HOLLAND TOWNSHIP, N.J. - Three New Jersey siblings whose names have Nazi connotations have been placed in the custody of the state, police said Wednesday.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28655143/?GT1=43001
Page 1 of 2
-
-
:pity: so much for freedom.
-
-
I wonder why :glare:
-
-
calphin likes this.
-
you're right tho :yes: -
-
Wow...if they took the kids due to the names, that's pretty ****ed up.
The state will never be able to keep them then.calphin likes this. -
-
They should've taken the kids a lot earlier. A child's well-being absolutely trumps the parents' right to behave like idiots and being named Adolf Hitler is a guarantee for one nightmare of a childhood.
dolfan32323 and calphin like this. -
hatzinburger
That is German for yikes. Not really -
This thread could get political real quick and get moved but before that I will say that if the kids were taken for Nazi names then the state will probably lose any cases. I am not an advocate of Nazi's or any other discriminating group waving their flags calling their hatred pride or lineage but in this country there is the freedom of assembly plus general freedom rights and that has to be respected. That being said if the parents crossed the line in anyway influencing their children to harm anyone else then yes the kids should be taken. If these people have Nazi ideology but mean no harm to others then their right as US citizens must be respected even if I personally don't agree with it.
finsgirlie likes this. -
Here is what I don't "get" about all of this, the parents, though clearly room temp IQ's, have been telling the children all manner of things, particularly that the State "hates" them, so the State obliges them in re-enforcing the idea. -
However if the children were never harmed and were not taught to harm others in my eyes its the same as people here in the South teaching their kids to wave the Confederate flag and discriminate against people (although I know that is not always the case). Do I think that being in a Nazi home or any white supremacist home is child abuse? Yes I do because teaching anyone to hate any other group is wrong in my opinion and the more people raised in such a way is a shame, so taking them would be of service. However according to the Constitution these people are guaranteed their rights and to me that must be respected unless these people were plotting harm on someone else. Plus we don't even know to what extent Nazism was being taught. -
Yep.
In America, unlike Germany, Parents are free to raise their children in a manner they deem fit, as long as the child is educated, fed, and has a supportive home, the State has -0- business interjecting themselves into how the parents go about doing so.
That even means homeschooling Vendigo...eww...scary homeschoolers..:lol: -
-
They are harmed. A kid named Adolf Hitler will suffer through years of verbal and probably physical torture. And a parent who knowingly subjects his kids to this abuse because it just so happens to be his ideology is, in fact, abusing them.tylerdolphin, Frumundah Finnatic, Clark Kent and 2 others like this. -
-
And Germany did ban Homeschooling as well...based on Nazi era educational laws...
www.brusselsjournal.com/node/1389
The State has -0- business in monitoring the private views of parents, nor interjecting themselves into a family based on the most superficial of reasons. -
And don't think I'm cheerleading for such stupidity, IMO such a name is a horrible thing to do to a child, but the vista of the State interjecting themselves into such a private matter is an even more disturbing vista.sking29 likes this. -
Which are completely and utterly irrelevant to this discussion. A child named Josef Stalin or Sociopathic Mass-Murderer or Biggest A-Hole on the Planet wouldn't make it through the birth-certificate stage either ... and not because it is illegal to be an a-hole in Germany but because it's child abuse.sking29 likes this. -
Vendigo likes this.
-
By the way I find it interesting Padre and I agree on this as I know that me and him probably have way different ways of the government being ran. -
Note, however, that the very definition of child neglect as the most frequent form of child abuse consists of "endangering a child's physical and psychological well-being". Putting them in harm's way is child abuse. There is no actual harm needed to classify as such. -
Child abuse at the hands of others? That would be assault or bullying, or what have you.Vendigo likes this. -
Maybe not? C'mon, man. We're still talking planet Earth here, aren't we? :wink2:
Like I said ... I don't see this as an ideological issue at all. The fundamental question is: Does the state have the right to prevent child abuse? And the obvious answer (at least to me) is: Not only does the state have the right; the state has the obligation. -
-
-
See? That's exactly what I was referring to ... you are willing to let these kids suffer through years of abuse (and we both know very well that they will be abused) because you foster the irrational fear of the government turning into some sort of Nazi wannabe as soon as you allow it to prevent parents from calling their child Adolf Hitler.
That's a very one-dimensional point of view, mate. Maybe I'm somewhat biased in this discussion because I used to work with abused kids back in the days but once you've talked to a boy contemplating suicide because his braindead parents gave him a silly name (not translateable) and he had been picked on for years you kinda develop a zero-tolerance policy on parents subjecting their children to such torture. -
Or Osama, or Che, or Dzerzhinsky?
at what point is the line drawn, and who draws it when one names their own children? Does the Registrar now have the power to deny naming a child "Christopher"?
-
But see ... you don't need a guarantee. Knowingly subjecting your children to harm is more than enough ... there doesn't have to be an actual harm. Let's say a father offered his underage daughter to a pedophile for money. Do you need to wait until the pedophile actually raped her unless you can charge the father with child abuse? Of course not. -
Why would he want to do that? You're still being irrational.
Yes. And no one has the right to knowingly put their kids into a situation where such abuse is inevitable. That's a classic definition of child abuse. Everyone working with abused children will tell you the same.Colorado Dolfan likes this.
Page 1 of 2