Saw this on Cakewrecks and am speechless

[beansprouts]

I see no point in having any beliefs, much less teaching them to our children, if we're only going to hold to those beliefs when it's physically and or emotionally safe to do so. If one believes something to be true, how safe or publicly accepted it is should have nothing to do with raising our children to believe and live it.

 

I completely agree. In addition, by choosing to uphold these beliefs, I am choosing for others in society to potentially not like them.

[fshinkevich]

We'll have to disagree then.

 

The emotional abuse you speak of in this particuliar situation, and according to your own opinion, is not even comming from the parents. It's PUBLIC! Everywhere he goes he might be treated that way, but it won't be by his parents - it's by people such as yourself. Yet, you would take him away from those parents and give him into that same public care.

 

Where in the world is the logic in that?:confused::001_huh:

 

Aside from that obvious fact...

 

I see no point in having any beliefs, much less teaching them to our children, if we're only going to hold to those beliefs when it's physically and or emotionally safe to do so. If one believes something to be true, how safe or publicly accepted it is should have nothing to do with raising our children to believe and live it.

 

I won't argue it further, but I take offense to your comment "people such as yourself". I would never treat a child poorly no matter how much I disagreed with how they were being raised, and I don't see anywhere I said otherwise.

 

Clearly two wrongs don't make a right, but unfortunately that's the way it is and I think these children are being put in danger and I hope their parents are able to keep them safe.

[Pamela H in Texas]

but how many people actually give the FULL names of someone or something they idolize?

 

I think it's pretty common with children's names. In my hubby's family tree, almost every family in a certain line had a George Washington. A person would have 6 cousins, an uncle, a child, and 4 grandchildren with that name. Just for an example.

 

It does seem a little less common nowadays, but historically, it's pretty normal, I think. Lots of people know Benjamin Franklins, Thomas Jeffersons, George Washintons, etc.

[Daisy]

Since we are upteen dozen pages in probably no one will read this. LOL. I'll keep it short.

 

1. I think the parents should have the right to name their child whatever they want.

 

2. The privately-owned business should have the right to refuse service to a customer.

 

I think this article is a non-issue. It is one more example of people who just want to make a buck and land a Dr. Phil gig. If the article had said that the parents should have their children taken away or had stated that the business should be forced to make birthday cakes for every single person who comes through their door, I would be ticked off.

[beansprouts]

Since we are upteen dozen pages in probably no one will read this. LOL. I'll keep it short.

 

1. I think the parents should have the right to name their child whatever they want.

 

2. The privately-owned business should have the right to refuse service to a customer.

 

I think this article is a non-issue. It is one more example of people who just want to make a buck and land a Dr. Phil gig. If the article had said that the parents should have their children taken away or had stated that the business should be forced to make birthday cakes for every single person who comes through their door, I would be ticked off.

 

I read it and I agree! :001_smile:

[CAMom]

I have never seen a foreign name that would meet this criteria.

 

 

 

I had an amusement park refuse to embroider my last name on a hat when I was in jr. high because they said it was "vulgar." It was embarassing and painful.

[hornblower]

I have never seen a foreign name that would meet this criteria.

 

 

Ah well. Just do a bit of work with refugees, esp. Vietnamese boat people.

 

Bich is a very common girl's name. And it's pronounced just as it looks.

 

Then there was the young girl from Hong Kong, whose parents gave her an English name in addition to her Chinese name. I suspect they were thinking of Kitty, but they put down P***y. Try calling that in the waiting room at the immigration office. I agonized for the entire appointment about whether to tell the poor girl or not......

[Zelda]

Ah well. Just do a bit of work with refugees, esp. Vietnamese boat people.

 

Bich is a very common girl's name. And it's pronounced just as it looks.

 

Then there was the young girl from Hong Kong, whose parents gave her an English name in addition to her Chinese name. I suspect they were thinking of Kitty, but they put down P***y. Try calling that in the waiting room at the immigration office. I agonized for the entire appointment about whether to tell the poor girl or not......

 

Ack. I guess some people might say Bich like that but I mostly hear it as "Bit". No less problematic in an English speaking country.

[hornblower]

2. The privately-owned business should have the right to refuse service to a customer.

 

 

I'll be contrary. I actually think this is problematic.

 

Should we refuse our professional services to everyone whom we personally disagree with?

 

What about other races and castes whom we might not like to associate with? Back to apartheid anyone?

 

What about the school where this child goes - does the teacher get to refuse to call the child by his name? Can she refuse to call Rashid by his name too? Or is the state & state employees obligated to provide services?

 

It is a very interesting conundrum.

 

I think in Canada, we'd have an out because we could ask to consult with B'nai Brith and determine whether making this cake would constitue a hate crime - in which case the baker could rightly refuse to make it. Even if it was not determined to be a hate crime, it would take long enough that the birthday would be over ....

 

I also actually am not sure that in Canada you could name a child those names.

 

And just so you don't get the wrong idea - my grandfather died in a concentration camp. I have visited concentration camps. I mark Yom Hashoah. I get it.

 

But I'm not entirely comfortable with businesses just refusing service to people for reasons like this. I don't know. It's too easy to abuse, too easy to discriminate against blacks, immigrants, Jews, Muslims - sorry, we just don't want your business....

[lionfamily1999]

I had an amusement park refuse to embroider my last name on a hat when I was in jr. high because they said it was "vulgar." It was embarassing and painful.

Ok. See and this is where the issue of should they be allowed to discriminate if it is someone's name. I just imagine these poor kids attempting to be normal at some point in their lives and being shucked aside.

 

On a lighter note, the local trailer dealer (that's trailer park trailer ;) ), is named Richard Hogg. His personalized plates say, "RichHog." He prefers to go by Dick, but the DMV asked him to reconsider. His business cards all say, "Dick Hogg, I can get you in a new mobile home today!" Yeah, good old Dick Hogg. His parents should've been stopped.

[Daisy]

Never mind. I'm not articulating this well. Need to think more, then talk. LOL.

Edited December 17, 2008 by Daisy

[Zelda]

 

But I'm not entirely comfortable with businesses just refusing service to people for reasons like this. I don't know. It's too easy to abuse, too easy to discriminate against blacks, immigrants, Jews, Muslims - sorry, we just don't want your business....

 

And then people would have the right to refuse to shop there.

 

ETA: Realizing that this is overly simplistic.

 

There is a difference between discriminating against something that is an immutable characteristic and something that is a chosen value. One is objective and the law can be clear. The other is not.

Edited December 17, 2008 by Zelda

[Audrey]

We'll they're certainly making a statement with those names, but no less of a statement than people who purposefully choose biblical names for their kids. The perception may be different, but the desire to associate with a specific worldview is the same.

 

I feel sorry for the kid, and kind of sorry for the parents.

 

I feel sorry for the kid because I have a teeny inkling of how he'll feel growing up. My first and middle names make an unfortunate moniker. Adolph Hitler would have been a fine name, if not for one massive jerk. My names were perfectly fine, until one crappy movie.

 

I remember my mom being ticked off because she couldn't get the bakery to write my names on my cake one year. They thought she was trying to pull a lousy joke on them. They only wrote my first name, which was fine I suppose. I didn't much care at the time. I just wanted the cake.

 

I feel kind of sorry for the parents because it must be awfully taxing having to share one obviously defective brain cell between the two of them.

Edited December 17, 2008 by Audrey

[beansprouts]

But I'm not entirely comfortable with businesses just refusing service to people for reasons like this. I don't know. It's too easy to abuse, too easy to discriminate against blacks, immigrants, Jews, Muslims - sorry, we just don't want your business....

 

Perhaps, but the nice thing about a capitalist economy is they would only take this so far before people would say enough is enough, and the business owners would find themselves with an empty store.

[beansprouts]

I feel kind of sorry for the parents because it must be awfully taxing having to share one obviously defective brain cell between the two of them.

 

:lol:

 

...and of course now I am dying to know what your name is... :bigear:

[Audrey]

:lol:

 

...and of course now I am dying to know what your name is... :bigear:

 

 

Well think about it beans... how many movies do you know with Audrey in it?

[cillakat]

They also refused to sell the family a cake with a space so the family could write the name themselves.

 

I believe that's incorrect. The story stated that Shoprite offered to sell them a cake with a space so that they could do the name themselves.

 

 

The family should have gone to a different store and purchased a generic cake with space to write the name themselves. Of bake the cake at home- they evidently have time on their hands. ;)

 

Seriously:) But clearly this wasn't about time or blank cakes. This was about attention and publicity.

 

Clearly they are *crazy* people with a mental age similar to that of their toddlers.

 

:001_huh:

Katherine

[PineFarmMom]

The thing about this child's name is that it is forcing something on society. The parents are using other people's sense of obligation toward a child to force an openness to the name & a blind eye toward the actions the name has come to represent.

 

And then we start to question our pov. We realize that someone else might be equally offended by names like Elijah or Peter. We realize that *we* don't want to be discriminated against for whatever our beliefs are & that we want to maintain our own rights to raise our dc in the way that we think are best, & so we hesitate to call the choice this set of parents has made "wrong."

 

We waffle w/ statements like, "It's not what *I* would have chosen, but..." I've been reading this thread all morning, grappling w/ the same thing, making the same remarks to my sleeping dh, lol.

 

But what it comes down to, imo, is this: we are afraid to call *anything* right or wrong any more. Choices are only right or wrong to individuals, not in & of themselves. There's something deep w/in us that WANTS to call this choice--naming children after a mass murderer--WRONG, but...to call this choice wrong & another choice right is to draw moral lines, & we've been taught that we can't do that. It's offensive & unfair.

 

But let's remember what Adolf Hitler did. He murdered thousands of people. He took children from their mothers. He forced people to strip naked in front of each other, experimented on them, tortured them, & quite nearly wiped out an entire race.

quote]

 

 

:iagree: And I'm just going to be bold here. They are wrong for naming their child after a hate-filled mass murderer, whether it is pc to say it or not. There is no use pretending.

[OnTheBrink]

Audrey, when I hear/see your name, I automatically think Hepburn and I LOVE Audrey Hepburn. I had to think a few minutes before remembering the stupid movie. Hopefully, people think Hepburn before they remember the stupid movie. :)

 

As for the kid and his cake. Walmart made the cake for him. He didn't go without a birthday cake.

 

Little 'Adolf Hitler' Denied Birthday Cake at New Jersey Grocery Store

Wednesday, December 17, 2008

 

 

 

ADVERTISEMENT

EASTON, Pa. —

 

The father of 3-year-old Adolf Hitler Campbell, denied a birthday cake with the child's full name on it by one New Jersey supermarket, is asking for a little tolerance.

 

Heath Campbell and his wife, Deborah, are upset not only with the decision made by the nearby ShopRite, but also with an outpouring of angry Internet postings in response to a local newspaper article about the cake.

 

Heath Campbell, who is 35, said in an interview Tuesday that people should look forward, not back, and accept change.

 

"They need to accept a name. A name's a name. The kid isn't going to grow up and do what [Hitler] did," he said.

 

After ShopRite refused the request for the cake as inappropriate, the Campbells got a cake decorated at a Wal-Mart in Pennsylvania, Deborah Campbell said.

 

About 12 people attended the birthday party on Sunday, according to Heath Campbell.

 

The Campbells' other two children also have unusual names: JoyceLynn Aryan Nation Campbell turns 2 in a few months and Honszlynn Hinler Jeannie Campbell will be 1 in April.

 

Heath Campbell said he named his son after Adolf Hitler because he liked the name and because "no one else in the world would have that name."

 

Campbell said his ancestors are German and that he has lived all his life in Hunterdon County, New Jersey, which is across the Delaware River from Easton.

[beansprouts]

Audrey, when I hear/see your name, I automatically think Hepburn and I LOVE Audrey Hepburn. I had to think a few minutes before remembering the stupid movie. Hopefully, people think Hepburn before they remember the stupid movie. :)

 

 

I was thinking "Hepburn" also. It is a great name :001_smile:

 

Au⋅drey   

–noun a female given name: from Old English words meaning “noble†and “strength.â€

Edited December 17, 2008 by beansprouts

[Mama Lynx]

:cursing:

TAKE THOSE KIDS AWAY!!!!!!

 

ARGH!!!

 

I edited this to clarify, I looked at the pictures on the link. I am horrified that these three children are being raised in a house like this. UGH! It's horrible!

 

No deal. I disagree vehemently with these people, and think it's sad that they are using children as political pawns in this manner; however, we do not remove children from their parents because we don't like their parents' beliefs.

 

I think, from what I've seen, that these parents are stupid, despicable idiots. OF COURSE they know what the fuss is about with the cake. But this is America. They are free to name their children what they wish. They are free to have the political views that they do. They are free to request a cake for their child. The store is free to refuse to honor it, unless they have some policy that states that they are bound to do so by their own anti-discrimination rules.

[fshinkevich]

I know I said I would stop arguing this, but I lied.

 

I don't think they have a right to LIVE their beliefs, at least not with their children involved. We are not simply talking about the choice to worship their God anyway they see fit, or to not worship one at all. To compare this families beliefs to religion is absurd. Surrounded by Nazi paraphernalia and given offensive names to live up to, those children are being raised in a house of hate. A more realistic comparison would be the children who are being raised and trained with the sole intent to commit terrorist acts in the name of Allah.

 

That environment is as toxic to those children as if they were exposed to spousal abuse, or drug use.

 

I don't believe I own my children. I am just here to gently guide their decisions in what I hope is a safe path into adulthood. It is my obligation to make decisions in the best interest of them, not myself. It is not my RIGHT to name my children, it is my privilege. And When choosing names for my children, of course I picked names I loved, but I also tried to take things into consideration, like possible nicknames, if they might be embarrassed by it, if could possibly be mistaken for an adult film star, do the initials spell out something obscene.

 

Now of course I'm aware that not everyone will like my name choices (maybe not even my kids!) and of course I know that most people will be teased at some point in their life, if not for their name than for something else. But we are not talking about a name someone might think is a little different or silly. We are not even talking about a name someone might find a "little" offensive to their personal beliefs. We are talking about names like Adolph Hitler. A man who peeled the skin from men, woman, and children - just to see what would happen - on his quest to wipe them from the planet. Simply because he didn't like how they looked.

 

A previous poster brought up an interesting point - with my full knowledge of English language slang, would it be well within my rights to name my child b*tch, wh*re, k*ller, r*apist, or any slew of racial slurs? to knowingly subject my child to the taunting that would be sure to follow?

 

Should a teacher have to call b*tch into the classroom? No, I don't believe so. A teacher has an obligation to all children in the room and should not have to use a word that would not be tolerated under normal circumstances.

 

Nor should a baker have to scrawl it across a cake and risk offending their other customers.

 

I can imagine it being a distraction, hurtful to some, and maybe even a little scary for kids and their parents to be in the same classroom as an Adolph Hitler. Maybe little Adolph Hitlers lab partner had a relative that died in a concentration camp.

 

At what point do Adolphs rights come before the saftey and emotional well being of those around him?

 

At what point do his parents "rights" come before the welfare of their child?

 

These parents do not have their childrens best interests at heart. They are happily sending them down a path to their adulthood that is filled with hurt, anger, hate, shame, and ridicule. These parents are not giving people around them the consideration they are demanding for themselves. These parents are not quietly observing their beliefs the way the majority of us do - they are jamming them down the throats of everyone, including their kids. And in their haste to win the "Ignoramus Lifetime Achievement Award" they failed to notice that with their dark brown eyes and mullets they likely wouldn't be welcome in Hitlers "aryan nation".

[beansprouts]

You ask a lot of good questions. I do understand your point of view, and I completely agree that these children are being raised in a toxic and abusive environment. My heart hurts for them. I simply do not see how we can change the situation without risking the same judgement upon ourselves, from a government drunk with power who operates according to rules and not human sensibilities..

 

Who is to say that at some point the cross which is so dear to so many of us will not become a "symbol of hate" in the eyes of a corrupt system?? Already parts of the Bible are considered to be "Hate speech" by some...

Edited December 17, 2008 by beansprouts

[Zelda]

 

I don't think they have a right to LIVE their beliefs,

 

It is not my RIGHT to name my children,

 

Should a teacher have to call b*tch into the classroom? No, I don't believe so. A teacher has an obligation to all children in the room and should not have to use a word that would not be tolerated under normal circumstances.

 

Nor should a baker have to scrawl it across a cake and risk offending their other customers.

 

At what point do Adolphs rights come before the saftey and emotional well being of those around him?

 

At what point do his parents "rights" come before the welfare of their child?

 

 

I do not agree with your categorizations of rights v. privileges.

 

The curse word name is an interesting dilemma. I don't think its at all on par with what we're talking about. I wonder if everyone would be all bent out of shape if the kid's name was Joseph Stalin or Benito Mussolini or Pol Pot or Idi Amin Dada? I doubt it. I actually remember a hilarious bit on a "Friends" episode built around the name Joseph Stalin and one on "Cheers" built around the name Mussolini. No one stormed the sets. No one freaked out about the kid named after Himmler and he was no sweetheart. It feels like we've been programmed, somehow, to go into hysterics whenever we hear the name Hitler. I imagine that sort of reaction has been good for business in the Aryan world.

 

The baker did not have to write it.

 

The Adolph is question is a barely three-year old child. He has the same rights as everyone else and has violated no laws.

 

It has not been shown that the child has been harmed by belonging to a family that is part of a fringe culture any more than any other child who belongs to a fringe culture (like home schooling) has.

[tricia]

Horrifically speechless. To say the least.

[jplain]

Who is to say that at some point the cross which is so dear to so many of us will not become a "symbol of hate" in the eyes of a corrupt system?? Already parts of the Bible are considered to be "Hate speech" by some...

Yes, the specter of a slippery slope is real. But it shouldn't make us afraid to draw a line and say that this is wrong.

 

I don't think the kids should be taken away. However, I do think DCF should keep an eye on these parents, because I do believe they must be ill to have imposed those names on their children. According to the news reports, DCF seems to have taken an interest in them already....

[Murphy101]

I don't think they have a right to LIVE their beliefs, at least not with their children involved.

 

well points for blunt honesty

 

A more realistic comparison would be the children who are being raised and trained with the sole intent to commit terrorist acts in the name of Allah.

 

That environment is as toxic to those children as if they were exposed to spousal abuse, or drug use.

 

ah. but we don't take away those children either. Not unless the spouse is also hitting the child or their drug use is harming the child or they are giving their child a knife and saying to go cut someone.

 

I don't believe I own my children.

It is not my RIGHT to name my children, it is my privilege.

 

I don't own my children either.

If I did, I'd buy a model that doesn't have free will kick in until 21 yrs of age and make my life a heck of a lot easier around here.

It is however my RIGHT to name my children.

At the least, it sure isn't anyone else's right to do it for me if they disagree.

 

A previous poster brought up an interesting point - with my full knowledge of English language slang, would it be well within my rights to name my child b*tch, wh*re, k*ller, r*apist, or any slew of racial slurs? to knowingly subject my child to the taunting that would be sure to follow?

 

difference is, those aren't names and adolf is.

and as other poster's noted, names can sound bad all the time and we have to get over it.

 

quote]A teacher has an obligation to all children in the room and should not have to use a word that would not be tolerated under normal circumstances.

 

that might be true. if adolf hitler were banned words, but they are not.

 

Nor should a baker have to scrawl it across a cake and risk offending their other customers.

 

I don't beleive anyone said the baker had to do it.

 

I can imagine it being a distraction, hurtful to some, and maybe even a little scary for kids and their parents to be in the same classroom as an Adolph Hitler. Maybe little Adolph Hitlers lab partner had a relative that died in a concentration camp.

 

maybe. so what? are they scared of the name or the history? b/c frankly his name coudl be joseph and he could be far more a reason to be scared of than with a name like Adolph Hitler.

 

At what point do Adolphs rights come before the saftey and emotional well being of those around him?

 

If anyone's emotional well-being is hurt by someone else's name, then they have a personal problem they need to get over. The only safety or emotional well-being I can imagine being in question is that of the kid with the name. And any damage he experiences will not come from his parents - but from those other people you are so concerned about.

 

At what point do his parents "rights" come before the welfare of their child?

 

That's not the real question.

The real question is when does the state get to take over the right of the parent.

 

These parents are not quietly observing their beliefs the way the majority of us do

 

really? so the litmus is how quietly we live our beliefs? anything too obvious, loud, different... that isn't to be tolorated? It's considered abusive and a danger to children to the point that they shoudl loose their children?

 

Again, I see no logic in the state having those children.

 

Why is the state always the answer? It's not like it's ever solved a social problem before, much less a parenting problem.

[beansprouts]

Yes, the specter of a slippery slope is real. But it shouldn't make us afraid to draw a line and say that this is wrong.

 

 

It is worse than wrong it is pure evil.

 

I am only saying that I have serious doubts about our government's ability to discern good from evil.

[LisaNY]

I know I said I would stop arguing this, but I lied.

 

I don't think they have a right to LIVE their beliefs, at least not with their children involved. We are not simply talking about the choice to worship their God anyway they see fit, or to not worship one at all. To compare this families beliefs to religion is absurd. Surrounded by Nazi paraphernalia and given offensive names to live up to, those children are being raised in a house of hate. A more realistic comparison would be the children who are being raised and trained with the sole intent to commit terrorist acts in the name of Allah.

 

That environment is as toxic to those children as if they were exposed to spousal abuse, or drug use.

 

 

 

Even though I think these people are despicable reprobates for making a willful choice to raise children in this environment, I have to disagree with you that they don't have the right to live their beliefs.

 

We start down that slippery slope when the rights of the parents to raise their children as they see fit are usurped by society's ideas of what is acceptable and what is not. (Of course, barring outright physical abuse/neglect.)

[Murphy101]

agreed.

 

no one is saying that couple is right

 

I think we're all in agreement that naming a kid like that is just wrong, no doubt about that at all.

 

but it's not illegal or grounds for removing a child from their parents.

[coffeefreak]

quote]A teacher has an obligation to all children in the room and should not have to use a word that would not be tolerated under normal circumstances.

 

that might be true. if adolf hitler were banned words, but they are not.

 

 

 

I agree Martha, and I'll take it one step further. My sister is a public school teacher. She works in an - - OH MY GOSH! THE VIEW IS TALKING ABOUT THIS!!! Yes, I'm on break and watching The View. I don't have cable.;)

 

OK, back to my post. So, my sister works in an impoverished area and has had to call out names that are phonetically spelled bad words. She and the other teachers know about the kids in advance because they are warned by the previous teachers. By the time they get to her though (she teaches middle school and high school), they usually go by some sort of a nick name. If they don't have a nickname, my sister will practice the name ahead of time and say it without any inflection or notice. She says that sometimes there's a giggle or two, but these kids have all grown up together so they are over the whole, "your name is *&^&**!":eek:

 

Also, Mama Lynx, I know I shot from the hip in that post. I rarely do that, but that's how I really felt. I know we can't (and shouldn't) take the children away from them, and I know my rights would be trampled too. I think I clarified that in a later post. But, sometimes I still shoot from the hip because that was my initial reaction to seeing how those children are living. It makes me sad that they are teaching their children to hate over half the population. But, you're right. There's no abuse and no reason to take their kids away.

 

Blessings!

Dorinda

[LisaNY]

well points for blunt honesty

 

 

ah. but we don't take away those children either. Not unless the spouse is also hitting the child or their drug use is harming the child or they are giving their child a knife and saying to go cut someone.

 

 

I don't own my children either.

If I did, I'd buy a model that doesn't have free will kick in until 21 yrs of age and make my life a heck of a lot easier around here.

It is however my RIGHT to name my children.

At the least, it sure isn't anyone else's right to do it for me if they disagree.

 

 

difference is, those aren't names and adolf is.

and as other poster's noted, names can sound bad all the time and we have to get over it.

 

 

that might be true. if adolf hitler were banned words, but they are not.

 

 

I don't beleive anyone said the baker had to do it.

 

 

maybe. so what? are they scared of the name or the history? b/c frankly his name coudl be joseph and he could be far more a reason to be scared of than with a name like Adolph Hitler.

 

 

If anyone's emotional well-being is hurt by someone else's name, then they have a personal problem they need to get over. The only safety or emotional well-being I can imagine being in question is that of the kid with the name. And any damage he experiences will not come from his parents - but from those other people you are so concerned about.

 

 

That's not the real question.

The real question is when does the state get to take over the right of the parent.

 

 

really? so the litmus is how quietly we live our beliefs? anything too obvious, loud, different... that isn't to be tolorated? It's considered abusive and a danger to children to the point that they shoudl loose their children?

 

Again, I see no logic in the state having those children.

 

Why is the state always the answer? It's not like it's ever solved a social problem before, much less a parenting problem.

 

Good questions, comments - I agree.

[beansprouts]

OK, back to my post. So, my sister works in an impoverished area and has had to call out names that are phonetically spelled bad words. She and the other teachers know about the kids in advance because they are warned by the previous teachers. By the time they get to her though (she teaches middle school and high school), they usually go by some sort of a nick name. If they don't have a nickname, my sister will practice the name ahead of time and say it without any inflection or notice. She says that sometimes there's a giggle or two, but these kids have all grown up together so they are over the whole, "your name is *&^&**!":eek:

 

Do the parents do this on purpose?

 

That is just messed up...

[coffeefreak]

Do the parents do this on purpose?

 

That is just messed up...

 

That's hard to say:confused: I think sometimes it is a result of being very young and pregnant (she's had girls as young as 12 and 13 become mothers):sad:I'll ask her and get back to you. We talk every day:001_smile:

[fshinkevich]

Children have been removed from homes for being exposed to things - a knife not always required. And I never said the children should be removed I said state should be involved. The parents need at least a talking to, if not some parenting classes.

 

Taken from the article:

 

Robert M. Gordon, a clinical psychologist in Allentown, said the names would hurt the children.

"Certainly society is going to be hostile towards those kids, especially when they go to school," Gordon said.

More than that, he said, the children would be harmed by their parents' views.

"By the time they get to school, they will already have been damaged," Gordon said. "Any parent that would impose such horrific names on their children is mentally ill, and they would be affecting their children from the day they were born. Only a crazy person would do that."

 

 

 

 

 

And, more importantly:

 

 

There are swastikas on walls, on jackets, on the freezer and on a pillow. The family car had swastikas, Heath Campbell said, until New Jersey's Department of Children and Families told him they could endanger the children.

 

 

[Mama Lynx]

Children have been removed from homes for being exposed to things - a knife not always required. And I never said the children should be removed I said state should be involved. The parents need at least a talking to, if not some parenting classes.

 

[/color]

 

Sure! And then the parents can go on their merry way, laughing behind the back of the state's "talking to." But the State can be absolved of responsibility, because they Did Something.

 

And what should happen when the parents do not change their was after the Talking To and the parenting classes? What is the next step?

 

Nothing these parents are doing is illegal. They are hateful idiots, but we are perfectly free to be hateful idiots, and to raise hateful idiots.

[fshinkevich]

Sure! And then the parents can go on their merry way, laughing behind the back of the state's "talking to." But the State can be absolved of responsibility, because they Did Something.

 

 

 

Well it seems the state has already been to visit them, and the parents don't care that they are endangering their children - which makes it even more alarming to me. At least now they are in the system, so when they beat someone up because of their hate filled views, or get beat up because of their names then state will be able to do more about it.

 

I would never let my rights to my views become more important than my childrens well being. Those parents need to put their kids first and their personal agendas second.

 

Something doesn't have to be illegal to be emotionally abusive to a child. This is why there are case workers that visit homes, and judges that rule on cases. I agree, it's far from a perfect system but I'd rather have it than nothing at all.

[Murphy101]

Children have been removed from homes for being exposed to things - a knife not always required. And I never said the children should be removed I said state should be involved. The parents need at least a talking to, if not some parenting classes.

 

the state giving classes on how to parent...

I for one wouldn't put much confidence in that.:glare:

 

Robert M. Gordon, a clinical psychologist in Allentown, said the names would hurt the children.

"Certainly society is going to be hostile towards those kids, especially when they go to school," Gordon said.

More than that, he said, the children would be harmed by their parents' views.

"By the time they get to school, they will already have been damaged," Gordon said. "Any parent that would impose such horrific names on their children is mentally ill, and they would be affecting their children from the day they were born. Only a crazy person would do that."

 

wow. now all it takes to be declared mentally ill is to name your kid something society dislikes/hates?

 

There are swastikas on walls, on jackets, on the freezer and on a pillow. The family car had swastikas, Heath Campbell said, until New Jersey's Department of Children and Families told him they could endanger the children.

 

wow. really? how? can the swastikas come off at night and smother the children in their sleep? what nonsense.

 

that's it.

 

I'll say his name. Voldemort! Tom Riddle!

oh look nothing happened to me.

didn't endanger me in the least.

are we no different than a bunch of school kids in a fairy tale book?

scared of the mere name and a fancy plus sign?

I think some are giving more power to this than it ever should have - almost of supernatural proportions it seems!

[fshinkevich]

the state giving classes on how to parent...

I for one wouldn't put much confidence in that.:glare:

 

It's often required, at least where I live. Family Court here holds them every weekend.

 

 

wow. now all it takes to be declared mentally ill is to name your kid something society dislikes/hates?

 

 

 

wow. really? how? can the swastikas come off at night and smother the children in their sleep? what nonsense.

I imagine it's from people attacking the car (perhaps with their own vehicle) that could endanger the kids. Much as they will likely be put in danger by going to school.

!

.

[Tea Time]

That's not the real question.

The real question is when does the state get to take over the right of the parent.

 

...

 

Again, I see no logic in the state having those children.

 

Why is the state always the answer? It's not like it's ever solved a social problem before, much less a parenting problem.

 

Excellent question. Just pondering here... honestly what are some other answers besides the state? How can we deal with social issues that threaten our society without calling on the state? What are healthy things to do about this?

 

1. Well, I think the bakery had a good answer. They did not call on the state. Now, the parents might have wanted to because they felt it was their "right" to have a cake with that name on it. Doesn't look like it came to that this time.

 

2. Another good idea would be the teachers giving a nickname to the child in class, but eventually the kids will want/need to understand why, so someone will have to address that. That may or may not go well, and again, the parents or the child may again involve the state.

 

3. Friends and organizations (non-state - like the Bakery or Wal-Mart) could shun the parents (and unfortunately the child) so long as they insist on this unhealthy behavior. Like sanctions on foreign countries! That might curb it. That could/should be a natural consequence of unhealthy behavior, but again, if the parents are not willing to live with natural consequences or change the behavior, they will likely call on the state.

 

Humm... seems hard to leave out the state so long as others are bothered by the name. And it also seems like the only entity that should be neutral toward the situation is the State itself. That is interesting.

 

So, to keep peace, maybe the name should be ignored by everyone, that would work in this situation if we could control everyone. But in other situations it just means we have to give in to people who invoke protection by the state for their unhealthy and insane behavior. It would also probably be very disappointing to the family (who really have no interest in keeping peace).

 

Here is one question I have...

 

Why is it that pages of wonderful logic can be applied to this issue and no answer found? Why does logic fail us so badly in this situation? Why can't we protect and be fair to both those children and those around them? Why does reason fail us? Does it simply transcend logic? Is it not a question of the heart? If anyone takes a stand against it, won't they HAVE to "risk judgement on his/herself" since the State might end up involved?

 

The names are not just names. They are thinly veiled threats that provoke fear for good reason, not of the child, but of the parents. No one will ever be safe around them. Nothing bad may ever happen, and they may be empty threats, but make no mistake, they are threats, and anyone around those people are at risk. There are plenty of other risks going on around us that may be worse, that we don't know about or can't avoid, but our hair stands on end around these people for very good reason.

 

I applaud the Bakery for taking a stand. Wal-Mart, of course, would not. Educators probably won't either (reason has left that building if teachers have to call kids by curse words).

 

One more question. My son asked if it is still legal to post a sign on your business that reads, "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone"? Not sure where he saw that as I don't recall it anywhere recently, but he must have seen it often enough to remember it clearly. I can't imagine that would hold up in court anymore. Kind of an interesting phrase "...reserve the right." Humm...

[Zelda]

Children have been removed from homes for being exposed to things - a knife not always required. And I never said the children should be removed I said state should be involved. The parents need at least a talking to, if not some parenting classes.

 

Taken from the article:

 

Robert M. Gordon, a clinical psychologist in Allentown, said the names would hurt the children.

"Certainly society is going to be hostile towards those kids, especially when they go to school," Gordon said.

More than that, he said, the children would be harmed by their parents' views.

"By the time they get to school, they will already have been damaged," Gordon said. "Any parent that would impose such horrific names on their children is mentally ill, and they would be affecting their children from the day they were born. Only a crazy person would do that."

 

 

 

 

Here's me, not caring a whit about the personal opinion of a clinical psychologist. I could probably scare up a dozen clinical psychologists with a dozen different takes on the same situation.

[jplain]

The names are not just names. They are thinly veiled threats that provoke fear for good reason, not of the child, but of the parents. No one will ever be safe around them. Nothing bad may ever happen, and they may be empty threats, but make no mistake, they are threats, and anyone around those people are at risk. There are plenty of other risks going on around us that may be worse, that we don't know about or can't avoid, but our hair stands on end around these people for very good reason.

:iagree:

[beansprouts]

Excellent question. Just pondering here... honestly what are some other answers besides the state? How can we deal with social issues that threaten our society without calling on the state? What are healthy things to do about this?

 

1. Well, I think the bakery had a good answer. They did not call on the state. Now, the parents might have wanted to because they felt it was their "right" to have a cake with that name on it. Doesn't look like it came to that this time.

 

2. Another good idea would be the teachers giving a nickname to the child in class, but eventually the kids will want/need to understand why, so someone will have to address that. That may or may not go well, and again, the parents or the child may again involve the state.

 

3. Friends and organizations (non-state - like the Bakery or Wal-Mart) could shun the parents (and unfortunately the child) so long as they insist on this unhealthy behavior. Like sanctions on foreign countries! That might curb it. That could/should be a natural consequence of unhealthy behavior, but again, if the parents are not willing to live with natural consequences or change the behavior, they will likely call on the state.

 

Humm... seems hard to leave out the state so long as others are bothered by the name. And it also seems like the only entity that should be neutral toward the situation is the State itself. That is interesting.

 

So, to keep peace, maybe the name should be ignored by everyone, that would work in this situation if we could control everyone. But in other situations it just means we have to give in to people who invoke protection by the state for their unhealthy and insane behavior. It would also probably be very disappointing to the family (who really have no interest in keeping peace).

 

Here is one question I have...

 

Why is it that pages of wonderful logic can be applied to this issue and no answer found? Why does logic fail us so badly in this situation? Why can't we protect and be fair to both those children and those around them? Why does reason fail us? Does it simply transcend logic? Is it not a question of the heart? If anyone takes a stand against it, won't they HAVE to "risk judgement on his/herself" since the State might end up involved?

 

The names are not just names. They are thinly veiled threats that provoke fear for good reason, not of the child, but of the parents. No one will ever be safe around them. Nothing bad may ever happen, and they may be empty threats, but make no mistake, they are threats, and anyone around those people are at risk. There are plenty of other risks going on around us that may be worse, that we don't know about or can't avoid, but our hair stands on end around these people for very good reason.

 

I applaud the Bakery for taking a stand. Wal-Mart, of course, would not. Educators probably won't either (reason has left that building if teachers have to call kids by curse words).

 

One more question. My son asked if it is still legal to post a sign on your business that reads, "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone"? Not sure where he saw that as I don't recall it anywhere recently, but he must have seen it often enough to remember it clearly. I can't imagine that would hold up in court anymore. Kind of an interesting phrase "...reserve the right." Humm...

 

Awesome post and excellent questions!

 

I was also thinking that if I were a teacher, I would probably use Mr. and Miss Last Name in most cases anyways. I think the kids enjoy it, and it encourages them to rise up a little. ;)

[fshinkevich]

Excellent question. Just pondering here... honestly what are some other answers besides the state? How can we deal with social issues that threaten our society without calling on the state? What are healthy things to do about this?

 

1. Well, I think the bakery had a good answer. They did not call on the state. Now, the parents might have wanted to because they felt it was their "right" to have a cake with that name on it. Doesn't look like it came to that this time.

 

2. Another good idea would be the teachers giving a nickname to the child in class, but eventually the kids will want/need to understand why, so someone will have to address that. That may or may not go well, and again, the parents or the child may again involve the state.

 

3. Friends and organizations (non-state - like the Bakery or Wal-Mart) could shun the parents (and unfortunately the child) so long as they insist on this unhealthy behavior. Like sanctions on foreign countries! That might curb it. That could/should be a natural consequence of unhealthy behavior, but again, if the parents are not willing to live with natural consequences or change the behavior, they will likely call on the state.

 

Humm... seems hard to leave out the state so long as others are bothered by the name. And it also seems like the only entity that should be neutral toward the situation is the State itself. That is interesting.

 

So, to keep peace, maybe the name should be ignored by everyone, that would work in this situation if we could control everyone. But in other situations it just means we have to give in to people who invoke protection by the state for their unhealthy and insane behavior. It would also probably be very disappointing to the family (who really have no interest in keeping peace).

 

Here is one question I have...

 

Why is it that pages of wonderful logic can be applied to this issue and no answer found? Why does logic fail us so badly in this situation? Why can't we protect and be fair to both those children and those around them? Why does reason fail us? Does it simply transcend logic? Is it not a question of the heart? If anyone takes a stand against it, won't they HAVE to "risk judgement on his/herself" since the State might end up involved?

 

The names are not just names. They are thinly veiled threats that provoke fear for good reason, not of the child, but of the parents. No one will ever be safe around them. Nothing bad may ever happen, and they may be empty threats, but make no mistake, they are threats, and anyone around those people are at risk. There are plenty of other risks going on around us that may be worse, that we don't know about or can't avoid, but our hair stands on end around these people for very good reason.

 

I applaud the Bakery for taking a stand. Wal-Mart, of course, would not. Educators probably won't either (reason has left that building if teachers have to call kids by curse words).

 

One more question. My son asked if it is still legal to post a sign on your business that reads, "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone"? Not sure where he saw that as I don't recall it anywhere recently, but he must have seen it often enough to remember it clearly. I can't imagine that would hold up in court anymore. Kind of an interesting phrase "...reserve the right." Humm...

 

Wonderful post. I find it ironic, that Wal-Mart finds it perfectly acceptable to write this name on a cake but bans many music albums and movies from being sold in their store.

[Murphy101]

Excellent question. Just pondering here... honestly what are some other answers besides the state? How can we deal with social issues that threaten our society without calling on the state? What are healthy things to do about this?

 

how about just leaving it as nothing more than a name?

 

Why is it that pages of wonderful logic can be applied to this issue and no answer found? Why does logic fail us so badly in this situation? Why can't we protect and be fair to both those children and those around them? Why does reason fail us? Does it simply transcend logic? Is it not a question of the heart? If anyone takes a stand against it, won't they HAVE to "risk judgement on his/herself" since the State might end up involved?

 

I think logic has been shown. It's a name. A name that most wouldn't use and have an active dislike of, but a name just the same.

 

Why is it your business or my business or the state's business to do anything at all simply because the name has a history that we strongly dislike?

 

The names are not just names. They are thinly veiled threats that provoke fear for good reason, not of the child, but of the parents. No one will ever be safe around them. Nothing bad may ever happen, and they may be empty threats, but make no mistake, they are threats, and anyone around those people are at risk.

 

I don't know about that. Maybe so. Maybe not. Regardless we usually do not punish people for crimes they haven't yet committed. Sure keep an eye out, but not much more to do.

 

I have no idea why you think no one will be safe around them, because honestly? I have seen more hostility towards them than any they have expressed towards society. The only reason given that those children are in danger is because people feel that society will be cruel to them. As in if the parents have a swastica on their car's bumper the kids are in danger from SOCIETY. One could say the same about a parent who has a pro-abortion sticker on their bumper. Maybe we should take their children away too? How dare they put their children in danger with such their own idealogy? The state should step in?

 

One more question. My son asked if it is still legal to post a sign on your business that reads, "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone"? Not sure where he saw that as I don't recall it anywhere recently, but he must have seen it often enough to remember it clearly. I can't imagine that would hold up in court anymore. Kind of an interesting phrase "...reserve the right." Humm...

 

I've seen them frequently. It's not illegal to post a sign, but I have no idea if they'd hold up in court or not. I would imagine it would depend on the reason service was refused.

 

Here's me, not caring a whit about the personal opinion of a clinical psychologist. I could probably scare up a dozen clinical psychologists with a dozen different takes on the same situation.

 

Hitler had many doctors and psychologist working for him...:glare:

In fact, many of them were far worse imnsho for being directly involved in atrocities than he was for giving the commanding okay to it or ordering it.

 

Hitler was a horrible person. But frankly, I hold those unnamed people who carried out his commands as far more evil than he was.

 

Wonderful post. I find it ironic, that Wal-Mart finds it perfectly acceptable to write this name on a cake but bans many music albums and movies from being sold in their store.

 

hmm, why?

I have no doubt that for every person claiming outrage over this name business, there's far more that think nothing of letting their kid spend the afternoon playing Grand Theft Auto - a game of enjoyment in murdering, raping, and pilaging.

 

Yet, we'd leave that child in that home because his name is acceptable and the game is legal and parents have the right to decide what is or is not appropriate for their own kids.:001_huh:

 

To me, the most logical thing to do is show great kindness to those children. They might still grow up to hate some people. But it's harder to hate people who have been good to you.

 

It's very easy to hate those who tear apart your family and make you feel like poo and threaten you if you don't conform. I'll admit it's a sad truth thought that unfortunately those are things our society is very good at.

[Jennifer3141]

I wish the state would take those kids. They aren't getting a chance at a good life living in that home. That's the reality of the situation. But anyone who names their child, "Aryan Nation" cannot be a good parent because of what that name means.

 

What's holding people back from naming their son, "MotherF***er?" Would we all tolerate that?

 

Jen

[unsinkable]

I hadn't thought of this and you are probably right. If I saw Adolph Hitler on an application I would assume it was a joke, and chuck it.

 

This has happened to my husband. We tried to move to a city where a man with the same name as my dh had murdered 2 teenage boys. He couldn't get a job. If he called to check on his resume and said his name, people would hang up on him.

[unsinkable]

Excellent question. Just pondering here... honestly what are some other answers besides the state? How can we deal with social issues that threaten our society without calling on the state? What are healthy things to do about this?

 

1. Well, I think the bakery had a good answer. They did not call on the state. Now, the parents might have wanted to because they felt it was their "right" to have a cake with that name on it. Doesn't look like it came to that this time.

 

2. Another good idea would be the teachers giving a nickname to the child in class, but eventually the kids will want/need to understand why, so someone will have to address that. That may or may not go well, and again, the parents or the child may again involve the state.

 

3. Friends and organizations (non-state - like the Bakery or Wal-Mart) could shun the parents (and unfortunately the child) so long as they insist on this unhealthy behavior. Like sanctions on foreign countries! That might curb it. That could/should be a natural consequence of unhealthy behavior, but again, if the parents are not willing to live with natural consequences or change the behavior, they will likely call on the state.

 

Humm... seems hard to leave out the state so long as others are bothered by the name. And it also seems like the only entity that should be neutral toward the situation is the State itself. That is interesting.

 

So, to keep peace, maybe the name should be ignored by everyone, that would work in this situation if we could control everyone. But in other situations it just means we have to give in to people who invoke protection by the state for their unhealthy and insane behavior. It would also probably be very disappointing to the family (who really have no interest in keeping peace).

 

Here is one question I have...

 

Why is it that pages of wonderful logic can be applied to this issue and no answer found? Why does logic fail us so badly in this situation? Why can't we protect and be fair to both those children and those around them? Why does reason fail us? Does it simply transcend logic? Is it not a question of the heart? If anyone takes a stand against it, won't they HAVE to "risk judgement on his/herself" since the State might end up involved?

 

The names are not just names. They are thinly veiled threats that provoke fear for good reason, not of the child, but of the parents. No one will ever be safe around them. Nothing bad may ever happen, and they may be empty threats, but make no mistake, they are threats, and anyone around those people are at risk. There are plenty of other risks going on around us that may be worse, that we don't know about or can't avoid, but our hair stands on end around these people for very good reason.

 

I applaud the Bakery for taking a stand. Wal-Mart, of course, would not. Educators probably won't either (reason has left that building if teachers have to call kids by curse words).

 

One more question. My son asked if it is still legal to post a sign on your business that reads, "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone"? Not sure where he saw that as I don't recall it anywhere recently, but he must have seen it often enough to remember it clearly. I can't imagine that would hold up in court anymore. Kind of an interesting phrase "...reserve the right." Humm...

 

 

What a great post, Tea Time. I hope you post often.

[fshinkevich]

hmm, why?

I have no doubt that for every person claiming outrage over this name business, there's far more that think nothing of letting their kid spend the afternoon playing Grand Theft Auto - a game of enjoyment in murdering, raping, and pilaging.

 

Yet, we'd leave that child in that home because his name is acceptable and the game is legal and parents have the right to decide what is or is not appropriate for their own kids.:001_huh:

 

I think the irony comes in that as an adult, I can walk into Wal-Mart and order a "Happy Birthday Adolph Hitler" cake, complete with swastika but not pick out any dvd I choose.

 

And I may personally take issue with a parent allow their child to play a game like that, but I think most can see a difference between that, and if that same child was named after a famous rapist that caused the torture and death of MILLIONS, surrounded by images in their home that condone criminal acts and rape, and raised to believe those images are not just OK, but RIGHT.

 

 

 

To me, the most logical thing to do is show great kindness to those children. They might still grow up to hate some people. But it's harder to hate people who have been good to you.

 

It's very easy to hate those who tear apart your family and make you feel like poo and threaten you if you don't conform. I'll admit it's a sad truth thought that unfortunately those are things our society is very good at.

 

The logical thing WOULD be to treat, not just the children, but the family with respect. Even if the parents don't deserve it. Unfortunately people are not always logical, and often act out of passion.

[PollyOR]

I wish the state would take those kids. They aren't getting a chance at a good life living in that home. That's the reality of the situation. But anyone who names their child, "Aryan Nation" cannot be a good parent because of what that name means.

 

 

Having been under investigation for child abuse when my oldest was a baby (concussion), I can tell you that it is FRIGHTENING to realize the power that others have to take your children away from you. How would you feel?