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
you could be right. you could also be wrong, unless you know the living conditions of these children, you might want to wait and see.
The already "took" them UnluckyL, they don't call it "The People's Republic of Neu Jersey" for nothing.
If I had to guess, I would say they took them because their parents are advocating the nazis and teaching the kids whites supremacy, etc. In which case the state of new jersey will lose.
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.
If that is the reasoning, then I could think of no better reaffirmation of the Parents radical views, that is just plain old stupid.
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.
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.
Exactly, it might even get the children kidnapped by the State. 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.
Preventing child abuse is kidnapping? Oh boy. Here's what I don't get: Why should the state give a rat's arse about what the parents are thinking? They are actively abusing their children, that's all that's of interest to me.
It can political quite easy but maybe the better way of thinking is which side of the political divide you fall on. 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. Nonsense, let me guess, anyone who names their child "Osama" is also abusing their children? Or Muhammed? 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..
Exactly, it is no concern of the State what political views are being taught, that is the parent's concern.
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.
Maybe you ought to ... you know ... know what the heck you're talking about before making statements such as these. I actually find it rather offensive, especially in this specific context.
You are 100% correct Vendigo. However that is still the parent's right to do so and the people that ridicule that child are no better than the parents who gave them that name (its no fault of the child). Irresponsible by the parents definitely but the fact of the matter is in the US you have the right to be a fool and be protected under the law. Once again I am arguing this from the perspective of Constitutional rights more so than anything.
And you may...just may...have to consider that other people have some idea of the Anti Nazi laws in Germany...a child named Adolf Hitler would never make it past the birth certificate stage...it would never happen.. 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.
Because there has been no harm shown, to follow your line of reasoning, the State should now be allowed the power to control the most personal of decisions, namely what to name one's own children. 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.
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.
No offense, man, but condoning child abuse out of an irrational fear of governmental control is the most disturbing vista of them all.
Good question Vendigo. I think that if the name could be proven to have been the reason for these children to be mentally abused or even physically abused by anyone outside of the home, then a tricky situation would occur. Obviously under those circumstances the children would have been put in harms way by the parents naming them as such however it would be someone else causing the abuse and the parents could argue that in court. There has been other cases of ridiculously named children being taken by the local government and this is mostly the media wanting attention for themselves in that regard. Its quite a difficult situation for sure.
As Padre has said no proof of child abuse has yet been proven you are simply projecting that to happen, which it very well could (but maybe not). 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.
Disagree, making the Government the Arbiter of Children's names is not compatible with a Constitutional Governance, what if they then decreed "All children are to be named...Jamie...". Child abuse at the hands of others? That would be assault or bullying, or what have you.
Maybe not? C'mon, man. We're still talking planet Earth here, aren't we? 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.
Yes but neglect can mean not feeding the child which is a direct action from the parents causing harm. Whereas giving a child a name doesn't mean the child is going to be guaranteed abuse where actively not feeding it is. I have no doubt that this is child abuse because the parents knew they were giving this name to a child and that it would be nothing but problems. However I am a person of facts and see actual proof that these children have been abused. If I were the judge I would ask for that proof and were I not shown it the children would be returned because proof is needed. Like I said before I am focusing on Constitutional rights which I feel should be upheld unless proof can be shown that someone has been harmed otherwise even if I do think it is child abuse I still need proof of that otherwise I am making assumptions. To me harm must be done and documented or reasonable suspicion at least.
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.
I am unwilling to grant that naming a child what one will is "abuse", what if they had named the children "Sue"? 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"? Child abuse at the hands of others, without some relationship to the parents, be it baby sitter or what have you, is not Child Abuse, it is assault, no one has the right to strike someone because they don't care for their name...period.
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.
