- Joined
- Feb 19, 2012
- Messages
- 29,957
- Reaction score
- 14,683
- Location
- Netherlands
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Moderate
Well, no disrespect to the Dutch, but this is the United States of America where you can name your kid whatever the hell you want to name it... There is absolutely nothing wrong with the name that they chose for this child...
Maybe, but if he was Latino his name might be 'Jesus'. Do we want a judge to say it can't be?
Come on. You don't really mean that do you? Or are you just trying to pull our peter, Peter?
Quite right, the government should have the duty and the right to protect it from parents who do not have the decency to give the child a name that does not make it bullied and ridiculed.
Messiah is not an suitable name for a child.
Even if you think that, her reason for doing it is offensive. She made it a religious issue.
When a Judge shows this kind of idiocy, the victim should be able to ask for an immediate removal of the Judge from office.
In the Netherlands people have to register their name at the local authority/city administration and the civil servant who is in charge of that registration can refuse to accept that name and the parent who does not agree with the decision of the civil servant can appeal that decision in front of the judge who can agree with either the city or the parents.
A lot of times the name will be allowed but for example a Dutch motivational speaker who is famous for his loud screaming of TSJAKKA wanted to call his daughter Tsjakkalotte and that was refused by the judge. Also the name Marieke Methadon was refused. Insulting combinations are sometimes also refused. A combination that would spell N.A.Z.I. can be refused. For example, if you call your child Nicholas Anthony Zacharias Isaac Johnson, spelled in short N.A.Z.I. Johnson than that would be refused by the civil servant and the judge.
I do not live "where we ware mere subjects", I live "where we are free people living in a respectful society governed by laws" just like the US is governed by laws and the constitution.
UN convention on the rights of the child. The US may not have ratified it but has signed it.
This judge decided to take the child's best interest as her guideline. As said, another judge might change that decision but until then I do not see how this harms this child if it is called Martin for a short time in his life. There are worse things that can happen.
It's very similar in Germany. But I still think this judge was wrong according to American law, and because she made it a matter of defending her religious beliefs.
In America, some Neo Nazi guy named his son Adolf Hitler.
No, not at all----she did it on religious grounds and not the child,s best interest....
In Germany and the Netherlands that would have been forbidden, not because we do not love freedom but because we respect the memory of the more than 100,000 Dutch Jews that were massacred by that madman.
Hi Risky. Haven't seen you in a while. I have always liked your avatar.
Well I'm not a christian, but as he was a Jew, I would think that it mattered quite a lot on what they called him...
I think she should be removed
"Holy Jesus! Earl, C.D., Jimbob, y'all got to come in here and look what's in the bathroom. Somebody done put in a Muslim foot bath! God a'mighty, them Muslims has gone too far. Next thing you know they'll be trying to marry our wimmens, 3 or 4 at a time. A friend of mine who went to Eye-rack for 8 months told me that them Muslim wimmen don't wear nothing under their dresses. They're stark nekkid under there. We can't let that happen to our wives and daughters and mothers. We may be too late. We already got a god dang Muslim foot bath in the legislative restroom! See, what happened 'cause we didn't pass that Sharia law ban?"
I think she should be removed as well. But, don't hold your breath. It's rather ironic that Tennessee debated long and hard to pass a bill banning Sharia law in Tennessee. Earlier this year the Tennessee legislature went berserk when they discovered a low level porcelain sink in one of the state senate bathrooms.
"Holy Jesus! Earl, C.D., Jimbob, y'all got to come in here and look what's in the bathroom. Somebody done put in a Muslim foot bath! God a'mighty, them Muslims has gone too far. Next thing you know they'll be trying to marry our wimmens, 3 or 4 at a time. A friend of mine who went to Eye-rack for 8 months told me that them Muslim wimmen don't wear nothing under their dresses. They're stark nekkid under there. We can't let that happen to our wives and daughters and mothers. We may be too late. We already got a god dang Muslim foot bath in the legislative restroom! See, what happened 'cause we didn't pass that Sharia law ban?"
Well, it probably went something like that. It is true that they went crazy. The Tennessee legislature became unglued. They were outraged that there was a Muslim foot bath. Only when they calmed the hell down did someone finally officially inform them that it was for filling mop buckets and emptying dirty mop bucket water.
These idiots, the people who run the State of Tennessee are scared to death of Sharia law (and mop bucket sinks). But I'll bet you they won't move a finger to censure or even comment on the judge who has attempted to establish Christian law in the name of Tennessee.
Yes, I get the point.
1. I like it that a judge had the guts to refuse a name that would assure bullying and ridicule for a child
2. I do not like the reasoning the judge used. She should have kept her religious feelings out of the court room
3. If they had not brought this case in front of the courts, the judge would not have had the opportunity to change the name
4. no matter how I feel about it now, the only recourse for the family is to appeal the verdict of this judge
5. the judge cannot be sued for her decision
I gather you're getting this from Volokh? It's not clear that the judge is making a "theological judgment" as per United States vs. Ballard. To me, she seems to be arguing that because the perception exists in the community, the name could cause unnecessary harm to the child. I don't know that I agree in this instance, but can certainly see how that reasoning might apply in other situations.Pardon the brevity but I'm getting off a train right now.
The government may not use religious tenants in adjudicating people's rights. See United States v Ballard.
,Yes, I get the point.
1. I like it that a judge had the guts to refuse a name that would assure bullying and ridicule for a child
2. I do not like the reasoning the judge used. She should have kept her religious feelings out of the court room
3. If they had not brought this case in front of the courts, the judge would not have had the opportunity to change the name
4. no matter how I feel about it now, the only recourse for the family is to appeal the verdict of this judge
5. the judge cannot be sued for her decision
I gather you're getting this from Volokh? It's not clear that the judge is making a "theological judgment" as per United States vs. Ballard. To me, she seems to be arguing that because the perception exists in the community, the name could cause unnecessary harm to the child. I don't know that I agree in this instance, but can certainly see how that reasoning might apply in other situations.
If she is in fact making two separate arguments, as Volokh suggests, I don't know why the religious question is even relevant because she would be acting outside her authority to interpret and apply the law. Whether or not she interpreted the law appropriately is not relevant when you're not interpreting a law to begin with.
,
Any and every name can invite ridicule on a child. Every single one. I pointed out a few already that are very common names. Here are some more. "Carey me home", "Ben there, done that", "Name's Ben, Is your last name "Dover"?", "Martin the Martian". Children will tease children about anything. Using potential teasing as justification is simply wrong. Plus, you can't even prove that the a boy with the name Messiah is more likely to be teased than any other children for their names.
I know people with last names like Dick and Kunt. I have never heard of judges forcing families to change.last names out of concern they will teased lol.
I know people with last names like Dick and Kunt. I have never heard of judges forcing families to change.last names out of concern they will teased lol.
I've known several people in the military with the last name "Cox". Plus, in the Navy, certain ratings are called "Seamen" as E-3s, including one of the ratings I went to nuke school with. We had Seaman Sampler, Seaman Tester, and Seaman Guzzler in the school just while I went through (they usually end up being girls that have these names). (One of the girls actually did request a new rate so she could be a Fireman rather than a Seaman due to the ridicule.)
But there absolutely are worse first names and particularly last names that a child could have. A judge has no place changing their name to something else (particularly their first name) just because they disapprove of the name. They absolutely need much more than simple disapproval or personal belief. What if some judge simply hates the names "John" or "Samantha", perhaps someone they knew with that name hurt them. Should that judge be allowed to arbitrarily change a child's name because of that? How about some judge in Topeka changing all children named "Fred" to something else due to Fred Phelps and how much bad publicity he and his organization has caused the area?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?