Saw this on Cakewrecks and am speechless

[Tea Time]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tea Time

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?

 

MARTHA responded:

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

That was my first suggestion, and my post was all about not involving the state. Ignoring all threatening behavior does have consequences.

 

 

Quote:

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?

Under the terms you have provided, it is absolutely no one's business.

 

Quote:

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.

Usually we punish everyone for crimes people do commit (behold the modern airport). You have the right not to be concerned if you wish but should not be too judgmental or surprised when others are.

 

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?

Not sure how to respond to this as I don't know what hostility toward them you have seen beyond frightened reactions. The hostility they have expressed toward society is implied by their hero worship of Nazi Germany. But I reiterate, I did not suggest the State should step in. My whole post was contrary to that idea.

 

 

Quote:

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.

I guess I thought maybe someone with more current information or a law background might respond. There is actually a lot of law simply surrounding what can and can't be posted in public. A small newspaper in Texas was recently sued for how it allowed want ads to be written.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zelda

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.

Why would they be far more evil than Hitler himself? Surely they are both evil. I am always leery about (but interested in) sentences that begin with... Hitler was a horrible person but...

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by fshinkevich

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:

We would leave them, and many bad things are happening as a result of this line of action. However, the other lines of action (bringing in the State) might be worse.

 

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.

Absolutely!

 

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.

So True!

 

Please forgive the formatting of this post. I'm not used to the way this board works! I'll have to figure it out when I have more time and nothing to say! LOL! :tongue_smilie:

[Jennifer3141]

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?

 

Well, sorry about your cicrumstance if it was unwarranted (I don't know you in real life so I cannot say if it was or not) but if you name your child "Aryan Nation" or "Adolf Hitler" then yes, I do think the state could do a better job raising those kids than you could.

 

What the heck kind of life does little Adolf have ahead of him? Lovely weekends at Aryan Nation retreats? Learning how to build flammable crosses?

 

No thanks. If those parents felt strongly enough about such an idiotic ideal that they legally named their children like that, that's clearly an important issue to them. And I do not believe parents who teach hate and ignorance to their children should be allowed to bear or raise children.

 

The entire thing is ridiculous. You think Adolf Hitler's ever going to medical school? Would you hire him for any professional job? What about making him business cards? You going to buy life insurance from Adolf Hitler? You going to buy a baby crib from him? Nope. None of the above.

 

Adolf's parents named him knowing full well what they were doing - they were removing him from most society and shaping his future. And our ultimate goal as parents is to make good citizens in the world. No matter how much we adore them (and I sat here last night clutching my DD reading the Adam Walsh update on the net) someday, these little people are going to walk out into the world as their own people.

 

It's like Jerry Seinfeld's old joke. You name a child Jeeves, you're pretty much ensuring he becomes a shoe-in for a position as a butler someday. At the very least, he's going to spend the rest of his life with new people hearing his name and asking him if the butler really did do it. I'm married to a man with an old family name - Ernest. He's called Ernie. Every time I tell people his name, they ask if I'm Bert. 10 years later, that joke still has some shine to it. NOT. :D

 

Adolf's only chance at a decent life is to be raised by different people than those who spawned him.

 

Jen

[Zelda]

.

 

Adolf's parents named him knowing full well what they were doing - they were removing him from most society and shaping his future.

 

You mean like home schoolers are said to be doing?

[Murphy101]

I wish the state would take those kids. They aren't getting a chance at a good life living in that home.

 

since when do only people who can give a supposed chance at a "good life" to children be allowed to keep their kids?

 

thinking of entire continents of parents loosing their kids because they aren't able or willing to raise their children with what the average american considers a good life....

 

Ignoring all threatening behavior does have consequences.

 

agreed. but it should be rare that we meet what MIGHT be threatening behavior with even more threatening behavior. And make no mistake, I've never meet a parent who doesn't think taking their kids or even mentioning it is not threatening.

 

Usually we punish everyone for crimes people do commit (behold the modern airport). You have the right not to be concerned if you wish but should not be too judgmental or surprised when others are.

 

Yes, and I think it's stupid or at the very least ineffective.

Rates right up there with gun laws to keep guns out of the hands of criminals.

Oh wait, the criminals couldn't care less about the gun laws, it only affects honest citizens.

 

I don't think it's a lack of concern. Did I say I wouldn't be concerned? Nope, not at all. Those parents have some serious issues going on. No doubt about that at all. "concern" does not have to translate into action though. In fact, sometimes the best thing to do it nothing at all.

 

I don't know what hostility toward them you have seen beyond frightened reactions.

 

true. some really bad things happen when people get scared.

they do stupid mean things like trash someone's car because of a bumper sticker. or worse. they decide to take another person's kids away

and then that person gets scared....

 

I did not suggest the State should step in. My whole post was contrary to that idea.

 

great!

 

I guess I thought maybe someone with more current information or a law background might respond. There is actually a lot of law simply surrounding what can and can't be posted in public. A small newspaper in Texas was recently sued for how it allowed want ads to be written.

 

hmm, not familiar with that, but normally a private business is not considered public? They can showcase any signs they want to normally. If it can be seen from the street, there's probably decency laws of some kind. (for example even a strip club usually can't post anything too graphic that can be seen outside the facility.)

 

Why would they be far more evil than Hitler himself? Surely they are both evil. I am always leery about (but interested in) sentences that begin with... Hitler was a horrible person but...

 

whoa. I didn't say Hitler wasn't evil. He certainly was. What I said was that someone who can look their fellow man in the eye as they torture them, maim them, murder their children, and more is more evil imo than someone who is miles away signing the order for it. Hitler would NEVER have gained power if it wasn't for people who were willing to do the evil he asked of them on their fellow man.

 

I do not believe parents who teach hate and ignorance to their children should be allowed to bear or raise children.

 

What about people who hate hateful ignorant people? Should they loose their children for teaching their child that?

 

The entire thing is ridiculous. You think Adolf Hitler's ever going to medical school? Would you hire him for any professional job? What about making him business cards? You going to buy life insurance from Adolf Hitler? You going to buy a baby crib from him? Nope. None of the above.

 

Okay. my niece (age 15:glare:) just named her newborn son:

Blaze Pyro Flower SoandSo

 

I'm dead serious. And the last name does not help the first 3 names either. I'm pretty sure that he will never become president with this name. It doesn't bode well for medical school either. Given his last name, I can promise you he won't be a successfull OB/GYN.

 

I guess she should loose her child too?

 

And our ultimate goal as parents is to make good citizens in the world.

 

Is it? Or is it your ultimate goal?

Honest question because I can think of at least 5 things more important to me than that.

Granted I happen to think they are neccessary to being a good citizen, but I can't guarantee that society would agree with me on that.

 

Adolf's only chance at a decent life is to be raised by different people than those who spawned him.

 

sure. because you know the state just does an awesome job at parenting us adults, they can only do better if we just give them our kids so they can have a fresh start.:glare:

 

Again.

Since when does anyone have a right to supposed decent life?

And who gets to decide what qualifies as decent?

 

Ug.

Again.

I'm mostly ticked that because I value my freedom and my rights, I have to defend all rights and freedoms - including those of such parental idiots that name their kids Adolf, Hinler, and Aryan and have the poor taste to decorate in the same manner.:glare:

[Mama Lynx]

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?

 

 

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...

 

First of all, yes, there still are businesses that make such claims.

 

But as for your first question ... we have not come up with any answers because different groups of people here are beginning with different premises. Some are beginning with the premise that we have a right to do as we like without state interference, as long as it does not break the law, and that freedom means freedom to be stupid and raise children in dysfunctional ways. Some are beginning with the premise that living in society = an obligation to society, and that the state exists to maintain that obligation in some way; and to save children whose parents are dysfunctional.

 

With the one premise, we get some @*(@#!-ed up parents who raise children in some amazingly stupid ways. With the other, we get a government that peers into our religious, philosophical, political and moral views and lifestyles to make sure that everything is functioning within normal parameters.

 

People who believe in the one are unlikely to find a solution that stems from the other. You either have to accept that freedom can have ugly, unfortunate choices; or you accept that freedom is not worth those things.

 

I think the bakery did the right thing. I think the appropriate actions are to shun the parents.

[fshinkevich]

 

I think the bakery did the right thing. I think the appropriate actions are to shun the parents.

 

 

And in doing so, you shun the child adding to the emotional abuse already heaped upon them by their parents. Which is exactly my point of setting these children up for a lifetime of hurt, and for what?

As strongly as I feel entitled to the right for my beliefs, they would never come before my child.

[Harriet Vane]

. . . if you name your child "Aryan Nation" or "Adolf Hitler" then yes, I do think the state could do a better job raising those kids than you could.

 

No thanks. If those parents felt strongly enough about such an idiotic ideal that they legally named their children like that, that's clearly an important issue to them. And I do not believe parents who teach hate and ignorance to their children should be allowed to bear or raise children.

 

Adolf's parents named him knowing full well what they were doing - they were removing him from most society and shaping his future. And our ultimate goal as parents is to make good citizens in the world. No matter how much we adore them (and I sat here last night clutching my DD reading the Adam Walsh update on the net) someday, these little people are going to walk out into the world as their own people.

 

Adolf's only chance at a decent life is to be raised by different people than those who spawned him.

 

Jen

 

As someone intimately acquainted with the foster care system and with those who have been genuinely abused as children, I have to say I find your statements appalling and quite frightening. Your posts in this thread are dangerously naive--are you aware of how many children are abused IN STATE CARE? Are you aware of the devastating effect being raised in an institution has upon children? Do you really think there are loving families lined up begging for foster kids? They're not--there is a desperate shortage of foster families and always has been. You really, actually think a child is better off under the care of strangers or in a state institution than with their parents?

 

And at what point does someone get to decide that what I believe is bad for my children, and take them away?

 

No.

 

Unless those children are beaten, physically tortured, s@xually violated, or criminally neglected (starvation, for example) it is morally reprehensible to separate them from their parents.

[fshinkevich]

As someone intimately acquainted with the foster care system and with those who have been genuinely abused as children, I have to say I find your statements appalling and quite frightening. Your posts in this thread are dangerously naive--are you aware of how many children are abused IN STATE CARE? Are you aware of the devastating effect being raised in an institution has upon children? Do you really think there are loving families lined up begging for foster kids? They're not--there is a desperate shortage of foster families and always has been. You really, actually think a child is better off under the care of strangers or in a state institution than with their parents?

 

And at what point does someone get to decide that what I believe is bad for my children, and take them away?

 

No.

 

Unless those children are beaten, physically tortured, s@xually violated, or criminally neglected (starvation, for example) it is morally reprehensible to separate them from their parents.

 

 

I don't think it's as black and white as that. There are many gray areas. And I have some experience with social services, as well. No doubt, there are some horror stories, but usually they don't go in with the intention of removing children from homes. Even drug addicts that are putting their children in IMMEDIATE danger get chances to change. For the most part they want to keep kids with their parents.

 

CPS provides a multitude of services, not just putting kids in foster care. They can even provide deposits for families that are living in dangerous situations to move. They provide the classes I spoke of, home visits, medical & dental care etc.

 

And trust me, I GET that these parents love their kids in their own (imo, twisted) way. They obviously wanted to have a nice party for their son, with a cake. Although pictures can be deceiving, the articles show a clean, *physically* healthy child.

 

And a part of me aches for the parents, even if they don't want my sympathy. They deserved a healthier environment than the one they were raised in. But that doesn't mean someone shouldn't step in and speak up for these kids. It doesn't mean the kids should be removed from the home, either.

 

But those kids deserve some hope, and without some assistance, I don't think the parents will provide it.

 

And, I'm trying, but I cannot see the argument here. How many of your beliefs honestly put your kids in TRUE danger? Because the comments I am reading on some of these websites, and the very strong feelings we all have about it here, certainly points in that direction. This family has ALREADY been spoken to by their local CPS about the dangers involved. Logical or not, this situation will touch people much deeper than some other name you disapprove of, or religion different than your own.

[Zelda]

How many of your beliefs honestly put your kids in TRUE danger? Because the comments I am reading on some of these websites, and the very strong feelings we all have about it here, certainly points in that direction. This family has ALREADY been spoken to by their local CPS about the dangers involved. Logical or not, this situation will touch people much deeper than some other name you disapprove of, or religion different than your own.

 

Depends on who you talk to. There are certain vaccines I don't intend my children to have. I suppose an argument can be made that it will put them in true danger and is a form of neglect. Many people here probably own guns. Some will argue that that puts kids in true danger. I've heard it argued that isolating your children from their peers by home schooling them puts them in real danger of growing up unsocialized and unequipped for real life. If we're going to start getting *that* subjective about abuse then who is going to be put charge of making the determinations?

[Harriet Vane]

I don't think it's as black and white as that. There are many gray areas. And I have some experience with social services, as well. No doubt, there are some horror stories, but usually they don't go in with the intention of removing children from homes. Even drug addicts that are putting their children in IMMEDIATE danger get chances to change. For the most part they want to keep kids with their parents.

 

CPS provides a multitude of services, not just putting kids in foster care. They can even provide deposits for families that are living in dangerous situations to move. They provide the classes I spoke of, home visits, medical & dental care etc.

 

And trust me, I GET that these parents love their kids in their own (imo, twisted) way. They obviously wanted to have a nice party for their son, with a cake. Although pictures can be deceiving, the articles show a clean, *physically* healthy child.

 

And a part of me aches for the parents, even if they don't want my sympathy. They deserved a healthier environment than the one they were raised in. But that doesn't mean someone shouldn't step in and speak up for these kids. It doesn't mean the kids should be removed from the home, either.

 

But those kids deserve some hope, and without some assistance, I don't think the parents will provide it.

 

And, I'm trying, but I cannot see the argument here. How many of your beliefs honestly put your kids in TRUE danger? Because the comments I am reading on some of these websites, and the very strong feelings we all have about it here, certainly points in that direction. This family has ALREADY been spoken to by their local CPS about the dangers involved. Logical or not, this situation will touch people much deeper than some other name you disapprove of, or religion different than your own.

 

No, the foster system isn't as black and white as that. I am well aware that they do not automatically remove children at the drop of a hat. I am also acquainted with the myriad services they offer. I am personally acquainted with children who were saved by foster care, and I am also personally acquainted with more than one family whom the state failed. Believe me, I have seen the gamut of what the state can offer. My post was responding to Jennifer's assertion that these children should be removed from their parents' care.

 

It is one thing to say that these are not good parents, and it is quite another to say that a person's beliefs in the absence of criminal abuse or neglect justifies severing the parent-child bond.

Edited December 18, 2008 by strider

[Harriet Vane]

Depends on who you talk to. There are certain vaccines I don't intend my children to have. I suppose an argument can be made that it will put them in true danger and is a form of neglect. Many people here probably own guns. Some will argue that that puts kids in true danger. I've heard it argued that isolating your children from their peers by home schooling them puts them in real danger of growing up unsocialized and unequipped for real life. If we're going to start getting *that* subjective about abuse then who is going to be put charge of making the determinations?

 

:iagree:

 

I too have selectively vaccinated my children. And yes, I was interviewed in a hospital emergency room about it when my dd was 2yo. (Nothing came of that interview, though it scared me to death.)

 

There are those in my life that argue that my choices have endangered my children. My dh and I have chosen to live in a neighborhood wherein we are the racial minority and where there is high crime and drug abuse. When we first moved in there was a pimp operating right across the street. There are those that argue that our beliefs, and our concerns for racial reconciliation and for helping others find peace with God, have endangered our children.

 

As you said, if we're going to get that subjective about abuse then who is going to be in charge of making the determinations?

[Jennifer3141]

As someone intimately acquainted with the foster care system and with those who have been genuinely abused as children, I have to say I find your statements appalling and quite frightening. Your posts in this thread are dangerously naive--are you aware of how many children are abused IN STATE CARE? Are you aware of the devastating effect being raised in an institution has upon children? Do you really think there are loving families lined up begging for foster kids? They're not--there is a desperate shortage of foster families and always has been. You really, actually think a child is better off under the care of strangers or in a state institution than with their parents?

 

And at what point does someone get to decide that what I believe is bad for my children, and take them away?

 

No.

 

Unless those children are beaten, physically tortured, s@xually violated, or criminally neglected (starvation, for example) it is morally reprehensible to separate them from their parents.

 

And I disagree with you completely. Raising children with the sole purpose of creating more ignornorant jerks in the world is child abuse, IMO.

I never said ALL children are better off raised by the state. That's an idiotic statement. I think THESE particular children would have a better shot at a good life raised by the state. Abso-freaking-lutely.

 

I also do think many more of you would be upset if the children were named "Satan" or "Jesus Christ Never Existed." Then I think this thread would be 19 pages of bashing the parents instead of, "I was investigated by CPS once and it was totally unfair!" posts.

 

Jen

[beansprouts]

I also do think many more of you would be upset if the children were named "Satan" or "Jesus Christ Never Existed." Then I think this thread would be 19 pages of bashing the parents instead of, "I was investigated by CPS once and it was totally unfair!" posts.

 

 

You apparently didn't read most of the pages.

 

ETA: Personally, I think "Satan" is pretty much the same thing.

Edited December 18, 2008 by beansprouts

[fshinkevich]

:iagree:

 

I too have selectively vaccinated my children. And yes, I was interviewed in a hospital emergency room about it when my dd was 2yo. (Nothing came of that interview, though it scared me to death.)

 

There are those in my life that argue that my choices have endangered my children. My dh and I have chosen to live in a neighborhood wherein we are the racial minority and where there is high crime and drug abuse. When we first moved in there was a pimp operating right across the street. There are those that argue that our beliefs, and our concerns for racial reconciliation and for helping others find peace with God, have endangered our children.

 

As you said, if we're going to get that subjective about abuse then who is going to be in charge of making the determinations?

 

So where would you draw the line? Does it need to get so far that a child needs to get physically injured in order to get help?

 

I think I can see a very clear line between a parent who is selectively choosing their vaccinations or alternative forms of education for what they believe to be the good of the child and one who is doing it simply out of laziness or to prove some point.

 

Do you think its abusive for a parent to deny ANY medical care to their child, because there are those that have those beliefs, and the state has stepped in.

 

I can also see a difference in someone who raises their children to dislike a certain group of people (still wrong, imo) and one who fully immerses their child in that hate.

 

Do you think its abusive for the certain groups that raise children to fight in wars at age ten? They have not committed anything illegal YET but their intent is clear. The emotional abuse is obvious, I would hope.

[Jennifer3141]

You mean like home schoolers are said to be doing?

 

I think that if that's your goal for homeschooling, then it's safe to say that we have very different ideas of education.

 

Jen

[OnTheBrink]

The cold, hard truth of the matter is this: This is the United States of America. People have the right to live their beliefs as they see fit. People also have the right to think others are total morons and shouldn't breed. I guarantee that everyone, in every walk of life, of every creed and belief, has thought that about someone else who's way of life was abhorrent to them. You (general) may feel your way of life is nurturing and beneficial to your children, but I guarantee you, there are people who think you're an idiot, a moron, shouldn't have the right to breed and should have your children removed because you don't live they way they do.

 

Who gets to decide if these people should lose their kids? What if they thought we should lose our kids? Can they decide that because our lives are abhorrent to them? The fact is, the right to live according to your belief system applies to everyone in this country, not just those we like or agree with. Once we start deciding who "deserves" their children based on something like what name they choose (whether it's Adolf Hitler, Aryan Nation, or Satan), then we have started doing the very same things Hitler did.

 

And THAT is far scarier to me than a small group of bigots who name their children after mass murders.

[Harriet Vane]

There are too many, highly subjective definitions for child abuse flying around this thread.

 

I am going to have to bow out of this thread.

[Zelda]

I think that if that's your goal for homeschooling, then it's safe to say that we have very different ideas of education.

 

Jen

 

*snort*

 

I'm guessing that we both know that that is not my goal and that we do have very different ideas about education.

[PollyOR]

Once we start deciding who "deserves" their children based on something like what name they choose (whether it's Adolf Hitler, Aryan Nation, or Satan), then we have started doing the very same things Hitler did.

 

And THAT is far scarier to me than a small group of bigots who name their children after mass murders.

 

:iagree:

[Zelda]

And THAT is far scarier to me than a small group of bigots who name their children after mass murders.

 

You know what amazes me? That people are so terrified about what these people have in store for society. Hello? These two morons can't even hold down one job between the two of them. They aren't even *that* motivated. While we've been debating this, they've probably moved onto such subversive activities as couch and Jerry Springer. Yeah. I'm quaking.

[beansprouts]

You know what amazes me? That people are so terrified about what these people have in store for society. Hello? These two morons can't even hold down one job between the two of them. They aren't even *that* motivated. While we've been debating this, they've probably moved onto such subversive activities as couch and Jerry Springer. Yeah. I'm quaking.

 

:smilielol5:

[Tea Time]

hmm, not familiar with that, but normally a private business is not considered public? They can showcase any signs they want to normally. If it can be seen from the street, there's probably decency laws of some kind. (for example even a strip club usually can't post anything too graphic that can be seen outside the facility.)

 

 

whoa. I didn't say Hitler wasn't evil. He certainly was. What I said was that someone who can look their fellow man in the eye as they torture them, maim them, murder their children, and more is more evil imo than someone who is miles away signing the order for it. Hitler would NEVER have gained power if it wasn't for people who were willing to do the evil he asked of them on their fellow man.

 

 

Ug.

Again.

I'm mostly ticked that because I value my freedom and my rights, I have to defend all rights and freedoms - including those of such parental idiots that name their kids Adolf, Hinler, and Aryan and have the poor taste to decorate in the same manner.:glare:

 

We own a sign, so we have found out some funny things about legalities. You would be surprised by some of the snags, mostly not a problem, just weird "control issues" you find with anything State related.

 

I sure did not mean to imply that you did not think Hitler was evil. I think there is room for debate about him being more or less evil than the people carrying it out. For one thing, they might have been in a position of fear or threat that he probably did not share. As you observed, people will do crazy things if they are afraid. But, a little healthy fear is generally a good thing. So, it all rests on specific circumstances not blanket statements, and each individual has to make their own choices and live with them.

 

We seem to agree for the most part. I totally agree with your final statement about defending people in order to keep your own freedoms. I agree with the fact that the State should be kept out of the situation unless the problem turns criminal. I think the family is the most likely one to involve it since doing so will benefit them the most.

 

I am mainly interested in how individuals or organizations should deal with this family so as not to enable them in their intent to inflame or provoke and yet still be fair and supportive of the children - while NOT involving the State or acquiescing to their every whim. That was really what the article was about in relation to the bakery. Obviously ignoring them and being compassionate to the kids is the best response, assuming it does not require you to trample on your own values. Real live people have to decide that daily. I feel for them!

 

Thanks for some very interesting thoughts, everyone! I have enjoyed the distraction!

[fshinkevich]

assuming it does not require you to trample on your own values. Real live people have to decide that daily. I feel for them!

 

 

And I think that's the major issue. I keep hearing "it's just a name" and "within their rights" but its not just a name. We are not talking about naming your child after a serial killer responsible for 20, 50, ever 200 deaths. We are talking about a man, a belief, that is responsible for the deaths of millions. And this wasn't all that long ago, this pain is still fresh in the minds of many.

 

And why should anyone have to be tolerant of their "rights" when they are clearly not being tolerant of those around them?

 

This is not just taking your family to church on a Sunday, because you think it's the right thing to do. They are being openly hostile to the majority of the people around them. And the parents are putting the weight of this burden on the shoulder of their toddlers.

 

The fact that they have no jobs makes me more alarmed, not less. They have more time to focus on their hate, rather than contribute to society in any meaningful way.

 

And for the record, if you named your child Son of Sam, i'd think you were pretty disgusting too.

[Audrey]

And I think that's the major issue. I keep hearing "it's just a name" and "within their rights" but its not just a name. We are not talking about naming your child after a serial killer responsible for 20, 50, ever 200 deaths. We are talking about a man, a belief, that is responsible for the deaths of millions.

 

This is all true, but try to remember we are talking about parents who probably couldn't count past 10 without taking off a shoe, who if you said to them "a penny for your thoughts" their reply would probably make you think you were due some change back.

 

Yes, they're offensive, but they're also exceptional. And, I don't mean that in a good way. ;)

[fshinkevich]

This is all true, but try to remember we are talking about parents who probably couldn't count past 10 without taking off a shoe, who if you said to them "a penny for your thoughts" their reply would probably make you think you were due some change back.

 

Yes, they're offensive, but they're also exceptional. And, I don't mean that in a good way. ;)

 

EXACTLY! And exactly why maybe someone should step in and be a voice for those children?

 

There are people who skip or delay some vaccinations and then there are those that refuse medical care when their child has a potentially curable cancer.

 

There are people that choose to not eat meat, or any animal product at all after carefully researching the diet and then there are those that starve their child to death under the claims of being Vegan.

 

There are those that raise their children by their bible and then those that use their beliefs as an excuse to emotionally, sexually, physically abuse their children.

 

It's these exceptions that need some help.

[lovemyboys]

That environment is as toxic to those children

 

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?

 

 

Sadly, I know a girl who moved to our town in high school. Her last name was Hoare. As hard as she tried to get people to pronounce it hoe-R, the parents pronounced it to rhyme with wh*re. Can't imagine how hard that was for a 14 yo girl.

 

I also know an adult man whose first name is the same as one of Hitler's staff. Very recognizable. It makes you pause when you're first introduced.

 

But the thought occurred to me that as ugly as the names might be, how many other children with perfectly normal names are in homes enduring ugly, sad lives because they've got parents who "look" normal but embody evil? You said that DFS could keep an eye on that family -- yes -- but I also want them (DFS) to be following up on the tips to find the truly evil families out there as well.

 

Sorry to take it a little OT, but this is one of my rants.

[fshinkevich]

Sadly, I know a girl who moved to our town in high school. Her last name was Hoare. As hard as she tried to get people to pronounce it hoe-R, the parents pronounced it to rhyme with wh*re. Can't imagine how hard that was for a 14 yo girl.

 

I also know an adult man whose first name is the same as one of Hitler's staff. Very recognizable. It makes you pause when you're first introduced.

 

But the thought occurred to me that as ugly as the names might be, how many other children with perfectly normal names are in homes enduring ugly, sad lives because they've got parents who "look" normal but embody evil? You said that DFS could keep an eye on that family -- yes -- but I also want them (DFS) to be following up on the tips to find the truly evil families out there as well.

 

Sorry to take it a little OT, but this is one of my rants.

 

I couldn't agree more.

 

I liked this article on the subject:

http://personalmoneystore.com/moneyblog/2008/12/17/what-if-adolph-hitler-applies-for-a-personal-loan/

 

You'll noticed that both parents have perfectly acceptable names. I think at the very least they should be forced to change them to "D*uchbag" and "Small P*nis" - I'm sure ShopRite would be more than happy to put that on a cake for them.

[PollyOR]

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?

 

"I was investigated by CPS once and it was totally unfair!" posts.Jen

 

 

My reason for posting my own experience was to not to say "poor me." It is to point out that we (myself included) need to be careful when judging others. We do not know the whole story.

 

I never thought I would be investigated for child abuse. I never thought my oldest would get pregnant and have to get married. I never thought one of my children would be on antidepressants by the age of 13. But here I am. I would not choose to walk in these shoes. Yet, it has made me a more compassionate person and not as quick to pass judgment.

 

My opinion - do I agree with the names they have chosen for their children? No. But, it isn't grounds to split up their family.

[beansprouts]

My reason for posting my own experience was to not to say "poor me." It is to point out that we (myself included) need to be careful when judging others. We do not know the whole story.

 

I never thought I would be investigated for child abuse. I never thought my oldest would get pregnant and have to get married. I never thought one of my children would be on antidepressants by the age of 13. But here I am. I would not choose to walk in these shoes. Yet, it has made me a more compassionate person and not as quick to pass judgment.

 

My opinion - do I agree with the names they have chosen for their children? No. But, it isn't grounds to split up their family.

 

I do think we need that reminder. Thank you for sharing, Polly.

[Murphy101]

And I disagree with you completely. Raising children with the sole purpose of creating more ignornorant jerks in the world is child abuse, IMO.

 

 

hmm. nope. I disagree completely. If people want to raise ignorant kids - that's their choice. If people want to raise jerks - that's also their choice. And ignorant is most certainly in the eye of the beholder. Hitler was one sick something-something, but I wouldn't call him ignorant.

 

I also do think many more of you would be upset if the children were named "Satan" or "Jesus Christ Never Existed." Then I think this thread would be 19 pages of bashing the parents

 

nonsense. they have that option too. this board is rather well known for the many non-christians and diverse christians on it.

 

So where would you draw the line? Does it need to get so far that a child needs to get physically injured in order to get help?

 

yes.

 

I think I can see a very clear line between a parent who is selectively choosing their vaccinations or alternative forms of education for what they believe to be the good of the child and one who is doing it simply out of laziness or to prove some point.

 

#1 it doesn't matter what you think. The state does not think like we do.

#2 the reason a parent does something does not change it from okay to abuse.

 

I can also see a difference in someone who raises their children to dislike a certain group of people (still wrong, imo) and one who fully immerses their child in that hate.

 

oh geez. that's just flat our spliting hairs.

if they quietly raise a little hate-monger it's okay, just don't be obvious about it?

 

Do you think its abusive for the certain groups that raise children to fight in wars at age ten? They have not committed anything illegal YET but their intent is clear. The emotional abuse is obvious, I would hope.

 

no. in fact, america did it too. many a drummer boy was as young as 10 or 12 during the revolution and civil war. during WWI and WWII children in europe did many things to help their parents and neighbors. in war, everyone fights. that's the nature of war.

 

many families today have a long history of military service and pass that onto their kids.

 

it's not a bad thing most of the time.

 

I guess whether it is or not depends on whether you agree with who/what they are fighting for.

 

Once we start deciding who "deserves" their children based on something like what name they choose (whether it's Adolf Hitler, Aryan Nation, or Satan), then we have started doing the very same things Hitler did.

 

And THAT is far scarier to me than a small group of bigots who name their children after mass murders.

 

:iagree:

 

 

And why should anyone have to be tolerant of their "rights" when they are clearly not being tolerant of those around them?

 

because that's pretty much how the entire concept of rights and freedom work.

 

we don't toss them every time someone is a jerk

 

This is not just taking your family to church on a Sunday, because you think it's the right thing to do. They are being openly hostile to the majority of the people around them. And the parents are putting the weight of this burden on the shoulder of their toddlers.

 

once a month there's a show on Sunday that some jerk pastor has.

I say jerk pastor because his entire 2 hour program is about how the Catholic church and specificly the pope is the anti-christ.

And yes, he actually says Anti-Christ.

 

As far as I'm concerned this is a hate-mongering ignorant so and so man.

The fact that he does it in a church and under the name of God, just adds insult to injury.

 

But it's his right to that opinion.

It's my right to change the channel.

 

It wouldn't even occur to me that his children should be taken from him.

[lionfamily1999]

EXACTLY! And exactly why maybe someone should step in and be a voice for those children?

 

There are people who skip or delay some vaccinations and then there are those that refuse medical care when their child has a potentially curable cancer.

 

There are people that choose to not eat meat, or any animal product at all after carefully researching the diet and then there are those that starve their child to death under the claims of being Vegan.

 

There are those that raise their children by their bible and then those that use their beliefs as an excuse to emotionally, sexually, physically abuse their children.

 

It's these exceptions that need some help.

The problem is that there are people that believe that skipping or delaying vaccines is abuse. There are people that believe that placing animal life higher than human life is abuse. There are people that believe that raising children by the bible is abuse. There are people that believe that homeschooling children is abuse. There are people that believe raising children to be patriotic is abuse. There are people that believe "indocrinating" your child into a religion is abuse.

 

Abuse is in the eye of the beholder. The USA has drawn the line at life threatening injuries. Should that line be redrawn, should it be more inclusive? Should the government decide what constitutes emotional abuse? Again, should the government get to make out a list of acceptable and unacceptable practices, including names, belief systems, punishments, educational systems?

[OnTheBrink]

 

I also do think many more of you would be upset if the children were named "Satan" or "Jesus Christ Never Existed." Then I think this thread would be 19 pages of bashing the parents instead of, "I was investigated by CPS once and it was totally unfair!" posts.

 

Jen

 

Out of the 184 posts in this thread, 2 posters have mentioned personal experience with being investigated. Strider has maybe 5 posts, Polly has 2, I think. So, 7 posts about personal experience and 177 posts calling the parents idiots, etc, and discussion on the store's right to refuse service, with a mingling of whether the state should be involved.

 

Hardly a majority of "I was investigated by CPS once and it was totally unfair!" posts.

[Harriet Vane]

Out of the 184 posts in this thread, 2 posters have mentioned personal experience with being investigated. Strider has maybe 5 posts, Polly has 2, I think. So, 7 posts about personal experience and 177 posts calling the parents idiots, etc, and discussion on the store's right to refuse service, with a mingling of whether the state should be involved.

 

Hardly a majority of "I was investigated by CPS once and it was totally unfair!" posts.

 

And FTR I was never, ever investigated by CPS (it's DCFS where I live). I was in a hospital emergency room with my sick daughter who was dehydrated from stomach flu. There was a nurse who was openly disapproving of our vaccination decision. (We delayed starting vaccines until age 2, at which point we did it on our own schedule, and did only certain ones but not others.) That nurse called the hospital social worker, who interviewed me. The social worker was far less hostile than the nurse. She recognized my rights in the matter and did NOT refer us for government investigation.

 

My comments on social services and on how inappropriate it is to remove children from parents based on philosophy were based entirely on my beliefs and on my long experience with foster children and foster-to-adopt situations. I brought up the vaccine interview simply to bolster the argument that what one person considers an act of love, another person would consider "abusive."