Judge: "The word Messiah is a title and it's a title that has only been earned by one person and that one person is Jesus Christ"

Two thoughts:

1. Isn’t it wild that a name is one of the main things that sticks with you through eternity. (From Ron Bean’s sermon today) Did Moses and Elijah come down on the mount of transfiguration? Yes. Well, it seems that we’re at least somewhat always known by our given names. So parents, choose carefully, because a good name is to be chosen instead of great riches.

2. I don’t like judges sticking their feet into civil disputes like this. Absent law on the subject, the judge should stay out of it. I mean lots of hispanics are named Jesus.

Prince is also a title, and clearly it can be a name.

Messiah just means ‘anointed’.

Cyrus was also messiah in Isaiah 45:1

Jesus is a very popular name.

That’s not even getting into the legal reasons why the ruling is wrong.

Government/courts out of control. I would certainly disagree with a parent who wanted to name a child Messiah, and I would try to dissuade them. But this is totally intrusive over-mangement by a government body. Give me a break. Now the government can tell us what to name our kids? Andrew, surely you were speaking tongue-in-cheeck when you called this borderline child abuse. Surely you don’t really mean to so trivialize child abuse as to include something ridiculous like this. This isn’t even on the same planet, or even in the same galaxy, as burning a child with scalding water or cigarettes or sexually defiling a child. I have believed for some time that, short of a spiritual revival, America is past saving. She is already in her death throes, having suffered a mortal, self-afflicted blow. This craziness is only another indication pointing in that direction.

I have no problem with a list of excluded names, and some countries even have a list of allowed names. The problem is with a judge that decides to take it on herself to strike a single name for her individual religious views.

And I doubt New Zealand is any ideal… some parents wanted to name their kid 4Real and had to settle on Superman.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/6939112.stm

If you strip the judge’s personal religion from her ruling, Superman should be outlawed too.

But if there isn’t law on the subject, the judge should just make it up as he goes along. I’m fine with some basic laws on what kids can and can’t be named so obviously offensive names are ruled out.

Germany or France where there are restrictions on names. Nor would I want to live under such restrictions. For on thing, who gets to decide which names are on either the permitted list or on the blacklist?

As best as I know it’s fairly easy for an adult to change their name. And more to the point, ABAIK, in America you can call yourself anything you want as long as you are not committing fraud or seeking to escape your legal responsibilities.

[Shaynus]

But if there isn’t law on the subject, the judge should just make it up as he goes along. I’m fine with some basic laws on what kids can and can’t be named so obviously offensive names are ruled out.

I definitely want to be more libertarian on this, but someone should be there to make sure a parent doesn’t name his kid a four letter word. By the way, Freakonomics did a really good story on how much your name matters in life. It’s been a while since I’ve heard it, but they studied kids who were named odd names.

http://www.freakonomics.com/2013/04/08/how-much-does-your-name-matter-a…

Shaynus,

One of the most difficult hurdles in any kind of study is determining and measuring causality. In this case, I think it would be difficult to prove whether the name of a child influenced who they would become or if it was the strange parents who chose the strange name who influenced who the child would become. The article actually starts off that way, claiming that a name can tell you about your parents, but then it tries to draw a corollary conclusion about how the name itself affects you personally.

Yeah so the conclusion is that it’s really your parents that matter, but certain parents will name their kids certain ways. Listen to the audio.

In answer to the question

Does it really infringe on personal freedom that much?

[Andrew K.]

[Rob Fall]

Germany or France where there are restrictions on names. Nor would I want to live under such restrictions. For on thing, who gets to decide which names are on either the permitted list or on the blacklist?

As best as I know it’s fairly easy for an adult to change their name. And more to the point, ABAIK, in America you can call yourself anything you want as long as you are not committing fraud or seeking to escape your legal responsibilities.

[Shaynus]

But if there isn’t law on the subject, the judge should just make it up as he goes along. I’m fine with some basic laws on what kids can and can’t be named so obviously offensive names are ruled out.

A society decides. You think a society should not have the right to decide whether or not a child should be named a swearword? Is that really fair to the child, who cannot change his name until adulthood? I would have no problem living in New Zealand, which has a list of banned names. Does it really infringe on personal freedom that much?

On names banned around the world

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/10237682/Names-…

Apparently pronounced “Albin”, this name was chosen in protest at Sweden’s strict naming laws. Swedish parents and individuals looking to have their name changed have to clear both the first and last name with the country’s tax authorities. Other banned names in Sweden include Metallica, Ikea and Q.

The parents name the kind. The judge has no authority to require a name change for the boy’s first name.

Believe it or not, I do accept societal standards for names. However, I live in California. I’ve seen what happens when the government enforces “society’s” standards. It ain’t pretty.

[Andrew K.]

I’m sorry, this is just a bogeyman fear. Of course society has the right to dictate what is acceptable and what isn’t acceptable morally and legally for public use and display. Who decided what words would be swearwords or taboo in the first place? You follow society’s dictum on which words are unacceptable to use in public. Law (traditionally) enforces these. How are names any different?

Again, I see this whole discussion as evidence of how far libertarianism has influenced modern conservative thought.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/17/us/in-the-name-of-god-or-baby-messiah…