Adolf Hitler, Sisters Taken from Parents' Home

Where does one begin? Mohammed killed over 900 jews of the Qurayshi tribe in one day, then took their women and children and sold them into slavery. Based on gamergal's rationale, anyone naming their child "Mohammed" should be investigated and have their children taken.

But wait, there's more... Joshua ran right up the middle of Canaan, destroying cities and slaughtering people as he went. Based on the same rationale, anyone teaching their children the doctrines of judaism should also be investigated, and their children removed from the home. They're indoctrinating their children with hate for non-jews.

The Christians, in the crusades, are said to have torn up Palestine pretty badly, not to mention all the bad press from that little old "inquisition" party they threw. so while we're rounding up the jewish and islamic kids, don't forget to drop by the houses of the christians, too.

And wait! Joseph Stalin is alleged to have ordered the murders of something like 60 million of his own people, and Pol Pot something on the order of 3 million (in a much smaller nation), so those espousing leftist philosophy are also unfit parents, eh?

I think gamergal may be onto something here. If we just clean out all these "undesirables" from our cute little country, all us decent folk can get on with the business of living in peace! Problem is, once the cleanup starts, where will it end, and how many will be left? This is simply too big of a country for just two of us!

frankly, I see no difference between rabid, knee-jerk anti-nazism and rabid, knee-jerk anti-semitism, other than who's making the rules at the time, and who's on the recieving end, getting processed by the system. Fascism is fascism, and I care not who the source of it is.

In American jurisprudence, there's a pesky little thing called the "rule of particularity", that postulates that NO citizen will be molested except upon the execution of a duly sworn warrant, "particularly" describing, in specifics, the reasons for the molestation. On those grounds alone, it would seem that seizing children and not giving a reason for it would be a pretty severe violation of rights, both of the children, and of the parents, and of society at large. If they can do it to them, they can do it to YOU too. But I'm not a lawyer. Would it be too much to ask the government, for once, to OBEY the laws that it makes? IF there is another reason for this, and I am willing to entertain that notion, then it should have been spelled out on a properly served warrant, and EVERYONE involved should know the cause. Anything else is kidnapping and false imprisonment.

That's it for now. I think little Atilla and I had best head for the hills, before they come knocking on MY door. Note to government types: don't bother following us, as we'll be setting booby traps as we go. Besides, you should worry more about young Walter than little Atilla. Young Walter is the one I've indoctrinated to kill on command. He's going to be a Jesuit when he grows up. I thought Atilla would have a hard enough time, what with his name and all. Can someone send us a smoke signal when this blows over? I'm afraid we'll be away from the phone.

nenothtu out.

Computer sticking.

[edit on 15-1-2009 by Harassment101]

Originally posted by pjslug
reply to post by Harassment101

 

Wrong. Abuse of a child is not a right. You can uphold your first amendment rights all you want on your OWN behalf, so long as it doesn't hurt anyone else. But when your first amendment rights put the life and mental state of your children in jeopardy, good people cannot sit around and let it happen. Any parent who thinks it is okay to inflict any sort of abuse on a child is not fit to be a good, loving parent and therefore should not be allowed to look after a child, especially when their own mental state is questionable.

Can you prove the children were being abused? Can you prove that giving the children these names was abusive? It was bad decision making in my opinion, but does it constitute abuse?

We also both seem to agree that abuse of a child is not right, naming your child Adolf Hitler is not abuse. It's not a great idea, but it's not abuse. If we as a society do our job, and do not torment the kid for his name. We also have a role to play in this.

It's attitudes like yours that worry me, and that also continue to let the state into the affair of the family.

Good busy body people, who are making prejudgements. I am not fond that this family choose the name. The only way this child will be affected by the name is if others make it an issue, by throwing out death threats to this family, and then in that case, that says more about the good people in society than it does about this family.

If choosing a name for a child puts them in danger or a poor mental state, that will again have more to do with the narrow minds in society than anything else. If we do not burden or harm this kid for the sake of his name, then it would really not be an issue. We are trying to make ourselves look like good concerned people, but all we are doing is giving the state power where it legally has none. Unless choosing a bad name for your child is child abuse, and then there are about a dozen celebrities who should expect a visit from child welfare services, and yes there is a difference, but only a small line, that can easily be crossed if we don't draw this line in the sand.

Any parent who thinks it is okay to inflict any sort of abuse on a child is not fit to be a good, loving parent and therefore should not be allowed to look after a child, especially when their own mental state is questionable.

Can you again prove these children were being abused? I see bad decision making and name choosing. I see a family that might hold political views that many don't like, even though they have denied that this is the case. I also wonder how you know that their mental state is questionable? Choosing the name Adolf Hitler is a bad idea, but it does not mean that they are mentally unstable. I also don't know if this can be used to determine if they are fit to raise the child, but I do know that this case has the potential to set several precedences, depending on the reasons for the child being taken from the home.

After reading another article, I wonder if the state did not pull a mental health wrap on these people.

I think most hear agree that naming the child after Hitler was not a good idea. However there are lot's of names that are not good ideas, and are we going to police each and everyone and take the child from the homes?

Also if they were taken from their homes for their political affiliation which is also illegal to do, unless they are harming the kids, are we going to start removing kids from homes for this?

I see the potential for a very slippery slope, for deciding who gets to parent and under what circumstances, using a reason like a name is a bad idea. If there is other abuse then let's hear more about it. This case is still very obscure and I would just like to know that all the t's were crossed and the i's were dotted. If a child is taken from a family there better be a good reason for it, because tomorrow it could be your kid. A slippery slope just keeps going. Then no one's kids are safe, and the state will be stepping in for all sorts of reasons. I should say more so than they do now.


[edit on 15-1-2009 by Harassment101]

Computer sticking. Double post.

[edit on 15-1-2009 by Harassment101]

Computer sticking, triple post.

[edit on 15-1-2009 by Harassment101]

Originally posted by harvib
reply to post by SUNRAY06

 

Err on the side of caution..an open and fair hearing..and if community standards are not respected..and hate is being forced on the children then..thats it

And what legislation allows this. An open and fair hearing for what crime? What you are proposing is unlawful.

This is how the witch hunts start. The commuity of good people, who think it's up to them to step in. Sometimes people do need to step in and do the right things, that's usually when many of you are all busy taking a step back by the way. Yet based on the laws of society, but choosing the names the family have not done anything illegal. They may obviously have shown poor taste, and bad judgement, but was it illegal and did it warrent the children being taken?

The father and mother have said they are not Aryan Nation. (I don't know if they are telling the truth.) We don't know if they were teaching hate to these kids, they were pretty young, the oldest just turned 3.

All of the above is not a reason to take children from a home, and if it is or has become so, then many others better get ready.

If it's a case of choosing bad baby names, then the Stalin's, Satan's, Lucifers, better get ready to be taken from their parents.

reply to post by nenothtu


You got a star for that post, and my undying gratitude for summerizing what I have been trying to say and point out. You also injected a much needed dose of humour into this thread, and for that I am also greatful. I will send out the smoke signals if this blows over, but keep running for the hills, just in case.

reply to post by Harassment101



Well, these nimrods came right out and said that they were nazis, so there goes your argument.


Nothing in the article even implies that those unfortunate brats were taken from their so-called parents because of their names. If the authorities ever disclose why they were removed from the home -- and they might not because of confidentiality rules -- chances are we'll find out that those nutcases were either raping or beating them, or both. Trash like that does tend to abuse their offspring, almost as a matter of course. Such behavior is endemic among the uneducated, under-employed underachievers of any society.


Frankly, I think they have every right to name their hellspawn anything they like, but they had better teach them how to take a beating before they get to school. (Homeschooling isn't obviously going to be an option since the parents seem barely literate.) You had best believe that if they show up in our very ethnically diverse schools with messed-up names and white supremacist attitudes they're going to spend most of their time eating asphalt on the playground.

Originally posted by Leto

Originally posted by jfj123
reply to post by Leto

 

Although it is an assumption that the childs future would be ruined, I think it's valid. Come on, you don't think that a child named ADOLF HITLER would go through pure hell?????

My name is a bit odd and I had a hard time in school with other children, parents and even teachers.

If they cannot find any public schools where such problems are mostly constrained they can try home schooling.

[edit on 14-1-2009 by Leto]

That way they can teach him racism 24/7 without a break. That will make a healthy adult.

Originally posted by Harassment101

Originally posted by jfj123
reply to post by Leto

 

Although it is an assumption that the childs future would be ruined, I think it's valid. Come on, you don't think that a child named ADOLF HITLER would go through pure hell?????

My name is a bit odd and I had a hard time in school with other children, parents and even teachers.

The kid could use his initials A.H. Campbell and then go onto wall street and then that would be pure evil. (Just Joking.) The only way his life will be hell is if our ignorant society makes it so.

It's an ignorant world out there !
And ignorant people created a potential problem for a child the supposedly love.
Look at it this way, they love their idol (hitler) more then they love their child as they wanted to honor their idol by naming their child after him. A good parent would put their child before EVERYTHING.

As long as this kid grows up to be a good person, then it should not matter what his name is.

You're right and in a perfect society, that child would not be brainwashed to be a racist by his own parents.

It's the character of the person that counts. Naming your kid Jesus does not make them the messiah, and naming your kid Hitler does not make him evil.

There's a difference between naming a child jesus and having him grow up in a religious family and taught solid principles based on the good things in the bible
and
naming a child hitler after a mass murderer bent on world domination and genocide.

What will count is how the character turns out, as a society we can help fascilitate that for the better by not harassing the kid because of his name, by not creating a monster. We have some responsibility in this as well.

Of course we do however, the parents will be the ones to mold the majority of his character which in all likelihood will be racist.

Originally posted by shug7272
Guess what, no matter what you name your kid they will get picked on, hit, made fun of, called names, physically and mentally beaten and worse in life.

And you honestly don't think it'll be ANY worse for a kid named ADOLF HITLER?

The kid could obviously say his name is something else like Al very early in life.

Yeah that'll work because nobody will know right? The teachers won't talk? The principal won't talk? The bus drivers won't talk? Come on, do you really think this poor kid will be able to simply say my name is Al and that'll be the end of it?

Get a clue, nobody needs anyone else telling them what to name their kid.

Obviously somebody does simply because they're not smart enough to realize that they are going out of their way to set their child up for more pain in life then they normally would experience. No good and SANE parent would purposely expose their children to that type of pain, knowing what will happen.

What people DO need is for other people to not be so dumb ass that they start controversy over someones #ing name.

His name isn't bobby smith.
They named him after one of the most despised men in the history of the world !!! I'm surprised they didn't name the poor kid SATAN !!!


If others dont like it tough #. We wouldnt need freedom of speech to protect kind loving speech. Freedom of speech is for a case JUST LIKE THIS! Jeezus Krist.

Originally posted by OhZone
I have to wonder about those of you who think that this child will suffer abuse from his playmates on account of his name.......would you have harrassed a kid with an odd name?

Because children and adults are always soooo understanding.

He will in all likelybood simply be known as Adolf Campbell.

Not likely. Teachers will know his full name, bus drivers will know his full name, his parents know his full name, his parents friends know his full name, everyone will know his full name.

And thosse of you who think that they are "Nazis".....
What exactly does "Nazi" mean to you?

Well we know about the nazi's in WWII germany and they were kinda bad people with all the mass murder, genocide and attempt at world domination thing.

Now compare your notions to what the American Nazi Party has to say about themselves.
Nazi

Ok I went to the website and now I have to take a shower.
The reality is that it's a racist website teaching racism under the guise of socialsim and helping the disenfranchised.
In other words, you can put lipstick on a pig BUT....

Originally posted by d11_m_na_c05
My cats names are Hitler, Stalin, Commie, And Murder

I probably wouldn't hesitate to name my kids any of those . What the quote I'm looking for .. "Whats in a name?" "A rose by any other name" Ect..

Do you believe a child has a right to a name it might actually like?
Or is it only your own rights you are concerned about?

Gee whizz, I can stick my finger up at society by naming my kid anything I choose! Aren't I tough!

Greeneyed leo has it right, but few others seem to understand the OP.

The police have not had complaints.
The New Jersey Division of Youth and Family Services took the kids away.

We have no idea what complaints the New Jersey Division of Youth and Family Services may have received. For all we know the kids might be being abused any which way.

If you were to report a child being abused, would you ring police or child welfare? Quite likely police wouldn't even record the call, but would refer you on to the more appropriate authority who have the power to investigate it.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

On the other hand, I have known child welfare, HACS in Australia, to be completely self-serving and unjust.

In HACS, the workers get promoted on success, and keeping a child in its family in not considered success. So they work to break up families to further their own careers.

When I had a problem with them, they tried to remove my children as payback for me proving to the court that they could not legally remove my brother's children, who they had been after. They did many illegal things, including interviewing my young, handicapped children without any support person present.

I finally got a court order to stop them hassling me, and they turned up at 7 the next morning to try again to take my children. Then they forced their way into the bathroom while I was taking a crap, making fun of me and trying to get me to fight them. I just pretended I was a queen from way back whose poo smelled of roses, and asked them to tear of the right amount of toilet paper for me. It was so bad Victoria's top lawyer took on the case pro bono, after telling me that the only way to save my children was to move interstate, and seeing I refused to do so.

The only character witnesses called to the stand, (at my insistence,) were two HACS workers, who, under oath, ended up revealing that they had no complaints or evidence against me, and that this was a vendetta.

I won, but in revenge the (Kennet) government, whose involvement I've never understood, got the judge demoted and hassled the lovely lawyer until he had to move interstate.

Three HACS workers got demoted, but not for breaking laws, only for losing the case. A fourth ended up on long-term leave after going crazy in the dock, trying to say I was a bad mother and not able to get the words to come out. I guess the sweetness with which I'd treated them, always inviting them in and feeding them home-made cakes, and introducing them to everyone they might like to question about me, paid off.

I discovered later, having made a friend within the department, that the "host family" my boys were to be delivered to was a single man, a known paedophile.

At the end of the day it's just a name... but when that kid grows up he will get bullied and for that it is the parents fault.
If Adolf grows up to be famous, people will cringe to say his name, and he will hate his name forever...
Therefore in a way it is wrong, but in another it is just a name.
If you get me? I'm confusing I know.
The agency didn't have any right to take them away, they claim that it hasn't got anything to do with the name. They seem alright parents to me! They deserve an apology!

reply to post by godoftheforest


But if the parents were really all right, wouldn't they consider their child before their political beliefs? Wouldn't they know this child will experience extra, unnecessary suffering and wouldn't they want to do everything they could to prevent that suffering?

What if they named their child RAPIST ? That's just a name too.

What does it say about the parents who would knowingly inflict mental abuse on their child by putting that child in a situation that will cause that abuse?

Just for every one too catch up. The CPS took the kids away but didn't give a reason. Most likely due to the law about disclosing things. Second, even if they only they took the kids away was because the parents were training them too attack a Jewish temple and kill as many as possible it was the right call. You can't let people teach their children that if they're driving along and see a Jew on the sidewalk it is their duty too drive on the sidewalk and run the person over.

If this was only about the the name, then this was wrong. If we don't support this family trying to get back their kids, we don't support freedom. First they come for the kids named Hitler, then they will come for kids whose parents are members of message boards that question 9-11 or the Holocaust.

[edit on 15-1-2009 by Amelie]

Originally posted by Amelie
If this was only about the the name, then this was wrong. If we don't support this family trying to get back their kids, we don't support freedom. First they come for the kids named Hitler, then they will come for kids whose parents are members of message boards that questions 9-11 or the Holocaust.

Freedom does not mean lawlessness. What is it they say about a right to free speech does not permit one to yell fire in a crowded theatre? I don't think people have a right to consciously, purposely, screw up their kids. That is negligence, which is abuse.

And I believe that the state should be able to act in extraordinary circumstances as long as they are transparent. Like spot checks for drinking drivers. It violates unreasonable search laws, but it keeps a lot of people alive.

These fools should be made to account for themselves, but the onus remains upon the state to do so as well. Either way, this should be interesting.

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck
Freedom does not mean lawlessness. What is it they say about a right to free speech does not permit one to yell fire in a crowded theatre? I don't think people have a right to consciously, purposely, screw up their kids. That is negligence, which is abuse.

How is it unlawful to name one's child Hitler? No one can determine that a name will screw up a child, if that's the case what other children should be taken away because of their names? A person has the freedom to admire Adolph Hitler and name their child after him, whether we like it or not.