Child named Adolf Hitler removed from home in New Jersey

[Blackadder]

This seems really grey. On one hand, the kids were being raced as strong racists.
On the other hand, it doesn't seem like they were being raised to kill in the name of said racisim.

If they weren't going to do any harm, or the parents weren't beating their children bloody, then I don't think the government can take the kids away like that.

I think it's for the best, but still very, very grey. Hm.

 

[Mic_128]

That is stupid. The parents brought the kid into the world, and as long as they do not inflict harm onto them, they have a right on how to raise them.

I think naming a child "Adolf Hitler" is doing the child harm.

 

[Teran]

I think naming a child "Adolf Hitler" is doing the child harm.

QFT.
Naming a child that is begging for trouble. Still, I'd rather be called Adolf Hitler than whatever name some celebrity like Bob Geldof would come up with. "Pixie Apple Adolf Maple Syrup Hitler Geldof".

 

[Yuna]

I am guessing in Sweden you can't name your child Lucifer, but Anton LeVey, the leader of the Church of Satan did that. His religion (an atheist religion, but still) was The Church of Satan, so that would be like saying you can't name a child Paul or something.

No, I'm pretty sure "Lucifer" is OK, especially since we're a very secular country. "The Devil" would probably be out of bounds.

It is bringing them harm if you're naming them something that will undoubtedly make them the laughing stock/punching bag of the playground or scar them for life when they are old enough to know the reason behind their naming.

 

[The Halloween Captain]

There's a reason why in Sweden, there are laws against naming your kids (or yourself) however you want to name them. There's a government institution devoted entirely to approving and disapproving names.

Why an entire institution?

 

[Crimson King]

I think naming a child "Adolf Hitler" is doing the child harm.

And? Last I checked parents told kids the "sticks and stones" rhyme about words not hurting, then all of you post and saying naming your child Hitler is the same thing as child abuse.

No, I'm pretty sure "Lucifer" is OK, especially since we're a very secular country. "The Devil" would probably be out of bounds.

It is bringing them harm if you're naming them something that will undoubtedly make them the laughing stock/punching bag of the playground or scar them for life when they are old enough to know the reason behind their naming.

The Devil shouldn't be out of bounds because all these are names for their own kids. This kid's parents are Nazis, which means he will associate with Nazi children. He likely will not be made fun of at all in school. And plus, since when does the state have the right to say "Well, a few years down the line, this could happen -- yeah, you can't name your kid that."

 

[Takumaru]

Don't question why sweden does anything, just accept that they're a much cooler country. Personally I think an institution that decides if you can give a child a name or not is brilliant. Imagine the bureaucratic nightmare involved in getting a name approved. *has a weird fascination with bureaucracy*

But really, some names just shouldn't be given to children. Sure the parents have the right to name their child, but there are some names that are just outside of reason like "The Devil". Yeah it's their right, but there are lots of things that are rights that people are just plain stupid about.

@Xsyven: Heath is a sexy name.

 

[Yuna]

The Devil shouldn't be out of bounds because all these are names for their own kids. This kid's parents are Nazis, which means he will associate with Nazi children. He likely will not be made fun of at all in school. And plus, since when does the state have the right to say "Well, a few years down the line, this could happen -- yeah, you can't name your kid that."

Yes, it won't bring the child harm at all to have only one of two options:
Become a Nazi or be shunned by the rest of society!

Brilliant! And yes, parents should be allowed to name their kids whatever they want! "Slutty Hole" is probably perfectly OK if all of your parents' friends are in the sex industry or something! Who cares if the rest of society will shun you, as long as your name flies with your parents and their friends!

It's not like you'll ever have to interact with anyone outside of your parents' circle of friends. I'm also sure there are plenty of Nazi educational institutions around in the United States. And once you grow up, I'm sure there are just plenty of job sites specializing in employing Nazis! The world will be your oyster!

 

[SuperBowser]

Well as far as I know, you can only remove a child if there are signs of abuse (emotional, physical, neglect etc.).

There's probably more to the case than what the article gives. Removing a child because of its name is dumb.

 

[Crimson King]

Yes, it won't bring the child harm at all to have only one of two options:
Become a Nazi or be shunned by the rest of society!

Brilliant! And yes, parents should be allowed to name their kids whatever they want! "Slutty Hole" is probably perfectly OK if all of your parents' friends are in the sex industry or something! Who cares if the rest of society will shun you, as long as your name flies with your parents and their friends!

It's not like you'll ever have to interact with anyone outside of your parents' circle of friends. I'm also sure there are plenty of Nazi educational institutions around in the United States. And once you grow up, I'm sure there are just plenty of job sites specializing in employing Nazis! The world will be your oyster!

The fact is I DON'T care if society deems a name acceptable. The child would not be there if it wasn't for me, so I should have the full right to name my kid whatever the **** I want.

What this does it is saying the state has the right to decide what is criminal at a whim. In the US, thankfully, there are no laws in how you can name your child. If these kids were taken by the state for any reason other than physical harm, then the state has overstepped its bounds.

Just because you disagree with something does not make it ok to void someone's rights. Case in point: proposition 8.

 

[GoldShadow]

Just because you disagree with something does not make it ok to void someone's rights. Case in point: proposition 8.

The issue here is not what consenting adults do or don't do. The issue here is a child, a minor. The state is fully within its rights to legislate how minors are treated or raised, because minors (especially children) cannot physically or legally protect themselves.

 

[Crimson King]

The issue here is not what consenting adults do or don't do. The issue here is a child, a minor. The state is fully within its rights to legislate how minors are treated or raised, because minors (especially children) cannot physically or legally protect themselves.

It's still a name. A name has no bearing on what will happen to the kid. Kids have nicknames, in fact, one guy I found out my senior year in High School that what we knew him as was actually his middle name.

The point is the state has NO RIGHT to step in if it's over the name. If it's something tangible as abuse, fine, take the kids, but a name is one of the few things a parent has the rights to name their kid.

By allowing them to take a child (again, my argument is only if the state removed the kids due to being named after a genocidal maniac) on this premise, you better not be allowed to name your children anything Muslim because they will get attacked in school thanks to 9/11. Nothing Japanese because you know, Pearl Harbor happened the same time as Hitler was in power. The fact is this is just the state imposing its will on the citizens, and that doesn't fly.

Do I think the parents should have named their children based on hate slogans? No, not at all. I think neo-Nazis are the ban of American existence. But does the state have the right to say they cannot name their kid anything they want? No, not in the least bit. In fact, all the government is doing is justifying them.

 

[Yuna]

It's still a name. A name has no bearing on what will happen to the kid. Kids have nicknames, in fact, one guy I found out my senior year in High School that what we knew him as was actually his middle name.

But this would be a nickname. This would be his legal name. Wherever he went, he'd be haunted by it. In school, in the work place, for the rest of his life (unless it is changed). It is also a name which brings pain to the hearts of many.

This name will limit his options in life. He will most probably never be able to get elected to public office or hold any position which thrusts him into the limelight. His door/name tag/whatever will never be able to state his full name. He'll have to hide it. Not just for his own sake but for the sake of others, because how many people would want to tune into CNN every morning to see "Adolf Hitler" give them the latest news about the genocide in <insert name of a country where a genocide is currently taking place here>?

The point is the state has NO RIGHT to step in if it's over the name.

Yes. The point is also that social services specifically stated that this was not just because of his name.

If it's something tangible as abuse, fine, take the kids, but a name is one of the few things a parent has the rights to name their kid.

Psychologists say giving children BS names is the equivalent of child abuse. Nevertheless, it is apparently OK for parents to name their kids whatever they wish to in the U.S.

By allowing them to take a child (again, my argument is only if the state removed the kids due to being named after a genocidal maniac)

And they didn't. Unless they're lying. So until such a time they are exposed as liars, you have no leg to stand on.

on this premise, you better not be allowed to name your children anything Muslim because they will get attacked in school thanks to 9/11. Nothing Japanese because you know, Pearl Harbor happened the same time as Hitler was in power.

That would be racism. Is it not comparable to naming someone after a genocidal dictator.

Also, just to make things clear, I do not support children's services stepping in and taking a child away simply because of their name. I'm just against naming your kid idiotic names such as Adolf Hitler. Also, I'm proud of Sweden for having safety locks in place to prevent parents from naming their children whatever they wish to.

Do I think the parents should have named their children based on hate slogans? No, not at all. I think neo-Nazis are the ban of American existence. But does the state have the right to say they cannot name their kid anything they want? No, not in the least bit. In fact, all the government is doing is justifying them.

I don't even think these parents are actual Neo-Nazis. None of the articles I've read on the case mentions them being Neo-Nazis (of course, I've only read 3). The article gave me the impression that they're run of the mill idiots who truly believe that we should "Stop living in the past" and view their naming their kids after genocidal maniacs as acts of courage to get people to stop living in the past.

Thus, since they're obviously idiots, i'ts quite easy to imagine them being unfit parents (since they are idiots).

 

[Crimson King]

I don't even think these parents are actual Neo-Nazis. None of the articles I've read on the case mentions them being Neo-Nazis (of course, I've only read 3). The article gave me the impression that they're run of the mill idiots who truly believe that we should "Stop living in the past" and view their naming their kids after genocidal maniacs as acts of courage to get people to stop living in the past.

They deny the Holocaust and have swastikas all over their house--they are Neo-Nazis.

The rest of your arguments about his name haunting him--null and void. Why? You cannot make an official ruling on something because of what COULD happen. There are exceptions, but for all intents and purposes, you cannot declare "Well, we better give him an Okay name because he may want to run for public office/he won't change his name. You forget that people can change their names whenever they want to WHATEVER they want.

Thus, since they're obviously idiots, i'ts quite easy to imagine them being unfit parents (since they are idiots).

And this is where you completely disqualify any argument you had. You cannot say just because a person is an idiot they are unfit parents. That is morally incorrect. Some of the dumbest people I have known are great parents. Also, if that is the case, then every person who is deemed wrong (by what standards? The state's?) should have their children removed. What about people who, ideologically, believe in wrong things (such as a racist) and they teach their kids these things, but overall, they are really great parents. You'd rather take the kid from their custody just because they believe in something that you are opposed to?

That is why I would never live in Sweden or any other country where the State has the power. The state, as M3D put, is the servant to the citizen. Thomas Jefferson was adamantly for gun ownership for the sole purpose that if the state gets out of control and too powerful, then we should overthrow it. Not being a violent person, I prefer not to, but the state has no ownership over any of us. I own myself.

Also: I am aware this case does not involve the name alone, but I am arguing from the fact that the child's name has no bearing. Adolph is no longer ok, but Joseph is? Joseph Stalin was just as, if not more, brutal as Adolph Hitler, but because we allied with him for a long time that goes unreported. What about Napoleon? Nero? Abraham? All of these are historical figures where death and tyranny where their main forms of leadership but out of those three, you will see one of them common, or at least more than you'd see the rest, because he's American.

 

[Matt]

Crimson King, please just concede on this. Just this once, kay? =P

It's not JUST a name, in the same sense that "Assface McGee" is not just a name. It has meaning, my friend! It's the equivalent of naming your child "All Non-White People Should Die In A Fire Jr.". There are limits to "free speech," even in America. FOR GOOD REASON.

The government DOES have a right to protect its citizens, particularly those who cannot protect themselves. At the very very very least, this is the one thing I think 99% of the world can agree on for what government should do.

Really, I think this is a protection issue. Not a civil rights one.

And I shouldn't even have to say it again, but being intolerant is perfectly acceptable behavior. We have every right to be intolerant of Neo-Nazi parents who blatantly disregard laws and the best interest of their children. Being intolerant of intolerant people is okay, and this does not equal Prop 8.

 

[Yuna]

They deny the Holocaust and have swastikas all over their house--they are Neo-Nazis.

See, this is news to me.

The rest of your arguments about his name haunting him--null and void. Why? You cannot make an official ruling on something because of what COULD happen. There are exceptions, but for all intents and purposes, you cannot declare "Well, we better give him an Okay name because he may want to run for public office/he won't change his name. You forget that people can change their names whenever they want to WHATEVER they want.

Yes, why don't we let the rabid Christians who deny health care for their young to continue doing what they do. Who knows, there are exceptions to everything, maybe the kids will magically be cured of their cancer by the touch of the Lord.

Anyone with even the slightest grasp of social psychology (or whatever it's called) will be able to tell you that the kid will grow up shunned by society. What, are we supposed to wait 'til the kid's been scarred for life before taking action?

And this is where you completely disqualify any argument you had. You cannot say just because a person is an idiot they are unfit parents.

Don't strawman me. I didn't say they were unfit parents because they were idiots. I said that it was quite easy to imagine they really are unfit parents since they are such idiots.

Translation:
They're complete and utter morons. I can very easily see that they truly are unfit parents and that once social services got wind of their kid-naming shennanigans and launched an investigation, they found them to be unfit, thus, there was sufficient justification for removing the child(ren?) from their custody.

That is why I would never live in Sweden or any other country where the State has the power. The state, as M3D put, is the servant to the citizen. Thomas Jefferson was adamantly for gun ownership for the sole purpose that if the state gets out of control and too powerful, then we should overthrow it. Not being a violent person, I prefer not to, but the state has no ownership over any of us. I own myself.

Yes, I'll just continue to wallow in my misery in my tiny country with free universal health care, free university studies (including medical school and law school)(well, technically, we have to pay 40 bucks a semester for some extra stuff, but nothing for tuition... we also get paid by the government to go to school, including uni), where there are no Adolf Hitlers running around and where violent crimes involving guns are one jillion times less reoccurring per capita when compared to the United States.

Obviously, my government placing some stuff into motion to prevent people from doing just whatever they friggin' want has ruined my country.

Also: I am aware this case does not involve the name alone, but I am arguing from the fact that the child's name has no bearing. Adolph is no longer ok, but Joseph is?

Nobody has said that "Adolf" is not an OK name (in fact, plenty of people have argued that it's a perfectly fine name, as have I (indirectly)). Adolf Hitler, however...

Stop... strawmanning...

 

[Crimson King]

Yes, I'll just continue to wallow in my misery in my tiny country with free universal health care, free university studies (including medical school and law school)(well, technically, we have to pay 40 bucks a semester for some extra stuff, but nothing for tuition... we also get paid by the government to go to school, including uni), where there are no Adolf Hitlers running around and where violent crimes involving guns are one jillion times less reoccurring per capita when compared to the United States.

Obviously, my government placing some stuff into motion to prevent people from doing just whatever they friggin' want has ruined my country.

*shrugs* I'd rather be free in anarchy than restricted in socialism.

 

[rhan]

I STRONGLY disaproved on the parents naming him that....

But he should at least be treated equally. His name does have meaning behind it. But it's not his fault. He didn't have a say so in the name. Give the kid his cake! D:<

On a serious note: The parents are Nazi's and that's just ingnorant giving a child a name like that.

 

[istudying]

Their parents are sick ;O. I would immidiantly chane my name.

 

[Crimson King]

As would any rational human being, but you are assuming he won't grow up around other Nazis his whole life where this would be acceptable. Also, if the parents aren't physically harming him, I'd rather have parents who were idiots and named me something stupid, but loved me, than be an orphan.

 

[rhan]

I'd rather be an orphan anyday then to be rejected by society just because I have a name that reminds people of a horrible time in world history.

 

[Bowser King]

According to this...

http://howmanyofme.com/search/

There are quite a bit of people with the name of Adolf and the last name of hitler. Though there are 1 or fewer with both names. I don't know if it's correct or not but I just thought I'd bring that up

-Bowser King

 

[Earthbound Zero]

Actually, it isn't likely there are many people with the first name Adolf or the last name Hitler, fewer than 1,528 and fewer than 336 is the lowest the site goes, so it's possible there are only 3 people out there with the first Adolf or 100 people with the last name Hitler.

 

[Bowser King]

Actually, it isn't likely there are many people with the first name Adolf or the last name Hitler, fewer than 1,528 and fewer than 336 is the lowest the site goes, so it's possible there are only 3 people out there with the first Adolf or 100 people with the last name Hitler.

I tested that and it's true. Still, I bet there are some people with the 1st name of Adolf.


-Bowser King

 

[Takumaru]

According to that link there's only 1 or fewer people in the US with me name.

 

[urdailywater]

Why would they take him away? Because of the name? Pretty stupid.

I disapprove of the removal. Seriously it's just a name.

I don't get it. Who would report that?
Edit: someone called and interrupted me reading the full article...

umm, wiki's swastikas

DEAR GOD. ARREST THESE PEOPLE.

 

[Vorguen]

I don't know that is stepping on a lot of rights and boundaries I would not touch that argument.

All I know is that I wish the best for those children.

 

[Mashour2]

What kind of person would name their child Adolf Hitler?

 

[Yuna]

As would any rational human being, but you are assuming he won't grow up around other Nazis his whole life where this would be acceptable.

I see you completely ignored my "But that would make his life restricted to living among neo-Nazis!". He'd have no choice, either become a neo-Nazi himself and associate only with other neo-Nazis or face ridicule and shunning. And please correct me if I'm wrong, but AFAIK, there's no such thing as a licensed neo-Nazi school where neo-Nazi children go and are accepted.

So he wouldn't be able to go to school. Of course, there's always home schooling... by neo-Nazi teachers... for his entire life. But then what? What happens when he needs to get a job? Work only with other Nazis?

Also, if the parents aren't physically harming him, I'd rather have parents who were idiots and named me something stupid, but loved me, than be an orphan.

Naming someone something that will severely restrict their options in life is harming them.

 

[~ Gheb ~]

I'm with Yuna and basically agree with everything he said.

And this is where you completely disqualify any argument you had. You cannot say just because a person is an idiot they are unfit parents. That is morally incorrect.

Naming his own child after the biggest mass-murder in the history of humanity is morally perfectly acceptable, right?

 

[Bowser King]

Naming his own child after the biggest mass-murder in the history of humanity is morally perfectly acceptable, right?

$100 dollar bet that CK is going to bring this....

They deny the Holocaust and have swastikas all over their house--they are Neo-Nazis.

up.

-Bowser King

 

[Crimson King]

I see you completely ignored my "But that would make his life restricted to living among neo-Nazis!". He'd have no choice, either become a neo-Nazi himself and associate only with other neo-Nazis or face ridicule and shunning. And please correct me if I'm wrong, but AFAIK, there's no such thing as a licensed neo-Nazi school where neo-Nazi children go and are accepted.

You are wrong. It's called Home-Schooling and lots of racists and religious people do it because they feel the state's interests are pushed over their own. Many creationists go strictly to home school to avoid having their kids even hear about evolution.

So he wouldn't be able to go to school. Of course, there's always home schooling... by neo-Nazi teachers... for his entire life. But then what? What happens when he needs to get a job? Work only with other Nazis?

Who cares? You are assuming that he will never change his name when he's old enough to do so. You are also assuming that people will never create nicknames for him for school. Your whole argument is based on assumptions that do not matter.

Naming someone something that will severely restrict their options in life is harming them.

How? I have never wanted to run for office or do media, and there are many, many, many other people like that. So because he loses the opportunity to do whatever he wants, it is suddenly wrong? No. No one can do everything; people are born with genetics and living situations that hamper them from progressing in life.

I'm with Yuna and basically agree with everything he said.



Naming his own child after the biggest mass-murder in the history of humanity is morally perfectly acceptable, right?

Define morality. Morally, I find religions like the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints to be very evil and corrupt for what they did with the proposition 8 thing. But morals have nothing to do with laws. Is it morally ok to name your child whatever you want? No, but is it their right? YES.

Also, you really think children will even know who Adolf Hitler is? I'd say kids won't get it until high school at the earliest.

 

[Livvers]

Holy **** guys.

Now, I don't think it's a good name, but I don't think the government should be able to take away a child on a whim like this. Seriously. Think about that. The government isn't taking a child away from its parents because the kid is abused; the child is being taken away because the government is of the OPINION that the name shouldn't be used and they just don't agree with that. And oh ****, anyone who names their kid Adolf Hitler has just gotta treat their kid poorly.

Hey, let's start taking away kids from rich families. Rich families? But they should provide everything for their kid! Oh, but some rich families just hire a nanny and work all day and neglect their kid causing their kid to have a ton of issues. Also, a lot of rich kids grow up to be douche bags. We don't want that happening. These are all assumptions, but lets take away all rich kids just to be safe.

I know that's an extreme example, but it still fits. Whe you continually allow the government to step in on whims, where does it stop? Sure as hell went as far as the patriot act, because you know, there's the possibility of terrorist threats, so let's nip it in the bud by taking away rights.

And again, naming your kid that is stupid, but I think it's ridiculous to take a child out of a home for that reason. It steps beyond our rights.

I'd be on the fence about a forced name change, because there is the possibility of the kids quality of life being threatened by the name, but we honestly don't know that. I've seen some kids with stupid *** names(like Heath). They seem to be doing fine.

PS. He wouldn't be shunned for a name. Seriously. If he were shunned at all, it would be for possibly being a neo nazi. If I met a kid named Adolf Hitler who was an awesome dude, I wouldn't give a ****. If it comes to running for office, REGARDLESS of what his name is, the neo-nazi parents will be brought up. Job applications? You don't have to put a middle name.

I'm going to add one more thing because I'm a ***got:
My boyfriend's aunt is basically condemning her kid by babying him and never punishing him. He is/was a bully at school, and his grades used to be pretty poor("the teacher's don't understand him!"). He doesn't have friends probably due to his attitude. He gets his way about everything in his house. I've even seen him get away with pushing his mom when she wanted him to stop playing Rock Band. Kid's going to have problems when he grows up. Does that give the government the right to take the kid away? No.

Also, don't compare the conveniences and laws of a small country to a big one. What works for a small population doesn't always work for a big one.

And you guys pay for health care in taxes.

 

[Mr.Bazerkus]

Guys Something you have to Remember is Child Services is obligated to Keep the privacy of the kids. There is a very high chance that the real reason why they were taken out has been kept from the public.

I personally don't think these are parents with the best for their child in mind. I mean what kinds of parents name their child after one of the worst men in history. If some kind of abuse or the such is happening here I would not be surprise.

 

[Xsyven]

If neo nazis want to get married, and have neo nazi children, it's their right. Welcome to America.

I was raised to be Mormon, but when I left my mom's house, I changed my beliefs-- it wasn't really a big deal. I consider Nazi beliefs to be just as moral as Christian beliefs. Honestly, I'm pretty sure that more people have died in the name of Christianity than in the Holocaust. Food for thought.

 

[Cashed]

I was raised to be a Nazi, but when I left my mom's house, I changed my beliefs-- it wasn't really a big deal. I consider Mormon beliefs to be just as moral as Christian beliefs. Honestly, I'm pretty sure that more people have died in the name of CHristianity than in the Halocaust.

 

[Peeze]

Why are you comparing a socio-political ideology to religion?

 

[Skrah]

Also, you really think children will even know who Adolf Hitler is? I'd say kids won't get it until high school at the earliest.

Wow are you serious? High school? I knew about Hitler since middle school! Its common knowledge.

I was raised to be Mormon, but when I left my mom's house, I changed my beliefs-- it wasn't really a big deal. I consider Nazi beliefs to be just as moral as Christian beliefs. Honestly, I'm pretty sure that more people have died in the name of Christianity than in the Halocaust. Food for thought.

People have always been corruptible. That's why I ****ing hate the Church. They say that you should give to the poor and they say **** about homos and different but the Vatican's walls are layered with gold and fathers and bishops and all those people go around ****** little children. Lets face it, this is a ****ed up world.

Although I believe that if you truly loved your son/daughter, you wouldn't give him such a horrible name. Yeah it's their right and w/e, but its obvious that the child is gonna suffer. Think of all the nicknames, all the hate aimed at a kid that did nothing wrong.

 

[Tom]

If that kid grew up as Adolf Hitler, he would get accosted and attacked, he could lose job opportunities, he could be killed. His name needs to be changed, for his benefit. I'm sure he doesn't care.

 

[Xsyven]

Why are you comparing a socio-political ideology to religion?

I'm asking why is it bad to teach children to be wary of Jews, but totally okay for Christians teach children to be wary of homosexuals?

I see a resemblance between the two.




And guys, his name is actually Adolf Campbell-- which isn't scary at all.