# Judge Orders Baby's Name Changed.



## arnisador (Aug 11, 2013)

[h=1]Tennessee Judge orders baby's name be changed from 'Messiah'[/h] 				 					[h=6][/h]     			    			


> A Newport mother is appealing a court's decision after a judge ordered her son's name be changed from "Messiah."
> [...]
> Judge Ballew ordered the 7-month-old's name be "Martin DeShawn  McCullough." It includes both parent's last names but leaves out  Messiah.
> 
> "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," Judge Ballew  said.



Once again, an example of how the religious think everyone else in this country should be forced to live by their standards. They outlaw Sharia law, then do something like this. Incidentally, as to this and other 'titles' as names:

[h=2]Messiah is increasingly popular as name for U.S. boys[/h]





> Messiah was the fourth fastest-growing name for boys, rising to 387th  in 2012 from the 633th spot in 2011, according to the federal agency.
> 
> King became the seventh fastest-growing boys name, reaching the  256th most popular spot in 2012, compared with 389th the year before,  the agency said.
> 
> ...



I once had a South American student whose first name was 'Colonel'.


----------



## ballen0351 (Aug 11, 2013)

How did it get to court anyway?


----------



## billc (Aug 11, 2013)

One nut doesn't make a difference.  However,  the secular progressives judges who ruled that the secular government can take your property and sell it to someone who will make the government more tax money...now that is a real problem.  The secular government minions who used the government to go after conservative and religious groups, you know that IRS scandal the secular media is ignoring, that is also a bigger problem than this one nut judge.


----------



## granfire (Aug 11, 2013)

King?
You call a horse king...not a kid...

Messiah?
Lord Almighty (or was that his father)

what theF is wrong with NAMES...
I know, Marshal Faulk, Marquis Grissom....

But what is rather amazing in a bad way, that it is a fast growing name for boys...
But I guess if you want to go religious and Caleb and Joshua are too over used for you....
what's wrong with Noah, or the other thousands of names in the Good Book...
Do other than Hispanics call their boys Jesus?


----------



## arnisador (Aug 11, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> How did it get to court anyway?



The dispute was actually over picking a surname, but the judge found the first name objectionable too. The parents don't appear to be winners but the judge's reasoning is just clearly disallowed under the First Amendment.


----------



## granfire (Aug 11, 2013)

arnisador said:


> The dispute was actually over picking a surname, but the judge found the first name objectionable too. The parents don't appear to be winners but the judge's reasoning is just clearly disallowed under the First Amendment.



yeah, up to that point he had a sensible argument...then he tossed the religion thing around...


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Aug 11, 2013)

Flip side of argument:
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nat...ghting-custody-adolf-hitler-article-1.1367217

Last I knew the US didn't have any name laws. Other countries do.
Judge is wrong here. (in the OP)


----------



## ballen0351 (Aug 12, 2013)

Funny how judges being wrong is a fair game until the topic is Roe v Wade then Judges never get it wrong


----------



## Touch Of Death (Aug 12, 2013)

granfire said:


> King?
> You call a horse king...not a kid...
> 
> Messiah?
> Lord Almighty (or was that his father)


Chris and Messiah mean the same thing.


----------



## arnisador (Aug 12, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> Funny how judges being wrong is a fair game until the topic is Roe v Wade then Judges never get it wrong



Big difference: This judge is violating the First Amendment, whereas Roe v. Wade interprets the 14th Amendment. Even if you disagree with that interpretation, one decision is going against the constitution while the other is based on going with it.


----------



## Tgace (Aug 12, 2013)

How did it get into court in the first place? Who "reported" them?


----------



## Tgace (Aug 12, 2013)

Tgace said:


> How did it get into court in the first place? Who "reported" them?



Found it:

http://www.wivb.com/dpps/news/offbeat/tenn-judge-changes-infants-name_6626199



> The boy's parents were in court because they could not agree on the child's last name, but when the judge heard the boy's first name, she ordered it changed, too.



While I don't "like" the choice of name...I don't think it's the gvts role to get involved in naming children.


----------



## oftheherd1 (Aug 12, 2013)

arnisador said:


> *Tennessee Judge orders baby's name be changed from 'Messiah'*
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You are entitled to your opinions of course.  But you paint with too broad a brush.  I would consider myself religious.  I consider myself a Christian.  I don't think others should be forced to live by my standards.  That in fact, would be against my religion.

In the case you mention, I am sure the parents will win on the appeal the news stated they have filed.  I would not name a child of mine Messiah, nor Adolf Hitler.  But I don't know of any law against it.  I cannot imagine what the judge in this case was thinking when she made the ruling.  She had to realize she was bringing her understanding of her religion into a civil legal matter.

I don't think her decision comports with law.  Unfortunately, it gives some people a reason to lump all who call themselves Christians, together with those who follow non-Christian practices.


----------



## arnisador (Aug 12, 2013)

Tgace said:


> While I don't "like" the choice of name...I don't think it's the gvts role to get involved in naming children.



I agree on both parts...but while there may be times when the govt. renaming a child is reasonable, like if someone named a child the 189,819 letter long chemical name of titin, doing so because the name offends your personal interpretation of your religion is flat-out unconstitutional.


----------



## ballen0351 (Aug 12, 2013)

arnisador said:


> Big difference: This judge is violating the First Amendment, whereas Roe v. Wade interprets the 14th Amendment. Even if you disagree with that interpretation, one decision is going against the constitution while the other is based on going with it.


You proved my point.  Judges is wrong when interpretation of 1st but couldnt possibly be wrong about the 14th.

In this case I agree the judge was wrong.  The parents are idiots for going to court and not acting like adults and picking a name in the first place.  If they can't even pick a name its going to be a long 18 years for them.


----------



## granfire (Aug 12, 2013)

arnisador said:


> I agree on both parts...but while there may be times when the govt. renaming a child is reasonable, like if someone named a child the 189,819 letter long chemical name of titin, doing so because the name offends your personal interpretation of your religion is flat-out unconstitutional.



Somebody should have stepped up and slapped the parents of two girls named after STDs...
Somewhere there should be a child abuse clause....


----------



## ballen0351 (Aug 12, 2013)

granfire said:


> Somebody should have stepped up and slapped the parents of two girls named after STDs...
> Somewhere there should be a child abuse clause....


STD?  Never seen that one.


----------



## oftheherd1 (Aug 12, 2013)

arnisador said:


> I agree on both parts...but while there may be times when the govt. renaming a child is reasonable, like if someone named a child the 189,819 letter long chemical name of titin, doing so because the name offends your personal interpretation of your religion is flat-out unconstitutional.



Doesn't that line of thought cause you problems?  What gives the government the right to pick and choose what names (if the reasoning isn't based on a particular religious belief?) a parent will choose to give their child?  That the government doesn't like it, or finds it inconvenient, isn't a consideration in a parent's privilege to choose their child's name. Actions that are not controlled nor prohibited by law are privileges.

For that matter, what makes this a 1st amendment issue rather than a 14th amendment issue?  The judge isn't congress, and although the judge stated _*her*_ reason was religious, what her reason in fact did, was "... abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States ..."  and "... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. ..."  Letting you or me pick our child's name, but not those parents, is denying them equal protection.

It is only a 1st amendment issue if the parents aren't really naming their child to give him a name, but making a statement.


----------



## granfire (Aug 12, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> STD?  Never seen that one.



Gonorrhea....
school teachers can give you a list of outrageous and plum ridiculous names these kids run around with. 
I suppose mother wanted to commemorate her conception....the De's and La's don't even register as weird anymore in that context.
Seriously, there should be a law preventing kids having to go through the first and most important years of their lives with a stupid name. Normal names cause enough trouble as it is! Rare names put a bullseye on your back. But going spechul like that?! Child abuse!


----------



## arnisador (Aug 12, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> You proved my point.



Only if your point is that you oppose the existence of the judicial system.


----------



## arnisador (Aug 12, 2013)

oftheherd1 said:


> Doesn't that line of thought cause you problems?  What gives the government the right to pick and choose what names (if the reasoning isn't based on a particular religious belief?) a parent will choose to give their child?  That the government doesn't like it, or finds it inconvenient, isn't a consideration in a parent's privilege to choose their child's name. Actions that are not controlled nor prohibited by law are privileges.



I don't where to draw the line. I suppose the question is: Can a parent abuse the right to name a child? If you want to name your boy Sue, OK; but if you give your child a thousand-letter first name because you know it'll screw up computer registries and you're making a point, is that OK or abusive to the child? I'd give the parents a lot of leeway here, but if a parent names their child _F*** Me In The A**hole Jones_ then I wouldn't object to a court looking at it and asking whether the parents are pulling the child into the parents' protest. I suppose I believe that there is a crossable line in which naming becomes abusive.



> For that matter, what makes this a 1st amendment issue rather than a 14th amendment issue?  The judge isn't congress, and although the judge stated _*her*_ reason was religious, what her reason in fact did, was "... abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States ..."  and "... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. ..."  Letting you or me pick our child's name, but not those parents, is denying them equal protection.



The parents couldn't agree on a last name, leading the court to become involved. I wouldn't disagree that the judge's ruling is wrong in multiple ways, if that's your point.



> It is only a 1st amendment issue if the parents aren't really naming their child to give him a name, but making a statement.



It's a first amendment violation by the judge--the govt. picking a favorite religion. Mohammed continues to be allowed as a name, and I'm sure Buddha is OK too. I've known Thors. The judge is in violation of the law.


----------



## Kurai (Aug 12, 2013)

Perfect counter to the judge's ruling.  What if a parent names their child Jesus, a very common name for some cultures....?  There are laws on the books about what a name is legally allowed to be.  For instance you can't name yourself a symbol.  Messiah however does not violate those laws.


----------



## ballen0351 (Aug 12, 2013)

arnisador said:


> Only if your point is that you oppose the existence of the judicial system.



No the point is judges get it wrong sometimes.  Even supreme Court judges


----------



## Tgace (Aug 12, 2013)

I'm with the 14th violation vs 1st as well...unless the name was involved with the parents religion there was no 1st violation as I see it. It is a violation of the separation of church and state but that's not in the Constitution.

Sent from my SCH-I405 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Touch Of Death (Aug 12, 2013)

granfire said:


> Gonorrhea....
> school teachers can give you a list of outrageous and plum ridiculous names these kids run around with.
> I suppose mother wanted to commemorate her conception....the De's and La's don't even register as weird anymore in that context.
> Seriously, there should be a law preventing kids having to go through the first and most important years of their lives with a stupid name. Normal names cause enough trouble as it is! Rare names put a bullseye on your back. But going spechul like that?! Child abuse!


We should also force immigrants to name their children American names. Jose' will now be Joe, and so on. Its brilliant!


----------



## granfire (Aug 12, 2013)

Touch Of Death said:


> We should also force immigrants to name their children American names. Jose' will now be Joe, and so on. Its brilliant!



Many immigrants do name their kids with American names. 

However that was not the point.
I had an unusual name. I still hardly ever run into people with the same name. While there are more people with the same last name in the county alone than you can shake a stick at, I am fairly confident there is no other person with my complete name.
I caught hell in school. and I was not named after a fruit brand, STB or with a name you'd normaly find on a dog.
There is no reason to name a kid Princess...you can call her that as nickname....
Or Gonorrhea...why not Plague....
I heard a young couple naming their son "Leviathon" - really? Was Satan taken already?


----------



## oftheherd1 (Aug 12, 2013)

arnisador said:


> I don't where to draw the line. I suppose the question is: Can a parent abuse the right to name a child? If you want to name your boy Sue, OK; but if you give your child a thousand-letter first name because you know it'll screw up computer registries and you're making a point, is that OK or abusive to the child? I'd give the parents a lot of leeway here, but if a parent names their child _F*** Me In The A**hole Jones_ then I wouldn't object to a court looking at it and asking whether the parents are pulling the child into the parents' protest. I suppose I believe that there is a crossable line in which naming becomes abusive.



I agree with your concept, but as far as I know, there is not state or federal law to back that up.  If there is, I would be glad to hear of it.



arnisador said:


> The parents couldn't agree on a last name, leading the court to become involved. I wouldn't disagree that the judge's ruling is wrong in multiple ways, if that's your point.



I don't think it is a 1st amendment violation.  But yes, the judge was wrong to give out the order.



arnisador said:


> It's a first amendment violation by the judge--the govt. picking a favorite religion. Mohammed continues to be allowed as a name, and I'm sure Buddha is OK too. I've known Thors. The judge is in violation of the law.



The 1st amendment prohibits the federal government from establishing a religion, specifically the congress since they only have the authority to make laws.  The judge is a state judge.  The 14th amendment is what prevents her from ordering a name change imho.

But I agree, the bottom line is that the judge is wrong, and the order will be rescinded  on appeal, if the appeal is based on the 14th amendment.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Aug 12, 2013)

granfire said:


> Many immigrants do name their kids with American names.
> 
> However that was not the point.
> I had an unusual name. I still hardly ever run into people with the same name. While there are more people with the same last name in the county alone than you can shake a stick at, I am fairly confident there is no other person with my complete name.
> ...


I am simply saying that people name their kids Chris all the time. Messiah means the same thing; so, if its happening, so be it. It would become the norm if you let it. Chris sure caught on.
Sean


----------



## punisher73 (Aug 13, 2013)

I'm sure we can all agree that which ever way it is interpreted, the judge overstepped their authority on this one.

Unfortunately, it comes again at the expense of "legal" vs. "responsible".

I'll have to find it, but there was a study done that people with "unique" names do not get callbacks as often as people with more common names on indentical resumes.  Yes, you CAN name your kid anything you want.  BUT, is it responsible to do so? I'm not referencing just the name in this case but others.

I have seen people name their kids after alcoholic drinks (Daquiri and Courvoisier), and countries (Malaysia) before and all other combinations that they made up of their own spellings of common names (one couple who named their kid "Brian", but insisted that it was spelled "Brain" to be different, or "Mechicca" instead of "Mechiah").  It's not the kids fault, but their parents are  setting them up as a joke for the rest of their life.


----------



## arnisador (Aug 13, 2013)

punisher73 said:


> Unfortunately, it comes again at the expense of "legal" vs. "responsible".
> 
> I'll have to find it, but there was a study done that people with "unique" names do not get callbacks as often as people with more common names on indentical resumes.  Yes, you CAN name your kid anything you want.  BUT, is it responsible to do so? I'm not referencing just the name in this case but others.



The research on that is actually more complicated than what made it into the public debate, but overall I agree--parents can be irresponsible about names and often are. The question in general is, can a name ever be so inappropriate as to constitute abuse. Look at the infamous case of the guy who named his kids after Adolf Hitler and other Nazi leaders. Was that abusive? If he was Hitler's nephew I'd say no--just a really bad idea. Since he was a random neo-Nazi, is it abusive? I'm not sure--but it was certainly something I condemn.

The judge here is plainly in the wrong to object to Messiah because of her stated reason, but could the state ever have an objective reason to limit names? Many countries do proscribe such limits. In Iceland the govt. must approve the name and it must be from Icelandic culture, for example. Similarly in Japan I think.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Aug 13, 2013)

...France, as well.


----------



## billc (Aug 13, 2013)

To whom it may concern...my post was in resonse to this post...



> Once again, an example of how the religious think everyone else in this country should be forced to live by their standards.



My post was to show that one nutty judge can't compare with judges from the secular progressive side of the equation who are actually affecting the entire country with their rulings on Eminent domain, and also the effect that the secular progressives in other parts of the government have on the rest of the country as well.  I would have replied in person...but there was no way to do it...


----------



## arnisador (Aug 13, 2013)

[h=1]What's it like being called Messiah?[/h]


> Messiah Rhodes, a 26-year-old documentary maker who was raised by his Methodist grandparents in Queens, New York.
> 
> "I went to church, not just on Sunday but also on Tuesday,  Wednesday and Thursday. I ran a Bible study group when I was 10 or 11.  So the ironic thing here is that I grew up in a religious background but  no-one was hostile to my name.
> 
> ...


----------



## arnisador (Aug 16, 2013)

oftheherd1 said:


> For that matter, what makes this a 1st amendment issue rather than a 14th amendment issue?[...]It is only a 1st amendment issue if the parents aren't really naming their child to give him a name, but making a statement.





Tgace said:


> I'm with the 14th violation vs 1st as well...unless the name was involved with the parents religion there was no 1st violation as I see it. It is a violation of the separation of church and state but that's not in the Constitution.



The NY Times reports that it is as I suggested--this is a First Amendment matter:

[h=1]In the Name of God, or Baby Messiah, Competing Claims of Religious Freedom[/h]


> States put all sorts of restrictions on parental naming rights, from the  length of first names to what punctuation marks are permissible. But  the restrictions cannot, for the most part, be justified by an appeal to  religion. It therefore seems likely that Magistrate Ballews ruling  against Messiah will be overturned as a violation of the First  Amendment.



I hadn't known this:



> Mary was considered simply too holy for secular use until the 12th  century, Dr. Murray said. Yet today Mary, along with cognates like  Maria and Marie, are popular throughout the Christian world.


----------

