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: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 12 2005 @ 04:21 PM
link   
Fifty bucks says the Judge's decision will be overruled.*

-koji K.

*Note: Offer not real.




posted on May, 12 2005 @ 04:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jakko

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.


Someone doesn't have to be crazy to change their legal name to "Flashmaster Pipe Cube Steerox Mandrake Battleaxes Galore". I really don't know where you're coming from here, saying that it's okay to limit somebody's freedom to change their own name because someone else deems the name silly or whatever...

Zip



posted on May, 12 2005 @ 04:27 PM
link   
Hahahahahaha
Actually that's a great name.

Ok seriously I think THAT should be forbidden.
Your question is probably, where is the line?
Who decides what names are acceptable and what names are not?

Well I don't have an answer, I just know that if someone wants to change their name to "George Bush", "Micheal Jackson", "Saddam Hoessein" or "Alawalabalamalakalapala Giritilousatiously" they should go and see a shrink.



posted on May, 12 2005 @ 04:28 PM
link   
I'm not well versed in the bible, but from what I know nowhere does it say it's wrong to name yourself after Jesus Christ. In other religions, indeed even in Christianity outside Protestantism, it's considered a mark of respect to name yourself after the messiah. Look at all the Mohamed's in Islamic countries and the Jesus's in south america.

-koji K.

[edit on 12-5-2005 by koji_K]



posted on May, 12 2005 @ 04:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by koji_K
I'm not well versed in the bible, but from what I know nowhere does it say it's wrong to name yourself after Jesus Christ. In other religions, indeed even in Christianity outside Protestantism, it's considered a mark of respect to name yourself after the messiah. Look at all the Mohamed's in Islamic countries and the Jesus's in south america.

-koji K.


No doubt, not to mention all the non-prophet Michaels, Lukes, Johns, Jameses, Davids, Lucifers, Rachels, Sarahs, Marys, ehhh whatever you get the picture.

...Hezekiahs...

Zip



posted on May, 12 2005 @ 04:40 PM
link   
And I think Jesus is actually a fairly common name in parts of Latin America. It isn't like the guy wanted to cahimself G. Almighty esq is it?



posted on May, 12 2005 @ 04:43 PM
link   
hmm useing a lot of the reasoning here and from this case. most names should be outlawed. a name from ANY religion, or religious text. any part of a name of someone who has done horrendious things like killing someone. any part of a name that belongs to someone that is know arround the world for any reaso. fictional names from any literature. so what are you going to name a child since most of the names that have been used over the past few hundred years can probably linked to one of those reasons not to use a name? what to nme a new child? how about shudderdaak i am sure that there is nothing wrong with that one.

now how about all those that already have "bad" names? i guess they should be forced to find a new one. hmm how many michaels are there in america? michael is supost to be an archangle in the bible so i guess all of them should have to find a new name. likewise any hispanic or philipeano person named jesus need to change their names (generaly pronounced as hey-zoos). can't have any mary's either. nor joan, sarah, mohamad, ect.

this type of ruleing is ludicras. if some one wants to be names jeus christ or adolf hittler, it is THEIR decision. if there are people who have a problem with it then THEY are the one's with a problem.

[edit on 12-5-2005 by drogo]



posted on May, 12 2005 @ 04:45 PM
link   
Even if he did, who is to stop him? If a man wants to call himself "Bob the Most Perfect King of the Cosmos I Like Cheese Sticks I am God and You Are Not," why can't he? It's his own name for himself. As long as he can perform some kind of paperwork filing, maybe with a fee involved, to show his complete and utter seriousness, then I don't see any way another man can tell him "No, that's too silly. You cannot call yourself that name."

Zip



posted on May, 12 2005 @ 04:48 PM
link   
This is insane. I bet this guy never had a problem getting a drivers licence:




On the other hand, would you have said "no" to him?



posted on May, 12 2005 @ 05:01 PM
link   
Soon we won't be allowed to draw faces because they look too much like Jesus and then where will we be!!!?



posted on May, 12 2005 @ 05:09 PM
link   
I thought he walked everywhere anyway..?
I don't see the problem using that name at all..



posted on May, 12 2005 @ 05:30 PM
link   
I agree with what seems to be the general concensus on this thread. If he wants to name himself whatever, why not? If it's going to cause problems, then great, I say let it. If it's so much against society's ideals that he's gonna get knocked nine ways from Sunday the next time he goes out, then so be it. If it's blasphemous, big deal; he'll have to handle that on his own. It's just a name--why doesn't someone petition to get GW to change his name; his actions aren't necessarily following the actions of George Washington, or millions of other Georges before him. I'm sure I've disgraced other people who share my name, and there's many I'm sure who have disgraced it worse than me. If I changed it to anything else, I would still be the same person I am. I would disgrace that name as bad as any other name, and I would take on the disgrace that's been laid by the hands of others. If it causes problems, let him deal with it. There's much more important stuff to worry about, like athlete's foot or chronic gas, let alone the real problems in this society.



posted on May, 12 2005 @ 05:34 PM
link   
Well, to me, the issue isn't really about the man and the name, it's about the judge citing scripture to back up his ruling in an American court.

I don't have time to google right now, but can someone find some other examples of this?

It just seems to be, err, against, uhh this:



Zip

EDIT: 'Coz technically, the guy could want to be named Jesus Christ, but he could be a Hindu and it's just a coincidence that the name he chose for himself is identical to the Christian God's son's, but in his own special world, it means "Little Goose Wing" when broken down into its parts, Jes and Uschrist.

So why hold the ruling to a Christian book if we have freedom of religious choice in this nation? Why not cite some Jewish book* that says Christ is not a real prophet and therefore rule that he can't have the name of such a controversial figure because it would cause riots?

* Pardon me if I'm sounding ignorant, I'm just trying to pull an example out of something I don't know much about. I would have said the Qur'an, but I think it says something in it acknowledging that Christ is a good guy or whatever.

Zip

[edit on 12-5-2005 by Zipdot]



posted on May, 12 2005 @ 05:52 PM
link   
This really is an arbitrarily ridiculous ruling.

I went to school with a family that named each of their children Jesus Christ. Doctor Michael Jackson [about a thousand other names] Jesus Christ [long never ending string of consonants]. That's how much they loved this country. And the Guinness Book of World Records.

If you can legally change your name to Darth Vader or an abstract symbol (and you can) JC is no biggie.

Your real "name" is a number anyway. The bank will take ring seals for all they care, as long as the accompanying numbers are correct.

Oh and West Virginia isn't the south.

[edit on 12-5-2005 by RANT]



posted on May, 12 2005 @ 06:44 PM
link   
well, the guy did this simply to get controversy and cause problems, so he's getting exactly what he wanted. I suppose he could have adopted "Stupid Mother F-er" but that wouldn't have caused the moral outrage he desired to cause.

Do stuff to upset people, they'll react. It's consequences, folks. Grow up and get used to them.

The only real issue here is, WA state issued a license and ID, all state and federal approved. The issue isn't so much religion, but the denial of an accepted ID from one state in another. This makes it a Federal commerce issue-one of the few things the Federal Government is supposed to get involved in.



posted on May, 12 2005 @ 06:49 PM
link   
The guy should be able to have any name he chooses.
If it's because its a biblical name, then there many are many others out there with biblical names too.
Paul , Peter, Michael ,etc etc. Are these people blasphemous too?



posted on May, 12 2005 @ 06:51 PM
link   
Yeah, but What About the Judge Citing the Bible as Part of His Findings?

Is anyone, err? Paying any--?

Bah, nevermind.


Zip



posted on May, 12 2005 @ 08:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zipdot
Yeah, but What About the Judge Citing the Bible as Part of His Findings?

Is anyone, err? Paying any--?


I am. This is not the first time judges have used religious beliefs to influence decisions, read this:

www.foxnews.com...


Unfortunately, those of us who are not religious will continue to have it shoved down our throats. I only see this increasing in the future, probably because the religious are so well organized and eager to follow the flock to vote for those who share their convictions, and the non-religious are so loosely organized and absorbed in their own lives, they may or may not vote. I think we witnessed that last November. Get used to religious judges making our decisions for us.






[edit on 12-5-2005 by 27jd]



posted on May, 12 2005 @ 08:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zipdot
Yeah, but What About the Judge Citing the Bible as Part of His Findings?

Is anyone, err? Paying any--?

Bah, nevermind.


Zip


That's not as fun to b*tch about
I think koji's right it'll get appealed, no problem. There's no legal reason that name has more weight than any other name.

EDIT: saw who posted the thing about the appeal and changed it to reflect it.

[edit on 5/12/2005 by MCory1]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join