Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: RATTFINK on January 14, 2009, 12:31:56 PM
-
Child named Adolf Hitler removed from home in New Jersey:
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/2009..._removed_.html
-
link broken... http://www.nydailynews.com/news/2009/01/13/2009-01-13_report_child_named_adolf_hitler_removed_.html
No reason was given for why the children were removed, however, and Holland Township police chief David Van Gilson told the site they had not received any reports of abuse or negligence.
Back in December, the boy's parents, Heath and Deborah, were outraged when a local ShopRite declined to provide them with cake for Adolf's birthday.
"They're just names, you know," Heath Campbell told the Easton Express-Times in December. "Yeah, they (the Nazis) were bad people back then. But my kids are little. They're not going to grow up like that."
However, Heath reportedly denies the Holocaust and their home is decorated with swastikas.
-
That would be messed up if they took the kids away just because of their parents beliefs. This is America and your allowed to believe any asinine things you want to, no matter how retarded those beliefs make you look.
-
while I think the parents belief system is seriously flawed, the DHS has/had no right to remove them because of it.
-
That would be messed up if they took the kids away just because of their parents beliefs. This is America and your allowed to believe any asinine things you want to, no matter how retarded those beliefs make you look.
You're kidding right?
shamus
-
Both parties involved are completely screwed up! I would laugh but its kinda sad. :(
lighter note: the fascists took poor little hitler away muhaaa. :rofl :rofl
-
Regardless of the parents beliefs. Giving your child a screwed up name is NO grounds to have them removed. This crap with Child Services is out of control all over the country.
Am also amazed that we Americans must not like having freedom anymore. Look at the poll from the linked story above. So far more people believe that there should be limitations on what you can name a child. WTF is that about?
More proof that this country has peaked and is a HUGE downslide.
-
You're kidding right?
shamus
What do you mean, are you not an American? You think that the government has the right to take these peoples kids away just because they don't like what they believe? This is America, you can believe what ever you want, and teach your children what ever you want, once the government decides they can do that it's the first step down a slippery slope. Now I don't agree at all with what they believe in, but I'll defend their rights to believe what ever dumb thing they want because again this is America, and thats one of the main things this country was built on.
-
What do you mean, are you not an American? You think that the government has the right to take these peoples kids away just because they don't like what they believe? This is America, you can believe what ever you want, and teach your children what ever you want, once the government decides they can do that it's the first step down a slippery slope. Now I don't agree at all with what they believe in, but I'll defend their rights to believe what ever dumb thing they want because again this is America, and thats one of the main things this country was built on.
Not sure if what they did was legal or correct but man those kids would be in for a hard life. If a kid growing up in my school was named that and said the wrong thing to me I'd have kicked his butt repeatedly. Those parents are using thier children for political tools. In fact the parents are just tools themselves. Sad.
-
Not sure if what they did was legal or correct but man those kids would be in for a hard life. If a kid growing up in my school was named that and said the wrong thing to me I'd have kicked his butt repeatedly. Those parents are using thier children for political tools. In fact the parents are just tools themselves. Sad.
Oh I agree with you 100% on that, but as I said this is America and weather we agree with what they did or not, they do have the right to do it.
-
No way to tell unless you've done the DHS' inspection yourself, or read the report; if the report tells the whole story.
-
Li'l Hitler (Robot Chicken)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KDRa9I-NwDY
-
This is America and your allowed to believe any asinine things you want to, no matter how retarded those beliefs make you look.
Sorry, didn't edit the first one properly,my bad, let me try again.
"You're kidding right?"
^^^^^^^
sarcasm
-
American's like you are part of the problem. (No offense) Believing in limitless freedom... We have way too much of it already. Freedom will destroy us all!!!
This is America and your allowed to believe any asinine things you want to, no matter how retarded those beliefs make you look.
-
LOL
-
Where I live there are some rules about names. I think they're ok, since some parents are just wayyy toooo thickkk for even handling a name for their own child.
A normal person will probably never notice that there are rules.
-
It would be totally delusional to believe that the Dept. of Children and youth took those children from that home, solely on the basis on the names they were given.
I would, however, suspect that given the fact that they have brought attention to themselves as of late, it raised some eyebrows. Once you put yourself under a microscope, the flaws are not very hard to find.
I agree that relieving the parents of custody, based entirely on what they have named their children is entirely inappropriate, however I'm sure that there is way more to the story than that.
-
So we have the right to screw with our children as much as we want, but our children do not have the right to live a normal life with the same opportunities as any other child?
-
So we have the right to screw with our children as much as we want, but our children do not have the right to live a normal life with the same opportunities as any other child?
Bam! To the heart of the issue.
-
Not sure if what they did was legal or correct but man those kids would be in for a hard life. If a kid growing up in my school was named that and said the wrong thing to me I'd have kicked his butt repeatedly. Those parents are using thier children for political tools. In fact the parents are just tools themselves. Sad.
This says a lot more about you and your character than it does about the kid with a name that had no say in what his name was going to be.
-
If you had family members die in a systematic execution due to their religion you'd have the same opinion. I've grown a lot since I was a kid but this was and still is a sore subject for me.
I spoke of what I would have probably done as a child if provoked by a child named Adolf Hitler. Having come a long way since than I know where the blame squarely lies. The parents.
-
I love individual freedoms, but in this case I believe the rights of the children were violated by the parents.
-
Who wants to be named Adolf Hitler? Raise your hands!
And who wants a sister named Aryan Nation, raise your hands!
Yo, you few there, don't raise your hands THAT way :t
-
So we have the right to screw with our children as much as we want, but our children do not have the right to live a normal life with the same opportunities as any other child?
Pretty much, as far is naming them is concerned.
Not saying I am in agreement with, or siding with the parents, but, the way the our laws are, there is nothing precluding them from choosing the names that they did.
There are, however, laws regarding the health and welfare of children, and I suspect that a violation of one of these standards was what legally gave the county/state the right to take the kids away.
Morality cannot always be forced, but in some cases, the loopholes that let the criminals get away with things, also help the law do what is right & proper.
While I can almost guarantee that the kids weren't taken away because the parents gave them the names that they did, I'm sure that a "concerned citizen/neighbor" voiced concerns of some kind regarding the environment that the children were being raised in. So.... Along comes Mr./Mrs. Health & Welfare officer for an inspection of these allegations, and I'm sure they were none-too-nonchalant when trying to find something that they could use as a reason to take the kids.
I, personally, wouldn't advocate giving a child a moniker that is immediately associated with hatred, etc, but by the same token I cannot back any legislation dictating what names may be used for our kids without being a hypocrite.
The constitution affords us many useful freedoms, and its a fine line we walk. There will always be folks who push the limit of what is right, decent, or moral while wrapping themselves in the American flag and calling it "exercising their rights" or "enjoying their freedom"
-
I remember reading that Australia allowed a girl to change her name against her parents wishes. Her name had Hula Hoop somewhere in it. Couldn't find it with google, anyone know what I'm talking about?
-
I love individual freedoms, but in this case I believe the rights of the children were violated by the parents.
Amen brother!
-
I laugh at all this talk of having our freedoms taken away. As if we don't have intrusive laws as it is. I can't even build a patio in my back yard without going through the proper paperwork, paying the proper fees for permits, etc. I can't smoke on the beach, I have to wear a seat belt, I can't grow a pot plant in my back yard. I have to wear a helmet on my motorcycle. You get the idea. No one is getting fired up because they get ticketed for not wearing a seat belt, yet 3 children are given clearly racist offensive names that WILL set them back in life, and that's the tipping point?
-
Part of me is like, "Yeah! Stick it to those dumb parents!" and the other other part is like, "What about our rights?"
I just hope they found a legit reason to remove the child.
-
Does anyone who thinks this is a mistake on the part of the state really believe these kids were going to grow up in a nurturing, healthy environment, in a house decorated with Nazi paraphenalia, with parents who think the systematic elimination of millions of people was a pretty cool gig?
-
Does anyone who thinks this is a mistake on the part of the state really believe these kids were going to grow up in a nurturing, healthy environment, in a house decorated with Nazi paraphenalia, with parents who think the systematic elimination of millions of people was a pretty cool gig?
I can't believe I agree with hubs. My head almost exploded I think. :aok
-
Does anyone who thinks this is a mistake on the part of the state really believe these kids were going to grow up in a nurturing, healthy environment, in a house decorated with Nazi paraphenalia, with parents who think the systematic elimination of millions of people was a pretty cool gig?
I certainly do not. But that wouldn't be grounds for the state to take the kids. Not solely based on personal beliefs (No matter HOW twisted they may be)
Given the character of the parents, though, I'm sure that they didn't have to look to far to find a legitimate reason.
-
I didn't see where they released the full report explaining why they felt the children should be removed. I doubt it was because of their names. However, it stands to reason that if the parents are so screwed in the head that they'd be willing to give those names to their children that there is also tons of other insane & screwy things going on in the lives of them & their children. That's pretty unfortunate.
*edit* sorry VonMessa, I should have read the thread fully first. I said the same thing you did.
-
Here in Germany naming a kid Adolf Hitler would result into an international uprise. The name "Adolf" is blocked for the next 1000000000000 years. Instead the people in Germany name their children Peggy, Jenny, Ronny, Marlon, Silvio, Mandy, Sandy, Doreen aso and NOT Adelheid, Waltraud, Margreth or Heidi :D
-
Here in Germany naming a kid Adolf Hitler would result into an international uprise. The name "Adolf" is blocked for the next 1000000000000 years. Instead the people in Germany name their children Peggy, Jenny, Ronny, Marlon, Silvio, Mandy, Sandy, Doreen aso and NOT Adelheid, Waltraud, Margreth or Heidi :D
Heidi hehe :D
-
The child was whisked away to South America where the real Adolf's brain, will be transplanted into him, as soon as his body has grown and is perfectly conditioned. (grabs arm like Dr. Strangelove)
-
Heidi hehe :D
oh well, forgot Heidi Klum :lol
-
Here in Germany naming a kid Adolf Hitler would result into an international uprise. The name "Adolf" is blocked for the next 1000000000000 years. Instead the people in Germany name their children Peggy, Jenny, Ronny, Marlon, Silvio, Mandy, Sandy, Doreen aso and NOT Adelheid, Waltraud, Margreth or Heidi :D
LAMO! :rofl
Omg mein name ist Johann, meine schwester ist Heidi, und mein bruder ist Peter.
Omg my name is Johann, my sister is Heidi, and my brother is Peter.
-
I laugh at all this talk of having our freedoms taken away. As if we don't have intrusive laws as it is. I can't even build a patio in my back yard without going through the proper paperwork, paying the proper fees for permits, etc. I can't smoke on the beach, I have to wear a seat belt, I can't grow a pot plant in my back yard. I have to wear a helmet on my motorcycle. You get the idea. No one is getting fired up because they get ticketed for not wearing a seat belt, yet 3 children are given clearly racist offensive names that WILL set them back in life, and that's the tipping point?
the basis of the discussion is whether the United States Government be it local or federal has the right to intervene or involve itself in the intimate and personal thoughts beliefs and freedoms of a person.
well lets check the comparisons in your statement against reality;
1 building/construction without a permit. if you fail to go through the procedures that have been created over thousands of years of construction you risk the health and well being of every person who may ever come into contact with the patio you intend to build. the act of getting a permit shows that you have a plan of construction that meets the requirements of building it safely. this includes the safety of those who may buy the home years down the road.
the permit also allows the government to properly value your home for taxation purposes.
regulation of taxes and potential health hazards is a constitutional right of the government.
2 smoking, well the public health hazards of smoking are well documented and proven. no where in the constitution are you given the right or the freedom to knowingly cause risk to the health or well being of another individual. especially without the other individuals direct and explicit (normally written) consent. your personal right (which in actuality is not granted by the constitution) to freely destroy your body in the privacy of your own home is not being infringed.
regulating actions of person or persons that may affect the health and well being of others is a constitutional right of the government.
3 the laws governing helmets and seat belts spring from the same line of thought. the safety health and well being of the public (including the individual) is the responsibility of the government. ownership and operation of any vehicle is not a right but a privilege. any privilege may be regulated and control in any reasonable and equal manner buy the governing body.
this regulation of a privilege is the constitutional right of the government.
4 names of children are sacred and personal symbols of and expression. we as the public enjoy the right to freedom of expression. this is a constitutional right of the people.
5 the political and religious beliefs of the individual is constitutionally protected and may not be infringed by the government.
your examples dont compare to the argument.
the public has no right to make any demands that the individual change their beliefs or opinions on any issue especially those of religion and government. the government has no right to obstruct a person from expressing themselves.
read the court battles over the nazi marches in america back in the 70's and 80's. to ensure that the rights of the just and moral are protected it means that you must also be willing to ensure the rights of those who are monstrous and heinous. equality is sometimes a hard pill to swallow, but it is the only way for our system to work.
what is your first name? i would be willing to bet that i could find someone in history with your name that committed some act of evil. does that mean that those who have suffered under some one of the same name should have the right to tell your parents that they couldnt name you as they chose to? should every name ever born by a murderer be stricken from the books forever?
the parents in my opinion are tards, but if you infringe their rights you set the precedent that these rights can be infringed. then it becomes an argument of opinion. then the government can impose its will upon the masses.
personally i would rather have a neighbor thats got a stupid name than a government that can tell me what to name my children.
FLOTSOM
-
Flot, I understand what you're saying. I don't want to get too far off topic (can you show me any documented proof that second hand smoke causes cancer?). I believe, when you screw a child up in bad ways, whether through sexual, physical, or other kind of abuses, you greatly change how that child will turn out as an adult. Look at violent offenders, almost all if not all were physically abused as children. Therefore, when you screw you kid up something bad, I am the one who suffers. How? When I'm standing at the ATM getting money out I get a shiv in my back. When some drunk t-bones me at an intersection and runs off or has no insurance, etc. I'm all for personal freedoms, but I believe a child, no matter what age, has the same rights as you. However, not being able to care for their selves means either the parents do it, or the State takes the burden, which also affects me. As TxMom basically said, if this is any example of their parenting skills, you can only imagine what else is going on. I don't believe anyone has the "personal freedom" to royally screw up their kids, even with horrible names like that. What my point about the intrusive laws was anyways, is our government is already quite involved in our lives, I don't see how trying to stop child abuse or what basically amounts to child abuse is viewed as crossing a line, in view of the laws we already have to deal with.
-
warhed brings up a good point. Naming someone Adolf Hitler is really a form of child abuse. The poor kid will never have the opportunities that he should.
It's a pretty fine line.
-
That would be messed up if they took the kids away just because of their parents beliefs. This is America and your allowed to believe any asinine things you want to, no matter how retarded those beliefs make you look.
This is New Jersey where the "Division of Youth and Family Services" will investigate you up the wazzooo if your caught disciplining your child because you caught him/her stealing. And possibly take the child away from you.
But you can be a drug addict and prostitute and live in a home with so many roaches you can actually hear them moving around. and barely get a passing notice.
And thew funniest part of this post.
Is, Im not even joking.
-
Flot, I understand what you're saying. I don't want to get too far off topic (can you show me any documented proof that second hand smoke causes cancer?). I believe, when you screw a child up in bad ways, whether through sexual, physical, or other kind of abuses, you greatly change how that child will turn out as an adult. Look at violent offenders, almost all if not all were physically abused as children. Therefore, when you screw you kid up something bad, I am the one who suffers. How? When I'm standing at the ATM getting money out I get a shiv in my back. When some drunk t-bones me at an intersection and runs off or has no insurance, etc. I'm all for personal freedoms, but I believe a child, no matter what age, has the same rights as you. However, not being able to care for their selves means either the parents do it, or the State takes the burden, which also affects me. As TxMom basically said, if this is any example of their parenting skills, you can only imagine what else is going on. I don't believe anyone has the "personal freedom" to royally screw up their kids, even with horrible names like that. What my point about the intrusive laws was anyways, is our government is already quite involved in our lives, I don't see how trying to stop child abuse or what basically amounts to child abuse is viewed as crossing a line, in view of the laws we already have to deal with.
i agree with you 100%. on a personal level i think the parents are trash and have surrendered their right to bare and raise children.
but with each step, for however just the immediate reasons are, you allow the government to take in controlling any aspect of your life its one less freedom you will ever enjoy again. look through the past and find any point in our history where the government has backed off and relinquished control back to the people over a topic that they gained even one step in the direction of regulating and controlling.
my fear of a kid who grows up with a bad name is far diminished when it is viewed in the shadow of a government given more control over our most personal and intimate freedoms.
oh and as a side note http://www.lungusa.org/site/pp.asp?c=dvLUK9O0E&b=35422 (http://www.lungusa.org/site/pp.asp?c=dvLUK9O0E&b=35422) :devil
<SALUTE> to you sir, we agree and disagree, but in the end we are both looking for the same thing.......the hope of a safer tomorrow.
FLOTSOM
-
I have seen those same "facts" stated before from different sources, check the references out some time, you'll be a little surprised. Ask yourself, 50,000 people are claimed to be killed every year from second hand smoke, have you ever known\heard of anyone who had died of that? And how would you even BEGIN to prove that your lung cancer was caused by second hand smoke!!! For a smoker, doctors agree that it takes an average of 30 pack years to guarantee that if you get lung cancer, it's most likely because of the smoking. That's an average of 1 pack a day for 30 years. Now do the second hand smoke math. Not trying to be argumentative, just get annoyed with that whole 50,000 people a year statistic.
And I understand the whole "slippery slope" argument about the names. But really, if we stop parents from naming kids Hitler, do you honestly think the next step is preventing you from naming him Bob? Or that the gov't will start naming your children for you? We need to start standing up to idiots like those parents. I am all for personal freedoms, but we all benefit when parents like those lose the right to bare children. I am all for taking babies away from crack head parents, from parents who have murdered, anything like that. Sure, it's taking personal freedoms away from us, but for once, we could actually benefit in the long run. Stupid breeds stupid, and our good and smart population just isn't breeding as fast as the idiots.
My only other opinion, is that we need to start filling those Mosquito Sprayer trucks with an airborne birth control or something of the like. And just have them drive through the inner city, and the trailer parks once a month. :aok
-
you just said post something, you never said i had to agree or believe it :D i have smoked for almost 34 years now so i definitely sympathize with you on the whole anti-smoking rhetoric.
"My only other opinion, is that we need to start filling those Mosquito Sprayer trucks with an airborne birth control or something of the like. And just have them drive through the inner city, and the trailer parks once a month."
you couldnt find a more agreeable person on the planet!
FLOTSOM
-
For a small, initial investment, you could help make this happen... :devil
-
So you guys that think taking the kid away because of his name would justify taking children named Osama? What about Hussien or Stalin?
-
I think the parents of anyone having the stupidity of naming their child after Hitler, both deserve to be castrated AT THE MINIMUM.
-
So you guys that think taking the kid away because of his name would justify taking children named Osama? What about Hussien or Stalin?
this isn't about comparing murderers. It's about whether the children's rights are respected.
-
this isn't about comparing murderers. It's about whether the children's rights are respected.
So then if parents name thier son Sue, its violating that childs rights?
-
Slippery slope arguments are for lawyers without a case. Do you think these parents are good parents Tango? What would you think of your wife if she decided to name your child Adolph Hitler?
-
We don't know if they are, but baseing it on what they name the child ISN'T a reason to take them away, even if you don't agree with the name they gave them.
So back to my last question. Is naming a son Sue violating the childs rights? No it isn't. Its a bad choice of a name just as Hitler or Osama or Hussien etc., but not a reason to take them away if they are not being abusive to the child.
-
Adolph Hitler is worse than Sue. And I don't think anyone has said the naming was the reason the children were taken away, it is however, about as large as a red flag you could put up.
-
Adolph Hitler is worse than Sue.
I'm sure any boy named Sue would disagree with that, but then your probably too young to have even heard that pld Johnny Cash song.
-
Naming a boy Sue is reason for concern, but if they also decorated his room pink, dressed him in skirts, and gave him my little pony for his birthday, then yes, his rights would be violated. We're not saying we have necessary and sufficient conditions for when a child's rights are violated, and we don't need to. A house decorated with swastikas and children named after Nazis isn't worth debating.
-
I think the man who wrote that song would take issue with you calling it a Johnny Cash song :t
-
Naming a boy Sue is reason for concern, but if they also decorated his room pink, dressed him in skirts, and gave him my little pony for his birthday, then yes, his rights would be violated. We're not saying we have necessary and sufficient conditions for when a child's rights are violated, and we don't need to. A house decorated with swastikas and children named after Nazis isn't worth debating.
Thats just it though, where does it start and stop? Should someone who believes in the worship of Satan and names thier son Lucifer have his child taken away? What about all the children that were named Osama after 911?
As for, "if they also decorated his room pink, dressed him in skirts, and gave him my little pony for his birthday, then yes, his rights would be violated", I think there would be a BIG uproar if the governemnt took him away from his parents.
-
I think the man who wrote that song would take issue with you calling it a Johnny Cash song :t
Now your just trolling.
-
If the name of the kid was the only basis for taking that kid away from his parents then I hope the parents sue the people involved and get awarded large settlements taken from whoever was behind the decision. Of course it wont happen that way. Right now you have millions of New Jersey livestock nodding their heads going, "oh yeah, thats terrible, take the kid away". Which means they wont say anything when a court awards millions of "their" tax dollars to these parents.
Its not my business, or the states business, or the Federal Govt.'s, business, what parents name their kid. Nor is it what they believe in, and I dont care how bad it is. Its not our business!
Ive seen kids returned to the worst parents you can imagine, "or I should I say mothers". I'm talking low life street 'hoes riding the rock that have already inflicted serious trauma to the minds, and maybe bodies, of their children. Yet everyone applauds when the kid is returned to a mother who is probably going to do the same thing again. And a new generation of gang killers and cold hearted/angry criminals will be loosed on the rest of us. But as long as they dont name the kid Adolf right? :huh
But lets face it here. If these people had Mikey Jacksons dough they never would have had the kids taken away. Look at all that screwball has pulled and his $$ has kept his kids with him.
Frankly I smell a rat in all this. A Political rat! Some Politician must be pulling an angle to get their 15 mins over this. For some reason.
Any questions? see below.
-
Thats just it though, where does it start and stop? Should someone who believes in the worship of Satan and names thier son Lucifer have his child taken away? What about all the children that were named Osama after 911?
Or Joseph after the 1940s? Again, I don't know where the line should be drawn, but keep in mind that the child's name, Adolf Hitler, was not the nail in the coffin that lead to state intervention.
As for, "if they also decorated his room pink, dressed him in skirts, and gave him my little pony for his birthday, then yes, his rights would be violated", I think there would be a BIG uproar if the governemnt took him away from his parents.
Sure there would be uproar, but rights-based justice is indifferent to that.
-
Now your just trolling.
No. It was written by Shel Silverstein.
-
What now Karaya, going to tell him Cash didn't write Ring of Fire too???
-
Don't mention that it was written by gals, either.
-
No. It was written by Shel Silverstein.
I never said Cash wrote it. The Troll did.
-
Come on now, I'm not that ugly am I?