• 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'

I agree, they definitely need to put a check on their horrible wasteful spending habits. It's like most of our politicians just don't even care. Probably too busy playing golf, going on vacations, sexting pictures of their wieners to unsuspecting women, and screwing around with interns. :roll:

It really tells you what their priorities actually are....

Libertarians go into politics because we actually care and view the public office as an honor and civic duty - the rest go into politics for money and power...

That's why RINO's and progressives absolutely hate libertarians - we point fingers and call bull**** when wannabe aristocrats get out of line.
 
It really tells you what their priorities actually are....

Libertarians go into politics because we actually care and view the public office as an honor and civic duty - the rest go into politics for money and power...

That's why RINO's and progressives absolutely hate libertarians - we point fingers and call bull**** when wannabe aristocrats get out of line.

Makes sense! :)
 
Makes sense! :)

When I was younger I thought the idea that politics were a "dirty game" was preposterous.... I thought the government had their best intentions for all of us.....

No, they have their best intentions for themselves (most do) we as voters just allow it...
 
When I was younger I thought the idea that politics were a "dirty game" was preposterous.... I thought the government had their best intentions for all of us.....

No, they have their best intentions for themselves (most do) we as voters just allow it...

Yeah, it's funny how when you're a kid you seem to think adults always have your best interests at heart, and then you grow up! :lol:
 
Well, I'm remaining optimistic for as long as I can and will hope that the government can get it's act together.

That would assume that they could put all the money they've stolen out of the fund back into the fund, which they can't. They can't even stop spending more money than they take in. We're doomed.
 
Yeah, it's funny how when you're a kid you seem to think adults always have your best interests at heart, and then you grow up! :lol:

More like 17-21 but yeah - pretty much accurate - I was a progressive young adult...

I suppose the more dust you polish off our government(s) the more dirty it gets... It's like cleaning mud.
 
That would assume that they could put all the money they've stolen out of the fund back into the fund, which they can't. They can't even stop spending more money than they take in. We're doomed.

Well, I hope we aren't "doomed." :) I agree with you though, they are like 16 year old girls at the mall with a credit card that has no limit! That must be how they look at OUR tax monies.
 
Well, I hope we aren't "doomed." :) I agree with you though, they are like 16 year old girls at the mall with a credit card that has no limit! That must be how they look at OUR tax monies.

But they don't care because by the time it all comes apart, they'll all be out of office and won't be held accountable. The best way to solve this is to tell politicians that if they make horrible errors while in office, especially if they know they're only doing it to get votes, they will be held legally and financially accountable for the money they lose and we can, and will, confiscate everything they have and put them in prison forever.

That'll keep the wrong people from running from office, won't it?
 
But they don't care because by the time it all comes apart, they'll all be out of office and won't be held accountable. The best way to solve this is to tell politicians that if they make horrible errors while in office, especially if they know they're only doing it to get votes, they will be held legally and financially accountable for the money they lose and we can, and will, confiscate everything they have and put them in prison forever.

That'll keep the wrong people from running from office, won't it?

:rofl Then we probably wouldn't have anybody running for office.
 
Re: Tennessee Judge orders baby's name be changed from 'Messiah'

Such abuse of power.
 
:rofl Then we probably wouldn't have anybody running for office.

Which is probably a good thing. Better to have no one than the crooks we have running the country now.
 
Which is probably a good thing. Better to have no one than the crooks we have running the country now.

You know, politicians would probably still be crooks because they probably never think they're going to get caught anyway.
 
You know, politicians would probably still be crooks because they probably never think they're going to get caught anyway.

I have always said, anyone who actually wants to be a politician...probably shouldn't.
 
You know, politicians would probably still be crooks because they probably never think they're going to get caught anyway.

Then we can put the crooks away like they should be, if they want to jump up and down and scream "arrest me! arrest me!" that's fine with me.
 
I have always said, anyone who actually wants to be a politician...probably shouldn't.

That largely is the case, you don't have people running for public office because they want to serve the public good, they want to make money and gain power and build influence. It's a power trip, it's not public service. Unfortunately, we've allowed a system to develop whereby anyone who gets into office, regardless of their intentions, must allow themselves to become corrupted by the system in order to get anything done and thus, continue to hold office. We've allowed politics to become nothing but back room deals and underhanded programs, with politicians trading favors so they can get their own way and feather their own nest, it's no wonder we're as screwed up as we are.
 
Then we can put the crooks away like they should be, if they want to jump up and down and scream "arrest me! arrest me!" that's fine with me.

They at the very least should lose their positions if found guilty and never be able to run for public office of any kind again.

For some reason, this conversation reminds me of when Charlie Rangel got "censured" by Congress for being a tax cheat.
 
That largely is the case, you don't have people running for public office because they want to serve the public good, they want to make money and gain power and build influence. It's a power trip, it's not public service. Unfortunately, we've allowed a system to develop whereby anyone who gets into office, regardless of their intentions, must allow themselves to become corrupted by the system in order to get anything done and thus, continue to hold office. We've allowed politics to become nothing but back room deals and underhanded programs, with politicians trading favors so they can get their own way and feather their own nest, it's no wonder we're as screwed up as we are.

that's why we need term limits for all politicians. no more "career politicians". and while we're at it....**** those lifetime pensions for guys who serve one or two terms.
 
that's why we need term limits for all politicians. no more "career politicians". and while we're at it....**** those lifetime pensions for guys who serve one or two terms.

I agree totally with this.
 
that's why we need term limits for all politicians. no more "career politicians". and while we're at it....**** those lifetime pensions for guys who serve one or two terms.

I agree, I think everyone ought to be out of office in no more than 2-3 terms, and I mean out of *EVERY* elected office, until they've spent at least 4-5 years in the private sector, learning how not to be out of touch with the average voter.
 
I agree, I think everyone ought to be out of office in no more than 2-3 terms, and I mean out of *EVERY* elected office, until they've spent at least 4-5 years in the private sector, learning how not to be out of touch with the average voter.

I think offices should only be held for a month and should be selected half random sorta like jury duty vs a office holder of the old world (the way it is now) vs some random citizens picked just for the 1 decision. So a trinity office of these 3 aspects. Or at least something reminiscent of this setup instead of 1 head honcho.

Then after all 3 present their arguments for whatever choice the entire public votes like American Idol or some bullcrap for whoever they want to make the decision if all 3 dont agree.
 
Re: Tennessee Judge orders baby's name be changed from 'Messiah'

Interesting...
Matter of Nawadiuko (2012 NY Slip Op 51931(U))

A New York court banned a family from naming their child Christisking. We didnt hear about that story at all.
 
Re: Tennessee Judge orders baby's name be changed from 'Messiah'

Interesting...
Matter of Nawadiuko (2012 NY Slip Op 51931(U))

A New York court banned a family from naming their child Christisking. We didnt hear about that story at all.

Actually, they stopped the family from renaming their son Jeremy to "JesusIsLord" (as did at least 2 other states) and from allowing the entire family from taking the last name "ChristIsKing". And those are slightly different than this situation. Plus, the family apparently was successful in changing the son Jeremy's name to "JesusIsLord" in the state of Virginia (although even the judge said that the son should wait and try to do this when he is an adult rather than doing it as a minor) (plus, apparently the son is a bit confused even on where exactly the name change was legalized).

And I would say that this part of the reasoning for not allowing such name changes is the best reason for why it is different.

To permit this name change would be placing unwitting members of the public including public servants in the position of having to proclaim petitioners' religious beliefs which may or may not be in agreement with that person's own equally strongly held but different beliefs.

Now, while I can see how a name like Messiah could similarly fit into this reasoning, it is also hard to justify when there are other names out there, including the very real possibility of "Jesus Christ" as someone's actual name since Jesus is a common first name and Christ is actually a surname, that could be like Messiah, including thousands of children that already have the name Messiah with most having no religious connection to their name. But there is no mistaking or avoiding a religious connection to "ChristIsKing" or "JesusIsLord", particularly when they want to have the inside words capitalized.
 
Actually, they stopped the family from renaming their son Jeremy to "JesusIsLord" (as did at least 2 other states) and from allowing the entire family from taking the last name "ChristIsKing". And those are slightly different than this situation. Plus, the family apparently was successful in changing the son Jeremy's name to "JesusIsLord" in the state of Virginia (although even the judge said that the son should wait and try to do this when he is an adult rather than doing it as a minor) (plus, apparently the son is a bit confused even on where exactly the name change was legalized).

And I would say that this part of the reasoning for not allowing such name changes is the best reason for why it is different.



Now, while I can see how a name like Messiah could similarly fit into this reasoning, it is also hard to justify when there are other names out there, including the very real possibility of "Jesus Christ" as someone's actual name since Jesus is a common first name and Christ is actually a surname, that could be like Messiah, including thousands of children that already have the name Messiah with most having no religious connection to their name. But there is no mistaking or avoiding a religious connection to "ChristIsKing" or "JesusIsLord", particularly when they want to have the inside words capitalized.

As it is the parents choice and decision, what right does the court have to intervene? Seems a bit...conveeeenient...that which we approve or disapprove.
 
As it is the parents choice and decision, what right does the court have to intervene? Seems a bit...conveeeenient...that which we approve or disapprove.

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.
 
Back
Top Bottom