joy and responsibility I firmly believe your attitude will change from this “pro’s and con’s” approach to a “no way is my child going to go through that sham of a ceremony”. The decision making process with a real child will be much easier than with a hypothetical one. Bob.

If you baptize the child, be prepared for further campaigns to send the child to religious education (CCD) classes which includes preparations for first penance and first communion and eventually confirmation. If an older child or adult wants to join the church they take a year of instruction and are baptized into the church usually on the Saturday before Easter.

Have a naming ceremony. A welcome to the world ceremony. Not a baptism.

I would make it clear that this is our child and not theirs, and it is our decision. Imagine if the two of you were Catholic and her parents and/or yours were secular or some flavor of non-Christian and threw a tantrum because you were going to go ahead with a baptism? The point is not that “its just a splash of water, what’s the prob, you don’t even believe in it so why fight?” The point is that these people feel they have the right to dictate how you raise your kids.

What’s more is that many believers feel they have a superior right to dictate how you raise your kids simply because many believers feel their religious beliefs make them better people than you are, with far greater morals and integrity. It could also, in some cases, mean that they have subscribed to the “phase” argument, and once you have kids you’ll realize how important it is to raise them with God Given Catholic Morality lest they grow up to rape children…wait, what?

So, yes, I would tell them that this is our kid, not theirs, and we are not going to debase our own views and sacrifice our own integrity just to make our Mommies and Daddies happy–which is no more than the same respect that they might ask of others.

On top of that, I would ask them point-blank, as I did with my Mom years ago, why they want me to lie to please them, especially since they know it’s a lie and that I would only be doing it because I feel emotionally coerced.

And if they want to continue forcing the issue, I would stand firm and if they want to cut me off, they can go ahead and do so. Anyone who treats me with less respect than they would want for themselves and requires that I lie about who I am and what I believe just to stay in their good graces can pound salt for all I care–and that includes my family. If they really loved me, then it wouldn’t be conditional upon my willingness to openly lie about who I am just to please them.

I guess I see it this way: After all the church ceremonies atheists attend out of simple respect, even though we may disagree, all the religious weddings and funerals and baptisms and whatnot that we may find personally offensive on many levels (I’ve heard anecdotes about sermons that openly demonized atheists and unbelievers) but we attend out of love and remain silent out of respect and an understanding that others are not obligated to appease our atheism in their own personal decisions, because when we love someone it isn’t conditional on them living their lives based on our atheism, because this is our loved one’s day and not ours, and this is how our loved one wishes to celebrate………well, I just think the religious at the very least should be expected to return that basic respect when we refuse any religious ceremony for ourselves. When it was your day, I went to your religious wedding/baptism/whatever. This is my day now, and I am not.

No, it is not just a meaningless splash of water. It is an indicator of how much respect your loved ones have for you, and how conditional their love is. If I can explain this all and they see my point, say “fair enough, you’re right, I don’t like it but it’s your decision and not mine” and let me make my decisions without passive-aggressive coercion from them, I would know that my family really does love and respect me and my views–even if they don’t agree. And if I could tell them all of this and they would still try to force the issue, I would have a much better idea of what kind of relationship I really have with my loved ones–one of conditional love and zero respect, wherein my views are seen either as a meaningless phase or something to be eradicated.

I would say absolutely not. If you baptize your child, he or she is going to be considered a member of the Catholic church forever. They don’t let people leave, you know. Even if you jump through the hoops required for excommunication (which I understand is almost never granted), they still consider you a Catholic, just an officially damned one. Considering the horrible corruption and backwards social views of that institution, do you really want to help the church inflate its numbers? If your children want to become Catholics as adults, the church will be only too happy to oblige. There is no need to commit them to the church against their will when they are too young to consent.

Sean wrote “but it will help them to fit in at school” — but how would baptism ever come in a non-Catholic school?

Thought it was just me! This confused the heck out of me, too. How would the other children know whether or not Sean’s kids were baptized? Is baptism something that is commonly talked about among children from religious families? I grew up atheist and never had anyone (ever!) ask me if I had been baptized, so it would seem to be a complete non-issue from my perspective.

Why in the hell would you even consider it? Seems the only reasons are to not piss off Grandma and Grandpa. So for that you’re going to put this shit on your kid? How scared of mommy and daddy are you? You might want to put off having a kid until you can grow a pair. If I may be blunt.

Because raising a child takes a spine and then some. It’s a hard task and you will often have to stand up to the world for your child. If you can’t even do it here, please don’t procreate.

Oh, and as for they won’t remember? No, but they will be subject to all the memorablia of it and Grandma and Grandpa speaking glowingly of it and telling them they belong to Jesus no matter what Mommy and Daddy think. Is that your great plan at family peace?

This ceremony may cost you money.

If it does, you are supporting the Catholic Church’s protection of child torturers.

No. If they are even slightly honest Atheists/Agnostics they should want their child to choose when he/she is old enough to do so- That is whats best for the child and that should be the parents sole consideration.

Be honest with yourself. Are any of the “pros” beyond placating the family really important to you?

Raising a child should be about what’s best for the kid, not what makes grandma and grandpa and the extended family happy.

Ultimately, how you raise your child is up to you and if you start raising your child, this early, according to the whims of the extended family, believe me, it will not stop at this baptism, particularly when it comes to “matters of the spirit.”

If you wish to nip this in the bud and if I was in your situation, I would want that, have a secular ceremony (a naming ceremony was mentioned earlier) but stop short of any religious woo. Otherwise Pandora’s box has been opened. Today it is “why isn’t the baby baptized?” Next it is “why aren’t you taking your child to mass?” “what Catholic school will you be enrolling your kids in?” and “we’re so excited about our grandchildren’s catechisms.”

I would like to think better of your family but not knowing them, I have to point out the possibility that they will use your kids to get you back to church as well.

Of course, this doesn’t stop with just religion. There may be “suggestion” made on other parenting matters as well.

It may be uncomfortable to put your foot down but the sooner you do it, the easier and less painful it will be.

I haven’t baptised my daughter and she seems to carry on being a chipper little girl. Of course I am in the UK where even though most people are still baptised no one commented it was odd in fact they probably put it down to “they couldn’t be arsed to sort it out” rather than “they have moral objections”.

I’ve found it the slightest bit odd that nobody seems to have considered my objection, and all the other arguments I’ve heard seem to be born out of selfish egoism, so I thought I’d restate it in a much simpler fashion.

At baptism, you the parent promise to raise the child in the Christian faith. Atheist parents likely have no intention of doing that. So, you are making an empty promise that you do not intend to keep. It is immoral to make fake promises, end of story. No baptism.

Thankfully I come from a church that doesn’t believe in the ridiculous doctrine of original sin 🙂

@Anna: How did I miss that important part? You baptize your kid and their names are used to inflate their rosters–which are then shown to politicians to gain legislative influence. So yes, it most certainly does affect you! It will artificially enlarge the perceived influence of the Catholic church politically and legally!

And I’ve heard it’s hard to get your name off that stuff–if at all–and even then you have to babysit it and monitor it to prevent them from pulling a fast one. No, it’s not irreversible but it might as well be, since even if you realize you should get your name off you have to fight tooth and nail for it, and there’s no guarantees they won’t just put it back on there once you’re placated. I really really REEEAALLY want to do it, but I don’t have enough time or energy right now for the potential fight and subsequent check-ups. When things settle down again, I’m going to do it for sure. And I know I will never put any of my kids in that position, and especially not just to appease my family. At least my parents had some belief in the ceremony at the time, but for me it would be a complete and utter sham, and I would never do anything to even slightly empower the Catholic church’s agendas.

(And BTW, circumcision is technically “reversible” too, depending on how it’s done–at one point in history, the Orthodox Jews were pissed at Hellenized Jews because they were reversing their circumcisions because they didn’t want to be embarrassed while playing in the games naked or some such concern–it involved stretching or something, so the Orthos ended up making circumcision really complete after that, to prevent reversal of “God’s pact” by leaving nothing to be stretched in the future. Or at least, that’s what I read. I think it was in that Hecht book “Doubt: A History”.)

@Troglodyke: Thanks! I guess I get frustrated with the calls for “respect” that seem to really call for their beliefs–but no one else, especially not atheists–to be a criticism-free zone. Like “You need to respect my religion! Which means I do what I want and you shut up, and you do what I want and you shut up!” I love to call them on their “respect” issue, because they rarely know how to react without sounding like unfair jerks who just want everyone to do things their way!

Though perhaps some of them really don’t realize the implications of their behavior on that note. I think sometimes when I put it that way–the way you just quoted above–it makes them start thinking about things that hadn’t occurred to them before. I think I had more success pointing that fact out than I had with any other argument.

Great discussion. I came to it because I’m in that situation right now; Grandma wants the kid baptized. I was vehemently against it until I realized that my son (almost 7 yrs old) is excited about it. I let him go to church with her occasionally, figuring eventually he would see the farce for what it is, but now I think this is about fitting in. I explained that he must do it for himself only, not just to make Grandma happy. But he’s seven.

I’m letting them go ahead with it (without me of course) because it’s ultimately meaningless. I really don’t want him to be a part of a ritual initiation into a cult, which is how I see it. But I came to the conclusion that as long as nobody’s forcing him, OK. If he wasn’t excited about it I would not allow it.

Is it a cop out so I don’t have to be the “bad guy?” Perhaps. But I’m also afraid that if I actively push him away from religion that will make him more attracted to it.

When a child is baptized the parents and godparents promise to raise their children in the faith. If you don’t believe what the Church believes why would you attend the Mass and pretend to do so? Why would you have your child baptized? Baptism isn’t a magic ceremony where people are imbued with all knowledge and faith. You have to raise children up so that they know that God loves them and that they are part of His family. Baptism does have spiritual benefits for the child and the parents, but if those graces are not nurtured through the child’s upbringing what the child learns is that his parents are intellectually and spiritually dishonest