1. Following are excerpts from the article headlined "Judge reverses decision and allows baby to be named 'Messiah'" at http://www.examiner.com/article/judge-reverses-decision-and-allows-baby-to-be-named-messiah (Begin excerpts) According to the Christian Post on Sept. 19, a Tennessee couple will be allowed to name their 8-month old baby "Messiah" after all. A judge reversed an earlier court order that blocked the name from being used arguing that it was a title reserved solely for Jesus Christ. The new decision allows the mother and father, Jaleesa Martin and Jawaan McCullough, to name their baby boy "Messiah," reversing Child Support Magistrate Lu Ann Ballew's decision in August to name the baby "Martin DeShawn McCullough" instead..... (End excerpts) 2. "Bottom line, parents, not the government, have the right to select a name for their child,".... Baby Messiah: Why Court-Ordered Name Change Sparked Outrage http://news.yahoo.com/baby-messiah-why-court-ordered-name-change-sparked-183411528.html So it seems that parents have the right to select any name for their child including such names as "Cow Dung", "Pig", "Satan" or even "God".
The parents do have the right although I don't know why they would name their kid that. This is simply asking for trouble and everyone knows the kid is going to be teased incessently about his name. These parents are literally willing to expose their child to needless persecution so that they can get their fifteen minutes of fame. Selfish, narcissistic, (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)s and some other words come to mind to describe those parents.
Well said. Like the "The Emperor's New Clothes", a famous tale by Hans Christian Andersen, adults could find all sorts of excuses for their ridiculous actions such as the parents' right to select any name for their child, and equal rights or sexual orientation for same-sex marriage. However, like the innocent child who "blurts out that the Emperor is wearing nothing at all" in the above tale, many children including his schoolmates will have no reasons and mercy not to tease the powerless "Messiah" incessantly about his name. Similarly, the miserable adopted children of gay couples would also be teased and ridiculed incessantly about their parents' gender identity. The Emperor's New Clothes http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Emperor's_New_Clothes
I wonder whether his original name will be kept as "alias" in his identity documents. Name change http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Name_change Meanwhile, I wish to introduce readers to an interesting related topic at http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=323025 in which the poster is worried that her son will "look like Trayvon Martin" even before birth.
Its no big deal, given the way people spell names and pronounce them today, the child's name is actually said as; -Masshed-poTaToes-
African American parents have all sorts of crazy names for their children. I believe there is a thread on this somewhere in the forum.
True, and the motive for doing so is to impart individuality and a uniqueness that is appreciated by their piers within the African American community. But what they really need to do is NOT impart individuality and a uniqueness that is NOT appreciated by the people that give out jobs, review applications, give promotions or lend money. 'Bromiquai Jackson' works well down at the car wash. Not so well at Rocketdyne Technologies Inc'. People need to consider their actions according to reality and not according to what they think things should be. There is a cost and a benefit to our every action and is the dichotomy of the human condition. Some people aren't very good at balancing that cost/benefit ratio. Kinda like the young family man making $9 an hour that buys a set of $3,000 rims for his beat up work truck when his 2 year old daughter lives next door to a sex offender 'half-way' house.
Yep, leave it to reedak and Anders Hoveland to spin what is clearly a 1st Amendment issue into an LGBT/racial issue.
I think maybe the point he was trying to make concerning the 1st Amendment was that it assumed that a man had the right to have a voice as to advance himself, his family and his ideology without being unreasonable encumbered from doing so. As opposed to not advancing himself, his family, his community and making a fool of himself and to engage in self destructive behavior. I suppose that is a big difference between the Left and the right. The Right believes that a man has the right and duty to work and to propel himself according to his several abilities, to go, to do, to work, to live and to prosper The Left believes that man has the right to not work, to become nothing, to do nothing, to believe nothing, to not prosper their neighbors, to not be a benefactor but to have right to engage in every frivolous activity that has no connection to eating, working, family, love or service and debt to family or community.
It is a racial issue. A name that may be inappropriate for a white child may be perfectly normal in the African American community. Having a slightly weird name is not all that unusual if you're Black. Chances are the kid won't be made fun of by his black friends. I've heard much worse names.
So you believe it is the government's job to keep people from making fools of themselves or engaging in self-destructive behavior? - - - Updated - - - I guess blacks are more accepting than whites, of people who are different?
Thank you for your reply, Our government is a tool to protect and maintain an ideology, a mindset and a freedom. An ideology of what? A mindest of what? A freedom of what? The definitions of those things are being fundementaly changed by the process of liberal gradualism. Thus, new interpretations of Constitutional Law are the order of the day. Read the many writings of our founding fathers. There is a persisitant assumption that a man has a duty and his performance of that duty lays bare who he really is as a man. And that mans zealous performance of civic duty shouldnt be encumbered by an oppressive or unreasnable government. Surely they thought, that a man would rise in the morn and to the extent of his several abilities profit himself, his family and by extension his community. THAT IS FREEDOM............................................ They have defined freedom, go read it. They defined duty. They also defined the worthless coward. The lazy and the fool. Does anyone believe that their definition of freedom empowers someone to be worthless, to nothing andf to become nothing? Who is it that died in war for a citizen to have the freedom to burn his flag, spit on his grave, sleep til noon, to have orgies and to engage in all manner of frivolous self destructive behaviors? No one. This is simply a modern bastardization of their truth and their work. My issue isn't with government overzealous oversight. My issue is with peoples lying about what true freedom is and their cavalier dismissal of the work and suffering of those that originally defined what are Freedoms are. Respectfully,
Hate to disappoint you, but it isn't "liberal gradualism" that is causing the change in the definitions of ideology, mindset and freedom, it is the fact that our society itself is changing and always has been. America of 1788 is completely different from America 2013. Our technology is different, the political landscape is different, the world itself is different and here you are giving this very narrow, 18th century version of what you think freedom is. If we only protected the freedoms that we considered worthwhile, then what is to stop, say Obama, from declaring that the Tea Party is not a worthwhile organization thus should be exempt from Freedom of Speech and Assembly? The freedoms guaranteed in the constitution apply to all, even those we don't like, to order to protect all.
Thank you for your reply, We as a nation can change or not change into perpetuity. Yet that doesn't alter the motives, interpretations, rational or definitions of intentions and meanings of the Founding Fathers. Our ability to morph and change like chameleons doesn't alter history. My assertion is that people want to alter history and alter the intentions and assumptions of the Founding Fathers. I simply do not believe that we as a country are zealous in defending and maintaining that history and truth contrary to our own agendas and motives. I do not claim that we are confined to their definitions. We as a country can alter law as to mirror who we are as a people today. We have the right to be nothing, to work at nothing and to not be benefactors practicing Civic Duty. We have the right to demand Civil Rights and freedoms irrespective of its cost and outcome. God bless America! Respectfully,
What we're talking about is not the ability to name your child, it's the ability to name your child in the state's registry. It's possible to just ignore his legal name and always call your kid Adolf if you like. Who cares what the state thinks?
There should be no such right. Such a freedom should limited to the extent it is exercised with the well being of the child considered. The reasoning that the Messiah should not be used because only one person, ie Jesus of bloody Nazareth, can be called that is the most absurd thing I've ever heard. BUT on the grounds that the kid may suffer immense prejudice and bullying whilst growing up, there is a reason for not allowing the name.
That's my same issue. Is it a parent's right to name their child Messiah, ESPN, or even Ass-hat? yep..... should they? that's the million dollar question. the line where govt intervention comes is subjective..... Asshat.... yes.... Messiah.... meh.... Beyond that. EXACTLY what you said.... Bromiquai Jackson on a resume will be overlooked or put into the circular file very quickly compared to a "normal" name. You may or may not agree with that beinga valid reason to overlook candidates... but the fact of the matter is, it does happen. I don't have to agree with it or support it to realize I handicap my child by naming him something off the wall. In fact, I refuse to anme my boy after me (and be the third) because of the difficulty having the same name as my father has already given me (including a homeowners insurance cancelled right before Hurricane Ivan landed because they were applying my payments to my dad's account) I don't agree because I should be able to name my son after me.... but the downsides are very real.
Why do you believe parents have a right to name their kids whatever they want? Where does this right come from?
I believe it's a right, but as with any right, there are responsibilities and restrictions. Voting is a right.... but you have to be xxx age. just like gun ownership is a right, until you get a felony conviction... then you can lose that right since you aren't upholding your civic duty. Noone is allowed to say I can't name my child Javis Beason III. However, if I chose to name him Ass-hat von Beyotch Beason..... I wonder if I would be allowed? Probably not. So the debate seems to revolve around where is the line as to what's acceptable for a name? ESPN? Messiah? Ass-hat? now beyond that aspect, I would never dream of thinking the court had the right to stop a mother from naming her child "de-shaun" or "Laquinta" But understand, nameing a child those names still has real economic costs for that child as they grow up. Shaun Jackson will get more call backs for interviews than Deshaun Jackson will. I'm not saying it's right... but I'm saying it happens. Osama bin Hitler applies for a job that he is perfectly qualified for, and Steven Jones does too.... who do you think gets the callback? Try to get a reservation with the name "George Zimmerman".... it's not right that George Zimmerman that isn't the same Zimmerman as the trial, got harrassed by people because they thought it was the same guy, but it happens, right or wrong. Now, why would you knowingly burden your kid with one extra thing that can limit them in life.
But why do you believe it is a right, ie an entitlement? I dont see why it is entitlement of parents to do that to children where the harm is readily apparent. I see no reason why parents should have the right to harm their children in that way. Your analogies above are inadequate in this way, because it is an exercise of right over someone else's identity.
are you looking for a specific part in the Constitution? I couldn't tell you. But do you really think the govt can come in and say "no, your kid doesn't really FEEEL like a John to me.... so from here on, his legal name is Steven"
I simply agree that there must be a line somewhere when a govt or judge can come in and say "no... you can not name your kid "Spatula" http://www.stupidkidnames.com/ I taught a kid called "wormy" but that wasn't his legal name.
