• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Tenn. judge changes infant's name from 'Messiah'

roguenuke said:
Because the parents already chose a name for their child. They wanted to change it to something easily viewed as offensive for others to say. Just as a parent could not change their child's name to "WhitePeopleDeserveToDie". It would be their choice but still would be offensive for others to say and violate their rights in saying it. Reasonable person viewpoint. Messiah is not offensive for most others (reasonable standpoint) to say, those other names would be. The article did a good job of showing a couple of very legitimate reasons/ways it could be offensive to others for a person to have either "JesusIsLord" or "ChristIsKing" as their name. A teacher isn't allowed to make such a declaration in class on her own, why should it be okay for a parent to use their child to force others to make that declaration? And there is no mistaken this for anything other than a religious statement, much unlike a name like Messiah which is easily a legitimate name.
Click to expand...
Parents have the right to only make a mistake once with their child? ANd so what if society is uncomfortable or doesnt like it? Thats the same ruling and justification given re the Messiah name. Its simply ironic and telling that people would decry the judge for involvement in one case but support it in the other.
 
VanceMack said:
Parents have the right to only make a mistake once with their child? ANd so what if society is uncomfortable or doesnt like it? Thats the same ruling and justification given re the Messiah name. Its simply ironic and telling that people would decry the judge for involvement in one case but support it in the other.
Click to expand...

It isn't the same though. The judge ruled that Messiah as a name would cause people to harm or be upset with the child with that name. The ruling that was made in the other case said that others should not be forced to make a declaration with a name given purposely to make that declaration without any mistake as to the declaration being made. There is no innocent intention when it comes to "JesusIsLord" as a name or "ChristIsKing" as a last name. It isn't simply "a mistake" but rather an effort to force your religion onto others.
 
roguenuke said:
It isn't the same though. The judge ruled that Messiah as a name would cause people to harm or be upset with the child with that name. The ruling that was made in the other case said that others should not be forced to make a declaration with a name given purposely to make that declaration without any mistake as to the declaration being made. There is no innocent intention when it comes to "JesusIsLord" as a name or "ChristIsKing" as a last name. It isn't simply "a mistake" but rather an effort to force your religion onto others.
Click to expand...
Its laughable that anyone believes a 'name' is forcing ones religion on them. Its also pretty disturbing how readily we embrace judicial activism when it suits or beliefs.
 
VanceMack said:
Its laughable that anyone believes a 'name' is forcing ones religion on them. Its also pretty disturbing how readily we embrace judicial activism when it suits or beliefs.
Click to expand...

It is not judicial activism when someone actually is requesting to do something rather than it being brought up purely by the judge. And they are different circumstances. Just as someone could not name their child "WhitesAreSuperior" or "BlacksShouldRuleTheWorld" or change their last name to "Bitch****er" because those things would be offensive and easily seen as offensive from a reasonable person viewpoint.
 
roguenuke said:
It is not judicial activism when someone actually is requesting to do something rather than it being brought up purely by the judge. And they are different circumstances. Just as someone could not name their child "WhitesAreSuperior" or "BlacksShouldRuleTheWorld" or change their last name to "Bitch****er" because those things would be offensive and easily seen as offensive from a reasonable person viewpoint.
Click to expand...
Pardon my direct question...but where did you get the notion you had the right to NOT be offended by someone elses decision? And maybe a better question...what kind of a person is going to walk around being 'offended' over someones name, however stupid it may be? And finally...do you REALLY believe its a judges place to make that kind of a judgement call?
 
roguenuke said:
It isn't the same though. The judge ruled that Messiah as a name would cause people to harm or be upset with the child with that name. The ruling that was made in the other case said that others should not be forced to make a declaration with a name given purposely to make that declaration without any mistake as to the declaration being made. There is no innocent intention when it comes to "JesusIsLord" as a name or "ChristIsKing" as a last name. It isn't simply "a mistake" but rather an effort to force your religion onto others.
Click to expand...

I think names are included with freedom of speech. Even if it is wrong (by your standards) it is unAmerican to not allow it. Im sure the kid will argue enough with his parents to get it changed or have people call them by a different nickname if it bothers them enough. If I want to name my kid XYZ and start a new trend because its who I am then who are you to deny me this because it ruffles your feathers? People have different standards and this isnt illegal. People try to force their religion and many many other things on their kids all the time. Deal with it.
 
VanceMack said:
Pardon my direct question...but where did you get the notion you had the right to NOT be offended by someone elses decision? And maybe a better question...what kind of a person is going to walk around being 'offended' over someones name, however stupid it may be? And finally...do you REALLY believe its a judges place to make that kind of a judgement call?
Click to expand...

As the lawyer in your posted story on this correctly pointed out, other people are much more likely to use a person's name than the person themself. And that is reasonable enough to find that someone should not be able to have whatever name they want. It is not unreasonable to expect people to have names that would not offend a large number of people, as ChristIsKing or JesusIsLord could very well do. Messiah is less likely to do it. Just like with most things, it is about level of harm done. Whose rights are more affected. In this case, there is a request to make an official change, not simply a judge overstepping and deciding that a child should not be named something that is in fact the name held by many others. Another factor is absolutely intention. And they are free to be called whatever they want to. But they should not be allowed to force others to call them something that could reasonably seen as offensive to them.
 
dirtpoorchris said:
I think names are included with freedom of speech. Even if it is wrong (by your standards) it is unAmerican to not allow it. Im sure the kid will argue enough with his parents to get it changed or have people call them by a different nickname if it bothers them enough. If I want to name my kid XYZ and start a new trend because its who I am then who are you to deny me this because it ruffles your feathers? People have different standards and this isnt illegal. People try to force their religion and many many other things on their kids all the time. Deal with it.
Click to expand...

The kid was indoctrinated to want the name "JesusIsLord". The first judge said that he should wait to change his name til he was an adult. His birth certificate had his name as "Jeremy", not "JesusIsLord". He has been known as Jeremy since he was born up until the parents wanted to change it and the whole family's last name to "ChristIsKing" (which was actually the main one being denied here, not the child's first name).
 
roguenuke said:
As the lawyer in your posted story on this correctly pointed out, other people are much more likely to use a person's name than the person themself. And that is reasonable enough to find that someone should not be able to have whatever name they want. It is not unreasonable to expect people to have names that would not offend a large number of people, as ChristIsKing or JesusIsLord could very well do. Messiah is less likely to do it. Just like with most things, it is about level of harm done. Whose rights are more affected. In this case, there is a request to make an official change, not simply a judge overstepping and deciding that a child should not be named something that is in fact the name held by many others. Another factor is absolutely intention. And they are free to be called whatever they want to. But they should not be allowed to force others to call them something that could reasonably seen as offensive to them.
Click to expand...
Again...thats one of those things we like to call "their problem".

How much do you want to bet that the REAL reason the judge decided not to allow the name Messiah was because THE JUDGE was offended?
 
VanceMack said:
Again...thats one of those things we like to call "their problem".

How much do you want to bet that the REAL reason the judge decided not to allow the name Messiah was because THE JUDGE was offended?
Click to expand...

Several judges denied the boy's name change, not just one. And certain name changes have been denied even by the SCOTUS as not being reasonable freedom of speech when it is an official name change. As I said before, unofficially they can be called whatever they want to. In fact, there is a common law they can use where they are free to become known as that name without an official request, but official requests can be denied with good reason. What else would be good reason?
 
roguenuke said:
Several judges denied the boy's name change, not just one. And certain name changes have been denied even by the SCOTUS as not being reasonable freedom of speech when it is an official name change. As I said before, unofficially they can be called whatever they want to. In fact, there is a common law they can use where they are free to become known as that name without an official request, but official requests can be denied with good reason. What else would be good reason?
Click to expand...
I think we are having this thread and discussion because they 'can'. The question is not can but 'should'.
 
VanceMack said:
I think we are having this thread and discussion because they 'can'. The question is not can but 'should'.
Click to expand...

Actually, that case could very well go up to the SCOTUS.

And yes, they should be able to limit (in very specific cases) what a person can change their name to or put on a birth certificate (although that would likely be something that would simply be denied by the county clerk first and then go to a judge).

You consistently have avoided answering most of what I have asked though. What is reasonable to limit? Why should they not be allowed to limit name changes when those names could greatly offend someone else to say, from a reasonable person standpoint? The SCOTUS has even said that limits of a very specific kind on name changes do not violate freedom of speech since those people are still allowed to legally tell others that they want to be called that specific name even if it is not official. Now, it doesn't mean others have to call them that.

But they made some good points. Having a name like "ChristIsKing" could cause major issues for companies that were frequented by a person with that last name, especially given the first names. It can cause political and social problems for someone else because you have that name. As the article pointed out, what if someone had to request over an intercom "Rejoice ChristIsKing" or "JesusIsLord ChristIsKing"? That could most definitely be taken as an employee stating their religious beliefs to an entire restaurant or airport or even public office. The people in there wouldn't think that this was a name being requested. They would think it was a statement of belief, and some could be offended enough by this to in fact cause the business harm because of the name used. The same would be true for a name such as "PissOff" or "ChinksMakeGoodSlaves". They would still be freedom of speech names right? Then why can't a person use those names officially?
 
roguenuke said:
Actually, that case could very well go up to the SCOTUS.

And yes, they should be able to limit (in very specific cases) what a person can change their name to or put on a birth certificate (although that would likely be something that would simply be denied by the county clerk first and then go to a judge).

You consistently have avoided answering most of what I have asked though. What is reasonable to limit? Why should they not be allowed to limit name changes when those names could greatly offend someone else to say, from a reasonable person standpoint? The SCOTUS has even said that limits of a very specific kind on name changes do not violate freedom of speech since those people are still allowed to legally tell others that they want to be called that specific name even if it is not official. Now, it doesn't mean others have to call them that.

But they made some good points. Having a name like "ChristIsKing" could cause major issues for companies that were frequented by a person with that last name, especially given the first names. It can cause political and social problems for someone else because you have that name. As the article pointed out, what if someone had to request over an intercom "Rejoice ChristIsKing" or "JesusIsLord ChristIsKing"? That could most definitely be taken as an employee stating their religious beliefs to an entire restaurant or airport or even public office. The people in there wouldn't think that this was a name being requested. They would think it was a statement of belief, and some could be offended enough by this to in fact cause the business harm because of the name used. The same would be true for a name such as "PissOff" or "ChinksMakeGoodSlaves". They would still be freedom of speech names right? Then why can't a person use those names officially?
Click to expand...
Then they can announce "The person with the name ChristIsKing" to prevent confusion or not employ that person. Who cares if people get mad? Thats their problem and they can sort it out later only to find out it was someones name even if confusion does occur. I guess people shouldnt be named Shirley either. Shirley, you cant be serious!

What about Kreye-staz-keeng? Is that illegal in your books? Once you take a bit away of free speech then it is no longer free speech. It is limited speech.
 
I honestly think there's a difference between changing a first name and a last name. In this case, it wasn't picking a new last name, it was determining which one of the existing last names would be used. I don't think people ought to be able to change last names to something made up, they ought to have a legitimate reason for it and then, only changing to another legitimate last name that they have a legal link to.
 
Cephus said:
I honestly think there's a difference between changing a first name and a last name. In this case, it wasn't picking a new last name, it was determining which one of the existing last names would be used. I don't think people ought to be able to change last names to something made up, they ought to have a legitimate reason for it and then, only changing to another legitimate last name that they have a legal link to.
Click to expand...

All names were made up at some point in time. Thats an absurd requirement. That it has to exsist already?? What if my dad was a carpenter and my mom was a whore? If I want to change my last name to Carpenslut then what business is it of yours?
 
dirtpoorchris said:
All names were made up at some point in time. Thats an absurd requirement. That it has to exsist already?? What if my dad was a carpenter and my mom was a whore? If I want to change my last name to Carpenslut then what business is it of yours?
Click to expand...

personally...I'd go with "Trampenter"
 
roguenuke said:
Actually, that case could very well go up to the SCOTUS.

And yes, they should be able to limit (in very specific cases) what a person can change their name to or put on a birth certificate (although that would likely be something that would simply be denied by the county clerk first and then go to a judge).

You consistently have avoided answering most of what I have asked though. What is reasonable to limit? Why should they not be allowed to limit name changes when those names could greatly offend someone else to say, from a reasonable person standpoint? The SCOTUS has even said that limits of a very specific kind on name changes do not violate freedom of speech since those people are still allowed to legally tell others that they want to be called that specific name even if it is not official. Now, it doesn't mean others have to call them that.

But they made some good points. Having a name like "ChristIsKing" could cause major issues for companies that were frequented by a person with that last name, especially given the first names. It can cause political and social problems for someone else because you have that name. As the article pointed out, what if someone had to request over an intercom "Rejoice ChristIsKing" or "JesusIsLord ChristIsKing"? That could most definitely be taken as an employee stating their religious beliefs to an entire restaurant or airport or even public office. The people in there wouldn't think that this was a name being requested. They would think it was a statement of belief, and some could be offended enough by this to in fact cause the business harm because of the name used. The same would be true for a name such as "PissOff" or "ChinksMakeGoodSlaves". They would still be freedom of speech names right? Then why can't a person use those names officially?
Click to expand...
I dnt know where you asked me a question but Ill answer that...no problem. The courts SHOULD NOT limit what a parent names their kid. period. You dont have a right to not be offended. Period. I also have long held that a child should be able to change hi or her name at 18 without charge if they choose to because parents often do some stupid ****. Beyond that...its not your business, nor is it the courts. What happens when a judge decides he or she doesnt like Jesus, Muhammed, Christian, Islam, or any of the cast of Biblical names. No more Sarahs, Davids, Peters (ok...we could do away with Peter)...
 
VanceMack said:
I dnt know where you asked me a question but Ill answer that...no problem. The courts SHOULD NOT limit what a parent names their kid. period. You dont have a right to not be offended. Period. I also have long held that a child should be able to change hi or her name at 18 without charge if they choose to because parents often do some stupid ****. Beyond that...its not your business, nor is it the courts. What happens when a judge decides he or she doesnt like Jesus, Muhammed, Christian, Islam, or any of the cast of Biblical names. No more Sarahs, Davids, Peters (ok...we could do away with Peter)...
Click to expand...
I think a kid should be able to change his name whenever he is old enough to talk just in case. If the kid has enough willpower then let him change his name to Heman if he freaking wishes. :p Too libertarian of me? Then maybe after 18 its set in stone and he has to pay for it. Limit it to 1 free name change a year because kids are fickle. :p Streamline it with some online process to give kids easier access to the social mechanism.
 
dirtpoorchris said:
Then they can announce "The person with the name ChristIsKing" to prevent confusion or not employ that person. Who cares if people get mad? Thats their problem and they can sort it out later only to find out it was someones name even if confusion does occur. I guess people shouldnt be named Shirley either. Shirley, you cant be serious!

What about Kreye-staz-keeng? Is that illegal in your books? Once you take a bit away of free speech then it is no longer free speech. It is limited speech.
Click to expand...

There is a difference. There are some names that are legitimately just bad choices but not trying to make any sort of statement, political or religious. The intent is important as well as the potential impact.

And no, it would not be just the people who find it offensive impacted. The person could just be doing something innocent and end up causing a huge uproar over it because of this.

As I said before, they are completely free to call themselves that name if they wish, just not officially right now. I don't honestly care if they are able to change their name, only that I see the very valid reason for refusing such a name change. It is nothing like the initial story.
 
VanceMack said:
I dnt know where you asked me a question but Ill answer that...no problem. The courts SHOULD NOT limit what a parent names their kid. period. You dont have a right to not be offended. Period. I also have long held that a child should be able to change hi or her name at 18 without charge if they choose to because parents often do some stupid ****. Beyond that...its not your business, nor is it the courts. What happens when a judge decides he or she doesnt like Jesus, Muhammed, Christian, Islam, or any of the cast of Biblical names. No more Sarahs, Davids, Peters (ok...we could do away with Peter)...
Click to expand...

I asked whether a person should be allowed to be named "WhitesAreSuperior" or "BlacksKillAllWhites" or "PissOff" or "AsiansMakeGoodSlaves" or names to these effects. What about Bitch****er or Horse****? That is the point. There are names that are purposely given to make people offended by them. Messiah and those others you mentioned aren't such names. It has already been ruled on that names that can be deemed to be offensive by a reasonable person are not allowed for people to change to (which is what the family is requesting). And this is a different case than what the original judge did in changing the child's name from what had already gotten through the birth certificate forms, which would be the first place it could be denied if there was a problem.
 
roguenuke said:
I asked whether a person should be allowed to be named "WhitesAreSuperior" or "BlacksKillAllWhites" or "PissOff" or "AsiansMakeGoodSlaves" or names to these effects. What about Bitch****er or Horse****? That is the point. There are names that are purposely given to make people offended by them. Messiah and those others you mentioned aren't such names. It has already been ruled on that names that can be deemed to be offensive by a reasonable person are not allowed for people to change to (which is what the family is requesting). And this is a different case than what the original judge did in changing the child's name from what had already gotten through the birth certificate forms, which would be the first place it could be denied if there was a problem.
Click to expand...

And I already answered...yes. That makes the parents dumb as hell but yes...they should be able to name their children whatever they want. People like that...you would be worried about a 'name'?
 
VanceMack said:
And I already answered...yes. That makes the parents dumb as hell but yes...they should be able to name their children whatever they want. People like that...you would be worried about a 'name'?
Click to expand...

This is about changing a name legally, not really naming a child. Those names would be refused in most states from being legally allowed. They would be forced to change it almost definitely. The birth certificate application form would likely be rejected by the county registrar's office and possibly a hearing set up for them to decide a more appropriate name. But the SCOTUS has already ruled that names that meet specific criteria can be denied as official names, particularly when a person requests an official name change. And their reasoning is sound. The people are still free to personally call themselves or even their children whatever they want. If it is verbally abusive, it is likely that the state will step in and stop it as they should. But their freedom of speech does not trump other people's rights to freedom of speech either. In this case, it has been determined that other people use your name more than you do, speak your name more than you do. So they have at least a limited (very limited) right to not have to say a name that could be considered offensive to a significant amount of the population. And this is the SCOTUS ruling on this.
 
roguenuke said:
This is about changing a name legally, not really naming a child. Those names would be refused in most states from being legally allowed. They would be forced to change it almost definitely. The birth certificate application form would likely be rejected by the county registrar's office and possibly a hearing set up for them to decide a more appropriate name. But the SCOTUS has already ruled that names that meet specific criteria can be denied as official names, particularly when a person requests an official name change. And their reasoning is sound. The people are still free to personally call themselves or even their children whatever they want. If it is verbally abusive, it is likely that the state will step in and stop it as they should. But their freedom of speech does not trump other people's rights to freedom of speech either. In this case, it has been determined that other people use your name more than you do, speak your name more than you do. So they have at least a limited (very limited) right to not have to say a name that could be considered offensive to a significant amount of the population. And this is the SCOTUS ruling on this.
Click to expand...

Thats a dumb arguement. If someoen doesnt like my name they can choose not to say it or call me by some other characteristic. If I want my name to be ****er and someone doesnt like it they can exercise their free speech and call me "Tucker with an F" and then we both get to keep it. Im not forcing anyone to call me by my name. Your logic as to why other people should have more rights to my name then me sounds as asinine to me as my name being ****er does to you. But im not trying to take away your freedom.
 
dirtpoorchris said:
Thats a dumb arguement. If someoen doesnt like my name they can choose not to say it or call me by some other characteristic. If I want my name to be ****er and someone doesnt like it they can exercise their free speech and call me "Tucker with an F" and then we both get to keep it. Im not forcing anyone to call me by my name. Your logic as to why other people should have more rights to my name then me sounds as asinine to me as my name being ****er does to you. But im not trying to take away your freedom.
Click to expand...

So how exactly is a public employee supposed to page a person whose name is "JesusIsLord ChristIsKing" over the intercom while in a crowded public office when saying those names could be offensive to the person doing the paging, along with many of the other people in that office? Should they shorten it to "Jesus Christ"? That wouldn't be blasphemous would it?

It is a logical, legal argument that you cannot change your name that you already have been living your life as to something else legally that would cause others possible harm or great offense. You live as a part of society. If you personally want to be known as "Bum****er", so be it, but that doesn't mean the rest of society has to accept that as your legal name.
 
roguenuke said:
So how exactly is a public employee supposed to page a person whose name is "JesusIsLord ChristIsKing" over the intercom while in a crowded public office when saying those names could be offensive to the person doing the paging, along with many of the other people in that office? Should they shorten it to "Jesus Christ"? That wouldn't be blasphemous would it?

It is a logical, legal argument that you cannot change your name that you already have been living your life as to something else legally that would cause others possible harm or great offense. You live as a part of society. If you personally want to be known as "Bum****er", so be it, but that doesn't mean the rest of society has to accept that as your legal name.
Click to expand...

I already awnsered that. They can say page saying "The person known as "JesusIsLord ChristIsKing" to prevent confusion or not have the person employed. If there is a law against naming someone something then that isnt freedom of speech. You are free to call me WHATEVER you want. I cannot stop you. But how dare you stop me from legally or otherwise calling myself whatever the hell I choose.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom