It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

NEWS: Jesus Christ Denied Driver's License in West Virginia

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 12 2005 @ 09:09 AM
link   
Peter Robert Phillips, Jr., adopted the name Jesus Christ 15 years ago. Since then, he has obtained a social security card, U.S. Passport, and a Washington driver's license bearing the name. Upon moving to West Virginia, however, he was denied a driver's license or vehicle title with the new name, and Washington refused to legally change his name.
 



www.japantoday.com
The man, born Peter Robert Phillips Jr, started his legal battle in 2003 when authorities in West Virginia refuses to put his godly name on the property he bought in the southern state.

While his new name was on his passport, driver's license and social security card, the local authorities asked him for official proof of his name change.

So Jesus went to a district court in Washington, where he currently lives and where he has now been fighting a two-year battle to use his Biblical name.

"The judge wrote a lengthy opinion citing scriptures, the Bible and so on, to show that taking the name of Jesus Christ is blasphemy and therefore by extrapolation will cause violent reaction," Jesus Christ's attorney, Afshin Pishewar, said Tuesday.


Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


The question is: what business does the court have to base their decision to deny this man a name change based on scripture?

Should the government have a hand in this at all? If a man is named Jesus Christ Jones at birth, no court would disallow it, so why deny the change later in life?

What are the limits to legal names? Would a court stop parents from naming their child a completely profane name? A man's name should be protected under the first amendment.

Related News Links:
www.click2houston.com
www.kansascity.com
breakingnews.iol.ie
abcnews.go.com

[edit on 12-5-2005 by Zipdot]




posted on May, 12 2005 @ 09:29 AM
link   
Let him have the name. He's an adult.
He can do as he wishes.
It isn't bad language or anything.



posted on May, 12 2005 @ 09:35 AM
link   
My sister-in-law is named Mary Magdelene. She almost married a guy called Jim Christmas and would have been Mary Christmas... Should get these two together.



posted on May, 12 2005 @ 09:40 AM
link   
I'm getting a lot of "no - story isn't right for ATSNN" votes, but I think this topic is quite pertinent to this board, as it directly relates to free speech and the role of scripture in court rulings.

Meh, whatever.

I think there are few, if any, cases where a judge should cite scripture as part of his ruling or findings, and I believe that this is definitely not one of them.

The court holds that violence and whatnot will arise from this man holding the name "Jesus Christ," but the man has had that name for 15 years without causing any violent disturbances.

Zip



posted on May, 12 2005 @ 09:45 AM
link   
This entire situation is completely absurd.

When judges make decisions based on scripture instead of law, I fear for our entire judicial system.

The whole thing is pointless from the get-go anyway, since "Jesus Christ" was not the actual name of the man who may have walked this earth making fishers of men. (Origin of the Name)

How many men have changed their name to Mohamed? I wonder why none of those changes been opposed?

This is definitely ATSNN material, in my opinion!



posted on May, 12 2005 @ 09:51 AM
link   
Apart from me wondering what exactly drove this man to change his name to Jesus Christ....was it for mockery or faith....regardless - This man has no right to be denied a driver's liscense over a name change that has already been legally approved....

If you change your name in one state and then move to another, they have to recognize it as being legal.........right?

So where's the beef? I guess he can be his own martyr



posted on May, 12 2005 @ 09:58 AM
link   
Another question that arises is "Damn, how easy is it to get a passport and social security card in a basically false name?"

The man had not legally changed his name before he got these documents, and that is what the fuss is all about - trying to obtain the legal change.

For 15 years, this man held a name that was not legally changed, yet he was able to get several official documents with the name on it. I thought it was a difficult and convoluted process to get a passport and social security card with a legal name, let alone an unofficial alias.

Zip



posted on May, 12 2005 @ 11:14 AM
link   


Section 1542 of Title 18 proscribes both false statements made to obtain a passport, and use of any passport so obtained.

The false statement against which this section is most commonly used is the use of a false name in obtaining a passport.


Hm, looks like that's a federal violation.

Oh well, in any case, my new legal name is gonna be Hisgodliness Zipdot Mmmphzzpt Ihatecops Freevanunu.

Zip



posted on May, 12 2005 @ 12:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hisgodliness Zipdot Mmmphzzpt Ihatecops Freevanunu
Hm, looks like that's a federal violation.


It's not very clear in the article but I thought he had it legally changed in one state, but West Virginia wouldn't accept it?



posted on May, 12 2005 @ 12:55 PM
link   
He shouldn't be allowed to have this name.
Where does this end? Are we going to allow people to call themselves;

"Adolf Hitler"?

"George Bush"?

"Lalala Bibibibibi"?

Comon, someone should protect these idiots from themselves and refuse to change their name into that kind of names.



posted on May, 12 2005 @ 01:24 PM
link   
Found a site that has many odd names among them were

If-Jesus-Christ-Had-Not-Died-For-Thee-Thou-Hadst-Been-Damned Barebones, London, England [Set up first the fire insurance office in Britain. Changed his name to Nicholas Barbon].

The above clearly shows there is a world precedent since his original name had Jesus Christ in it.

Imaculada Concepciòn (Immaculate Conception) Finkelstein, New York Stock Exchange Investor.

f2.org...



I Think this judge is wacko



posted on May, 12 2005 @ 01:52 PM
link   
No, it was never "legally" changed, he just kind of ... changed it himself one day. It doesn't get into the specifics about how he got the passport and social security card with the new name.

Zip



posted on May, 12 2005 @ 02:17 PM
link   

The judge wrote a lengthy opinion citing scriptures, the Bible and so on, to show that taking the name of Jesus Christ is blasphemy and therefore by extrapolation will cause violent reaction,"

Complete and utter BS.

Blasphemy is illegal now? Stupid Churches. (mwa hahaha)

I can understand him not getting the license, since his name hasn't legally been changed in all jurisdictions. Fair enough.

But for a judge to cite a 2,000 year old religious text in his opinon like that, to determine the rule of law solely thru a holy book? Unacceptable and assinine. I thought his peopel were against Judicial Activism eh???



posted on May, 12 2005 @ 02:17 PM
link   
He has the law on his side already from the original article


The U.S. capital "permits a common law name change at will. You can change your name as long as it's not for a fraudulent purpose,"


Seems like the law is very clear



posted on May, 12 2005 @ 02:30 PM
link   

from Jakko
He shouldn't be allowed to have this name.
Where does this end? Are we going to allow people to call themselves;

"Adolf Hitler"?

"George Bush"?

"Lalala Bibibibibi"?

Comon, someone should protect these idiots from themselves and refuse to change their name into that kind of names.


Ahhh, I see, so you're saying you're ANTI-personal-freedoms? That's certainly a very interesting camp to be in.

I think any name that is not patently offensive is acceptable, but then again, even if someone wants to be named "Goat Bleeper from Planet Censored," who am I to stop them? Even if it is offensive to children, how can you stop someone from calling themselves what they want?

- Aww Sooki-Sooki Nao
(formerly Zipdot)

[edit on 12-5-2005 by Zipdot]



posted on May, 12 2005 @ 02:40 PM
link   
Personal freedom is a great thing, but not in the hands of idiots.
Idiots will abuse their personal freedom to do the most idiotic things, and noone will be able to do anything about it if everyone argues like you.



posted on May, 12 2005 @ 02:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jakko
Personal freedom is a great thing, but not in the hands of idiots.
Idiots will abuse their personal freedom to do the most idiotic things, and noone will be able to do anything about it if everyone argues like you.


So, you're saying only certain people should have certain freedoms and there should be a central authority deciding who gets freedoms and who is denied freedoms?

That kind of rings a bell, where have I heard that before?

Zip



posted on May, 12 2005 @ 02:49 PM
link   
Hehehe. guess it is hard to fit into a hatchback when you are burdened by all the sins of mankind and a rather hefty cross. I bet if he performed a few of those miracles with the vino he would have got his license.



posted on May, 12 2005 @ 04:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThehorrorofAtlantis
Hehehe. guess it is hard to fit into a hatchback when you are burdened by all the sins of mankind and a rather hefty cross. I bet if he performed a few of those miracles with the vino he would have got his license.


Yeah, and that's gotta be pretty harsh being Jesus and having a judge rule against you, citing the bible.


Zip



posted on May, 12 2005 @ 04:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zipdot

So, you're saying only certain people should have certain freedoms and there should be a central authority deciding who gets freedoms and who is denied freedoms?

That kind of rings a bell, where have I heard that before?

Zip


That's the way it allready works Zip.
Some people are crazy, and therefor have no freedom.
The world would turn to chaos if all crazy folks would get the same freedom as us.




top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join