A Child Named Messiah
doorki
Posts: 2,576 Member
http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2013/08/13/name-messiah-would-offend-judge-says/comment-page-4/#comments
So...how do we feel about a Magistrate forcing the change of a first name?
While I think it is a stupid name that will cause the child some stress, I don't think it is the government's job to control these things. There is no law against stupid names. Also, the logic used was offensive at best.
So...how do we feel about a Magistrate forcing the change of a first name?
While I think it is a stupid name that will cause the child some stress, I don't think it is the government's job to control these things. There is no law against stupid names. Also, the logic used was offensive at best.
0
Replies
-
While as a Christian I do hold the name (or really title) in high esteem. I think it's stupid for a judge to change the name. It's not their place.
I also don't think that parents should be offended if their little special snowflake that has the "unique" name changes their name at 18 either.. but that's a different story.
I don't think Judges should be able to do things like that. They need to be as unbiased as possible.0 -
Dumb name,.... but it is still the parents right to name their child, no matter how stupid I think it is.0
-
Agreed. She can't just decree that a child's name should be changed. There are actually a lot of children named "Messiah" and what did this actually have to do with the custody case in the first place!0
-
This is a blatant over reach of the judge's authority.
Using the justification that only one person has earned the right to be called Messiah and that person is Jesus Christ is also a blatant violation of separation of church and state. No judge has the right to enforce a ruling based solely on their religious beliefs.
Getting past all of that the judge is making a stupid call here even from a purely religious perspective. Even if were were a theocracy and this judge weren't being completely stupid which isn't the case in either respect. The statement should be only one person can be called "the messiah" and not "messiah". If this judge does not understand the difference then I would claim this individual is not smart enough to be practicing law.
The biggest problem I have out of everything I have list here though is that I definitely do not like the idea of any judge feeling welcome to make a decision about any cause based on their religious views no matter what they may be.0 -
Agreed. She can't just decree that a child's name should be changed. There are actually a lot of children named "Messiah" and what did this actually have to do with the custody case in the first place!
It wasn't a custody case, they went there to solve a disagreement over the kid's last name.0 -
having seen the first names Elvis, Bubbles, Blacksmith and a number of people with the last name of Butts or Ball named Harry, I think the magistrate over stepped the bounds of the court.0
-
I had to join this group just to comment to this case.
1) Typically, I find that the press "forgets" very important parts of court rulings in headlines so as sensationalize the outcome and stir up the most ire, but that's not the case here. While the parent's did put the child's name at issue and the court had to decide the child's last name, (a) the parents only put the child's last name at issue before the court, and (b) the judge was given a choice of two names to pick from. Sua sponte decisions are somewhat unusual (notable?) in American courts unless it's on a very pressing legal matter.
2) I think the judge seriously underestimated the backlash she will face from this decision. I wouldn't be surprised if there is a political push to have her removed from the bench. She demonstrated a clear religious bias in her ruling, and I think that there is a chance to make it a racial/cultural issue depending on the facts here as there are plenty of people with the name "Jesus" and no one every bats an eyelash. I found it interesting that "Messiah" was sandwiched between "Scott" and "Jay" in the list of most popular names. Religious beliefs or not, parents have the right to name their children.
3) I strongly disagree with the decision personally for the reasons above.0 -
Agreed. She can't just decree that a child's name should be changed. There are actually a lot of children named "Messiah" and what did this actually have to do with the custody case in the first place!
It wasn't a custody case, they went there to solve a disagreement over the kid's last name.
Oh... I heard it was a custody/visitation issue. Well, either way. The judge gets to decide the child's last name... not the first name.0 -
Well I am glad that you joined the group. The more points of view that we have the better and more vibrant out conversations will be. You never know you might be the one to point out something none of us would have thought otherwise.I had to join this group just to comment to this case.
1) Typically, I find that the press forgets very important parts of court rulings that it reports on so as sensationalize the outcome so it stirs up the most ire, but that's not the case here. While the parent's did put the child's name at issue so the court had to decide the child's name, (a) they only put the child's last name as an issue before the court, and (b) the judge was given a choice of two names to pick from. Sua sponte decisions are somewhat unusual in American courts unless it's on a very pressing legal matter.
2) I think the judge seriously underestimated the backlash she will face from this decision. I wouldn't be surprised if there is a political push to have her removed from the bench. She demonstrated a clear religious bias in her ruling, and I think that there is a chance to make it a racial/cultural issue depending on the facts here as there are plenty of people with the name "Jesus" and no one every bats an eyelash. I found it interesting that "Messiah" was sandwiched between "Scott" and "Jay" in the list of most popular names. Religious beliefs or not, parents have the right to name their children.
3) I strongly disagree with the decision personally for the reasons above.
I hope that you comment on more of our threads.
I agree with your assessment of this situation and I do hope that this religious zealot is taken off of the bench.0 -
I had to join this group just to comment to this case.
1) Typically, I find that the press "forgets" very important parts of court rulings in headlines so as sensationalize the outcome and stir up the most ire, but that's not the case here. While the parent's did put the child's name at issue and the court had to decide the child's last name, (a) the parents only put the child's last name at issue before the court, and (b) the judge was given a choice of two names to pick from. Sua sponte decisions are somewhat unusual (notable?) in American courts unless it's on a very pressing legal matter.
2) I think the judge seriously underestimated the backlash she will face from this decision. I wouldn't be surprised if there is a political push to have her removed from the bench. She demonstrated a clear religious bias in her ruling, and I think that there is a chance to make it a racial/cultural issue depending on the facts here as there are plenty of people with the name "Jesus" and no one every bats an eyelash. I found it interesting that "Messiah" was sandwiched between "Scott" and "Jay" in the list of most popular names. Religious beliefs or not, parents have the right to name their children.
3) I strongly disagree with the decision personally for the reasons above.
Welcome. While I agree that they should be removed from their post for not being able to provide impartiality, we must remember this is Tennessee. It is still in the State Constitution that an atheist cannot hold public office.Section 2.
No person who denies the being of God, or a future state of rewards
and punishments, shall hold any office in the civil department of this state.
http://www.state.tn.us/sos/bluebook/07-08/47-Constitution, Tennessee.pdf pg 18.0 -
Well I am glad that you joined the group. The more points of view that we have the better and more vibrant out conversations will be. You never know you might be the one to point out something none of us would have thought otherwise.I had to join this group just to comment to this case.
1) Typically, I find that the press forgets very important parts of court rulings that it reports on so as sensationalize the outcome so it stirs up the most ire, but that's not the case here. While the parent's did put the child's name at issue so the court had to decide the child's name, (a) they only put the child's last name as an issue before the court, and (b) the judge was given a choice of two names to pick from. Sua sponte decisions are somewhat unusual in American courts unless it's on a very pressing legal matter.
2) I think the judge seriously underestimated the backlash she will face from this decision. I wouldn't be surprised if there is a political push to have her removed from the bench. She demonstrated a clear religious bias in her ruling, and I think that there is a chance to make it a racial/cultural issue depending on the facts here as there are plenty of people with the name "Jesus" and no one every bats an eyelash. I found it interesting that "Messiah" was sandwiched between "Scott" and "Jay" in the list of most popular names. Religious beliefs or not, parents have the right to name their children.
3) I strongly disagree with the decision personally for the reasons above.
I hope that you comment on more of our threads.
I agree with your assessment of this situation and I do hope that this religious zealot is taken off of the bench.
TYVM. A place to debate without vitriol is good to have.0 -
The federal constitution states that no religious test will be required to hold any public office. The supremacy clause states that they federal constitution takes precedence over the state constitution in matters such as this so we can actually ignore that part of their state constitution as they should not even have it in there.I had to join this group just to comment to this case.
1) Typically, I find that the press "forgets" very important parts of court rulings in headlines so as sensationalize the outcome and stir up the most ire, but that's not the case here. While the parent's did put the child's name at issue and the court had to decide the child's last name, (a) the parents only put the child's last name at issue before the court, and (b) the judge was given a choice of two names to pick from. Sua sponte decisions are somewhat unusual (notable?) in American courts unless it's on a very pressing legal matter.
2) I think the judge seriously underestimated the backlash she will face from this decision. I wouldn't be surprised if there is a political push to have her removed from the bench. She demonstrated a clear religious bias in her ruling, and I think that there is a chance to make it a racial/cultural issue depending on the facts here as there are plenty of people with the name "Jesus" and no one every bats an eyelash. I found it interesting that "Messiah" was sandwiched between "Scott" and "Jay" in the list of most popular names. Religious beliefs or not, parents have the right to name their children.
3) I strongly disagree with the decision personally for the reasons above.
Welcome. While I agree that they should be removed from their post for not being able to provide impartiality, we must remember this is Tennessee. It is still in the State Constitution that an atheist cannot hold public office.Section 2.
No person who denies the being of God, or a future state of rewards
and punishments, shall hold any office in the civil department of this state.
http://www.state.tn.us/sos/bluebook/07-08/47-Constitution, Tennessee.pdf pg 18.0 -
The federal constitution states that no religious test will be required to hold any public office. The supremacy clause states that they federal constitution takes precedence over the state constitution in matters such as this so we can actually ignore that part of their state constitution as they should not even have it in there.I had to join this group just to comment to this case.
1) Typically, I find that the press "forgets" very important parts of court rulings in headlines so as sensationalize the outcome and stir up the most ire, but that's not the case here. While the parent's did put the child's name at issue and the court had to decide the child's last name, (a) the parents only put the child's last name at issue before the court, and (b) the judge was given a choice of two names to pick from. Sua sponte decisions are somewhat unusual (notable?) in American courts unless it's on a very pressing legal matter.
2) I think the judge seriously underestimated the backlash she will face from this decision. I wouldn't be surprised if there is a political push to have her removed from the bench. She demonstrated a clear religious bias in her ruling, and I think that there is a chance to make it a racial/cultural issue depending on the facts here as there are plenty of people with the name "Jesus" and no one every bats an eyelash. I found it interesting that "Messiah" was sandwiched between "Scott" and "Jay" in the list of most popular names. Religious beliefs or not, parents have the right to name their children.
3) I strongly disagree with the decision personally for the reasons above.
Welcome. While I agree that they should be removed from their post for not being able to provide impartiality, we must remember this is Tennessee. It is still in the State Constitution that an atheist cannot hold public office.Section 2.
No person who denies the being of God, or a future state of rewards
and punishments, shall hold any office in the civil department of this state.
http://www.state.tn.us/sos/bluebook/07-08/47-Constitution, Tennessee.pdf pg 18.
Oh, I understand the legality of the situation, I am just using it to point to the local mindset.0 -
as there are plenty of people with the name "Jesus"
Except it's not really Jesus (in the typical Anglicanized pronunciation)... it's the hispanic pronunciation AND it's not Jesus' actual name... His name was Yeshua... which is essentially Joshua in Hebrew. Jesus is the Romanized version of the name... and plenty of people had this name before Christ was born... However, Messiah is more of a title.
But even still, I don't care what a person calls their kid... they can name them Adolf Hitler for all I care.0 -
as there are plenty of people with the name "Jesus"
Except it's not really Jesus (in the typical Anglicanized pronunciation)... it's the hispanic pronunciation AND it's not Jesus' actual name... His name was Yeshua... which is essentially Joshua in Hebrew. Jesus is the Romanized version of the name... and plenty of people had this name before Christ was born... However, Messiah is more of a title.
But even still, I don't care what a person calls their kid... they can name them Adolf Hitler for all I care.
Yeah, it doesn't really matter what the name in question is, the judge had no right to change it against the will of the child's legal guardian.0 -
why is it okay for 3 out of every 10 latino males to be named "Jesus" but it's not okay for 1 american baby to be named "Messiah"? DOES NOT COMPUTE????
ETA: ok read previous posts but STILL: why is no one freaking about over all the Jesuses in the world?? or the Joshuas for that matter??0 -
why is it okay for 3 out of every 10 latino males to be named "Jesus" but it's not okay for 1 american baby to be named "Messiah"? DOES NOT COMPUTE????
ETA: ok read previous posts but STILL: why is no one freaking about over all the Jesuses in the world?? or the Joshuas for that matter??
for the same reason that the hyper-religious will go out of their way to discriminate against gays, but have NOTHING to say about the soaring divorce rate. Breakdown of marriage isn't really the issue there. It's about using a weapon against the group you're trying to discriminate against.
This judge wasn't about to let a little black baby go around being named "messiah" if she could do something about it. So she did something about it.
I predict she will lose her gavel over this, rightly so.0 -
there was a case in New Zealand where a girl was taken from her parents for her name: Talula Does The Hula From Hawaii.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/2452593/Talula-Does-The-Hula-From-Hawaii-not-a-girls-name-New-Zealand-court-rules.html0 -
there was a case in New Zealand where a girl was taken from her parents for her name: Talula Does The Hula From Hawaii.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/2452593/Talula-Does-The-Hula-From-Hawaii-not-a-girls-name-New-Zealand-court-rules.html
Ugh. Luckily we don't have laws like that in America.0 -
As far as I can tell, the judge's biggest mistake here was not making them call the boy "Brian".
But yeah - she overstepped her bounds on this. A clear case of the government imposing religion on an individual.0 -
Honestly, is there anyone that has a good argument that supports the decision? Because I'm not sure it exists and the judge is going to have a really hard time justifying her decision when (not if) she's asked without also using ridiculously flawed "Christian" logic like that in the decision.
Edit to clarify.0 -
I will be honest. I like to try and come up with arguments that support both sides of a topic. I am normally really good at it too. I do it all the time just for fun and even I think this decision is just untenable. She really overreached with her power to enforce an opinion of hers which is completely founded upon her religion.Honestly, is there anyone that has a good argument that supports the decision? Because I'm not sure it exists and the judge is going to have a really hard time justifying her decision when (not if) she's asked without also using ridiculously flawed "Christian" logic like that in the decision.
Edit to clarify.
For a moment I thought she might be able to take a position that she was looking out for the well being of the child but then I remembered that she actually spoke her justification for her decision out loud and we have a stenographic record of it where she blatantly gives her reason for doing it.
Both her action and her reason for it are completely laid bare here. She would have to come up with some argument that would support her authority to make rulings based on her religious views. If she were to win with such an argument it would set a precedent that would put us on a track toward theocracy which even other Christians would oppose. To many people myself included separation of church and state is imperative and I just don't see how she could justify a claim that she did not violate it here.0 -
there was a case in New Zealand where a girl was taken from her parents for her name: Talula Does The Hula From Hawaii.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/2452593/Talula-Does-The-Hula-From-Hawaii-not-a-girls-name-New-Zealand-court-rules.html
Ugh. Luckily we don't have laws like that in America.
No but it still does happen. http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2011/11/22/8952917-parents-of-adolf-hitler-campbell-lose-custody-of-newborn-hons?lite
I personally think it's ridiculous... I don't agree with any of these parents stances... but I am against the courts telling people what they can name their kids.0 -
as there are plenty of people with the name "Jesus"
Except it's not really Jesus (in the typical Anglicanized pronunciation)... it's the hispanic pronunciation AND it's not Jesus' actual name... His name was Yeshua... which is essentially Joshua in Hebrew. Jesus is the Romanized version of the name... and plenty of people had this name before Christ was born... However, Messiah is more of a title.
But even still, I don't care what a person calls their kid... they can name them Adolf Hitler for all I care.
Are you arguing that the fact that it's not pronounced the same in Spanish as it is in English, or that the name has changed from the original Hebrew makes a difference? Should we argue that naming a child "God" would have a different legal significance than "Yahweh" or "Allah," or what about "Buddha?" Would "Savior" be more acceptable than "Messiah?"
The point is that it is a name with obvious religious overtones, and I do not understand why a judge would think that one such name would be acceptable and another unacceptable, particularly when both names are reasonably common. As a point of fact, as pointed out in the article, "Messiah" was more popular than "Jay."0 -
as there are plenty of people with the name "Jesus"
Except it's not really Jesus (in the typical Anglicanized pronunciation)... it's the hispanic pronunciation AND it's not Jesus' actual name... His name was Yeshua... which is essentially Joshua in Hebrew. Jesus is the Romanized version of the name... and plenty of people had this name before Christ was born... However, Messiah is more of a title.
But even still, I don't care what a person calls their kid... they can name them Adolf Hitler for all I care.
Are you arguing that the fact that it's not pronounced the same in Spanish as it is in English, or that the name has changed from the original Hebrew makes a difference? Should we argue that naming a child "God" would have a different legal significance than "Yahweh" or "Allah," or what about "Buddha?" Would "Savior" be more acceptable than "Messiah?"
The point is that it is a name with obvious religious overtones, and I do not understand why a judge would think that one such name would be acceptable and another unacceptable, particularly when both names are reasonably common. As a point of fact, as pointed out in the article, "Messiah" was more popular than "Jay."
What I'm trying to say about the name "Jesus" is it was a common name back when Christ was alive (and before) and it's a common name now. But I haven't met or heard of anyone named Jesus (as in Jesus Christ) but I have met people named Jesus (prounouced like Hey-zues)... but it all still means Joshua (which is a cousins name).0 -
I'm a Christian and I really don't like that anyone would name their child Messiah because there is only one true Messiah but I believe the judge was wrong in changing the child's name. This is the United States for crying out loud! Parents should have the right to name their child whatever they want.0
-
Using the justification that only one person has earned the right to be called Messiah and that person is Jesus Christ is also a blatant violation of separation of church and state. No judge has the right to enforce a ruling based solely on their religious beliefs.
I agree entirely. But I also see an additional irony: The judge is not even familiar with the use of the word within the religion she is attempting to establish as the state religion.In the Tanakh (Hebrew Bible) a messiah (or mashiach) is a king or High Priest traditionally anointed with holy anointing oil. However, messiahs were not exclusively Jewish, as the Hebrew Bible refers to Cyrus the Great, king of Persia, as a messiah for his decree to rebuild the Jerusalem Temple. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messiah
The Bible refers to numerous people as "messiah," not just Jesus.0 -
Welcome. While I agree that they should be removed from their post for not being able to provide impartiality, we must remember this is Tennessee. It is still in the State Constitution that an atheist cannot hold public office.
The federal constitution states that no religious test will be required to hold any public office. The supremacy clause states that they federal constitution takes precedence over the state constitution in matters such as this so we can actually ignore that part of their state constitution as they should not even have it in there.Section 2.
No person who denies the being of God, or a future state of rewards
and punishments, shall hold any office in the civil department of this state.
http://www.state.tn.us/sos/bluebook/07-08/47-Constitution, Tennessee.pdf pg 18.
The strange thing is that the Tennessee constitution itself prohibits religious tests:Article I, § 4. Political or religious test
That no political or religious test, other than an oath to support the Constitution of the United States and of this State, shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under this State. http://www.tncrimlaw.com/law/constit/I.html#40 -
FWIW, I think there are plenty of parents that give their children names that the child will despise and hold against their parents for life. I think that this had the potential to be one of those names. I don't believe that the judge had any right to change it though.0
