A Child Named Messiah
Options
Replies
-
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
