Eddie: Read what I said, not what the voice in your head tells you. I said
the name Hussein is closer to evil, in today’s world, than is the name
Hitler. It’s an historical fact. Hitler’s evil ended in 1945; Saddam
Hussein’s evil only ended a few years ago. It’s about that “time” thing.

–

Bullshit.

Ask an average Joe who Adolf Hitler and Saddam Hussein were. Everyone can tell you who Adolf Hitler was, and what he did. Very few will be able to tell you what it is Saddam Hussein did, short of got his country invaded, and that “we got him”.

There are dozens of Husseins in world events that are not evil dictators. You connect Hussein with evil due to your narrowminded sociopolitical worldview. What about hussein of jordan?

Name any other notable figure in world events not related to Adolf, who’s surname is Hitler.

Since when is bad taste a reason for the State to take your kids?

Sparkie: It’s just a name, like “Muhammed” or “Hussein”. Get over yourself; back away from the pipe.

Man: Asking if your numerous false statements about both Islam and Catholicism are from ignorance or dishonesty isn’t any sort of “straw man” at all; it’s simply inquiring as to the source of your many false statements.

Incidentally, in addition to false equivalence, you have just changed the subject by citing a Biblical injunction that is not part of Catholic dogma. It is Old Testament law, which is much earlier than the founding of the Catholic Church.
Ignorance or dishonesty?

r108
virulent antisemitism is not ‘bad taste’. if someone criticizes israel or neo-con politics, they are a ‘jew-hater’ right? but if someone names their kid ‘adolf hitler’ that’s just bad taste?

STFU.

The gummint has no business getting involved if the only reason is that what the children's names are might be considered offensive. If the kids suffer from abuse, maltreatment, neglect, etc., then someone from the city or county or church better be involved.

Gene: I understand your conflict, but either we hold to the Constitution and parental rights, absent physical abuse or gross neglect for the crazies like these people, or who then decides? Liberals? In France they have taken kids away from Pentecostals because they believe that faith is a form of child abuse. If we don't hold the line, as Pilgrim said; unless there is other information being withheld which might justify their removal, then next they can come after your kids because you are a Christian extremist (a believer in Christ).

Another example of the state overstepping its bounds?

I am like Gene, I am conflicted.

These have to be the dumbest parents in the world; but what laws have they broken?
You could cite many caes of where two dumbies got together, bump uglies, and absolutely neglected their responsibilities to the product of their passion or finanical arrangement.
This is more emotional than unlawful.

I hate the government getting into this kind of thing, but these folks are nuts.

I'm conflicted.

I'm with you Gene. My first impulse was this was no place for the state to get involved but this is the equivalent of leaving your kids in the car while you go to strippers. At some point the rest of society looks at parents and goes "nope, taking your card away."

I am worried this becomes the wedge issue but crap… these people are something special.

…this is the equivalent of leaving your kids in the car while you go to strippers…

Not even close. They're just names.

Dude…you totally contradicted yourself…..helloooo.

I'm not sure I agree with the state stepping in to take the kids because they don't like their names:

Which could be a reasonable position if you also didn't believe;

I just have a problem with the state stepping in just because they don't like what someone named their kid. Will the kid have a hard time in school? Oh, hell yes. Will he be warped beyond recognition as a human being because his parents thought it was cute to name him after one of the greatest mass murderers in history? Most likely

I was going to argue that those radical names are a form of abuse. There is more than just physical abuse my friend. But you aptly pointed out the abuse yourself, but you just failed to identify it.

So the question now becomes. Are you just trying to get a rise out of people? Or are you really so lame as to not understand the fundamentals of abusing your children?

This whole discussion is pointless as there is no proof that the state took the kids because of their names. That being said if you name you kid hitler you had better be a perfect parent because you just painted a big bull's eye on yourself.

How is it possibly anybody's business what parents name their kids? In today's world, the name "Hussein" is much closer to evil than "Hitler".

Hussein, one of the most popular surnames in the world is comparable to the all but unused surname Hitler?

Eddie: Read what I said, not what the voice in your head tells you. I said the name Hussein is closer to evil, in today's world, than is the name Hitler. It's an historical fact. Hitler's evil ended in 1945; Saddam Hussein's evil only ended a few years ago. It's about that "time" thing.

This whole discussion is pointless as there is no proof that the state took the kids because of their names.

You don't need proof to be speculative and make an argument. Without that, Pilgrim would have little to bitch about. And he seems to take pleasure in needlessly bitching about things.

He is trying to argue an idea that he created out of his own head. Some of us call it building a straw man and knocking it down. Others call it an exercise of the mind.

In Pilgrims case, it is needles whining or probably closer to an exercise in paranoia.

Please remember to liberals like Hannitized, it is their list of things to be tolerated and not tolerated and only their list that is operable. Absent proof of phsyical abuse or emotional abuse that rises to the level of a crime, people can name their child Mohammed if they want; a child rapist, murderer and the man who manufactured a religion for his own power and wealth and whose followers have killed, raped and robbed in his name.

We all think these parents are weird and a few bricks short of a full load; but naming your child anything you want is NOT a crime! But, allow this on those grounds and the state will have established a precedent upon which they can remove any child, for lets say, teaching them about Jesus or about Reagan and conservative values!

Wrong, but it shows what's on your mind.

There are dozens of Husseins in world events that are not evil dictators. You connect Hussein with evil due to your narrowminded sociopolitical worldview. What about hussein of jordan?

Nailed it! Hell, our president has the middle name Hussein. You think we could get a Hitler elected? Cmon man.

The right has gone mad.

Of course, both of you haters are simply arguing for the sake of garnering attention. You have no point.

Again, the association of evil with "Hussein" is much more recent than any association with "Hitler", which is what I said. I'm sorry you are unable to understand that simple concept.

We get what your "concept" is……the problem we have is that it is WRONG!

We elected a Hussein. Show me any Hitler we elected to office and you might have a point.

To others that can read:
Mohammed is just as bad a name as Hitler, IMO, only most of his killing have been done by his demented followers over many centuries, yet the time required versus Hitler is hardly a reason to hold his name as being any better.

Ok, it's your opinion, and you are entitled to it. But you should realize that we really could care less about your hatred towards Muslims. It's boring as shit.

And your writing style sucks. That sentence was a mess.

The point being Hannitized won't toletrate Hitler's name, as hateful as that name is; but he has no problem with other mass murderers if their names are on his list of names to be tolerated.

I could date a chick with a last name Hitler if she was hot enough. But I wouldn't date date a chick named Adolf Hilter. WTF is wrong with you man?

Dude, there are two movies in the theatre this week with Adolf Hitler being the bad guy. How many movies about Mohammed? ZERO!

Now show me the movies about how bad Mohammad is, that were made in the last 50 years.

You could date a GUY named Hitler, who are you kidding?

Dude….please. The least attractive girls I date would make you green with envy.

No one has defended the name Hitler or these parents, but that is a far cry from approving taking away these children by SS if that was the sole cause, it is unlawful and wrong.

I believe you said the name Mohammahd and Adolf Hitler were the same. You don't see too may kids named Adolf Hilter running around; that's my point.

To compare the two is unreasonable, IMO.

(Isn't that interesting liberal minded Social Services have the initials SS?)

No, but I could see how it could bother someone who is slightly paranoid.

Again, Eddie, it's very simple: The name "Hussein" has been associated with evil much more recently than the name "Hitler". It's a fact.

So you are saying the Muslims won and that we are afraid of them? I think you are wrong.

A Roman Catholic Bishop in Europe, just a few days ago, said that Europe is going Muslim, and those not joining are so afraid of them they will not resist their increasing power.

Have there been movies made critical of Christ, Christians and even portrayed Him as a perverted homosexual? Yes! Why? Because Christians will not kill them for it! No movies that are even slightly critical of Islam, Allah or Mohammed, because Hollywood knows they would be attacked, bombed and people killed. Hollywood is made of liberal cowards!

My choice is to continue to think you are being foolish. Thanks.

You are so afraid of the Truth about Islam that you will not even study its history or the writings of Islamic Scriptures? That makes you a fool! They have attacked America here and abroad, they have shown their willingness to die and kill for Allah, but it is of no interest to you as to why, so you can defend our way of life! Incredible!

Racism: "Ishaq:243 "I heard the Apostle say: ‘Whoever wants to see Satan should look at Nabtal!' He was a black man with long flowing hair, inflamed eyes, and dark ruddy cheeks…. Allah sent down concerning him: ‘To those who annoy the Prophet there is a painful doom." [9:61] "Gabriel came to Muhammad and said, ‘If a black man comes to you his heart is more gross than a donkey's.'"

Tabari II:11 "Shem, the son of Noah was the father of the Arabs, the Persians, and the Greeks; Ham was the father of the Black Africans; and Japheth was the father of the Turks and of Gog and Magog who were cousins of the Turks. Noah prayed that the prophets and apostles would be descended from Shem and kings would be from Japheth. He prayed that the African's color would change so that their descendants would be slaves to the Arabs and Turks."

Apostasy:
Sharia is also used in Sudan, Libya and Afghanistan. Some states in northern Nigeria have reintroduced Sharia courts. In practice the new Sharia courts in Nigeria have most often meant the reintroduction of relatively harsh punishments without respecting the much tougher rules of evidence and testimony. The punishments include amputation of one/both hand(s) for theft, stoning for adultery, and execution for apostasy.

Dude….please. The least attractive girls I date would make you green with envy.

What are they, "Chick with Dicks?"

Dude….please. The least attractive girls I date would make you green with envy.

I don't know about this envy and turning green thing; but, my personal encounters with your attractive girls made my pecker swell up, change color, drip for a month or two, and had me under a health department quarantine for 90 days.

Every year our Univs. and "community" colleges graduate thousands of Psychology graduates. Ask yourself, what does one of these birds do? After consulting with students whenever someone swears, makes a "racist" statement, praises an Alaskan, has a pimple,or says a discouraging word, they spend their time looking for gainful employment. That is when not faking an injury in order to qualify for "disability" payments. They, and the "professors" who "teach" them, are the most worthless segments of our society, and are the prime source for radical leftist causes. Most have outstanding Gov. loans for their "studies" which,of course, are never fully paid off. But thanks to them , and other "mobsters", our country now has a chance for "real change", Chicago style.

…but if someone is critical of Israel, that's bigotry.

Another lie from you. Untrue premise, false conclusions, GIGO.

Criticism is not "bigotry", moron. I know you lying lefties have to try to redefine everything to fit your ideology, but this is ridiculous.

….naming a child Adolf Hitler and another Arian
Nation is ABUSIVE.

Wrong! Names are not "abusive", only those who wish to force their totalitarian PC on everyone else are the real abusers.

Sparkie said:

Thanks for throwing my name in there.

Opps. I was cranky at the time. Hannnitized does that to me. Sorry, dude.

A friend of a friend is called Dwayne Pipe.

Not very evil now, is it?

MANOFIRE SAID: "Hang on, isn't your new Glorious Leader called "Hussein"?"

And who might your glorious leader be??

Disrespectful? Of whom?

If any person truly believed that the rest of the world would magically fall back in love with the US as soon as Obama were elected, then they would be grossly mistaken. It is action that speaks volumes and it is action for which the world waits.

The love? Respect where respect is due, Robert

A Citizen – Robert is indeed correct. I am a Brit. Gordon Brown is our leader (though there's not much that's glorious about him)

There is no evidence that those kids are unhappy, so you're just lying, once again. You have no proof of any abuse, especially by the names they were given.

The CHILDREN are 3 and under. They haven't had the chance to be damaged yet. Which is why saving them from the abuse that has begun by naming them Adolf Hitler and Arian Nation, was the right thing to do, and just in the nick of time.

Opps. I was cranky at the time. Hannnitized does that to me.

It's not so much me, as it is having your lame argument exposed as being a farce.

This is why you are unwilling to admit that you contradicted yourself, by admitting the names are abuse and not merely names people "don't like".

Thank you.

Here's your description of what you allege has been done with those children:

Warping your child beyond recognition as a human because of a name, is a abuse.

Then you say that they are too young to be affected by their names; which is it.

Sorry about the "wrong post" comment; Man just took the thread somewhere else.

A Citizen, what kind of crap are you spouting? You have deliberately fabricated an opinion which you are projecting on to me. This is not, nor has it ever been my opinion. I have never claimed admiration for Hamas. Yet in a last ditch effort to bolster your position, you find it necessary to lie. You are a true right-wingnut.

The huge Muslim population? Where? Not in Britain.

1.2% of the population does not make them huge. We have more Catholics (at 6%). Perhaps we should be afraid of them.

The Catholics were committing many horrible attacks just over a decade ago. They're not now though, are they? Did we beat them into submission?

The Catholics were committing many horrible attacks just over a decade ago.

I guess you are referring to a very specific group of oppressed Catholics in Northern Ireland, right?
That doesn't justify a generalization about all Catholics, does it?
You also failed on the "worldwide terrorism" standard, didn't you?

False equivalence, especially since Islamic terrorism is for the specific purpose of forcing Islam on the rest of the world, but the terrorism of the Irish Catholics is to free them from totalitarian rule, not to spread Catholicism.

You made a thoroughly false equivalence. The question is whether you made it out of ignorance or dishonesty. Which is it?

It is a vast and sweeping generalisation to suggest that all people who engage in terrorism and happen to be Islamic are seeking world domination for their faith.

Wrong! The Koran requires them to kill all the infidels. There is no equivalent instruction in the Bible. Another aspect of your false equivalence.

Again, are you just ignorant, or are you being dishonest?

Pilgrim and I were both speaking in future tense.

Thanks for admitting there is no abuse, only your fantasies of abuse. For there to be legal remedy, a crime must have already been committed. You have nothing.

And your ignorant or dishonest question. I recognise it for the straw man that it is.

Is it possible that you are engaging in hyperbole to bolster a fragile position? No; you are ignoring the reality of wordwide Islamic terrorism. How do you explain what they are doing in Southern Thailand?

The Koran requires that Muslims kill infidels. Yes, it is written. The Bible requires that adulterers, unruly sons and homosexuals (amongst others) be stoned to death, but there's no equivalency with Islam, now is there?

More aspects of your false equivalence. The history of Islam is the history of murderous religious imperialism. It's called "conversion by the sword", and it is still advocated by the majority of Muslims in the world today.
Your Biblical citation is neither equivalent to "conversion by the sword", nor is it practiced by Christians today, and hasn't been for a very long time.
Contemporary Islam, on the other hand, is presently trying to spread its violence and murder at this very moment.

You continue to dig yourself deeper into your false equivalence here. Are you being ignorant, or dishonest?

H: Thanks for admitting that you are involved in justification, not justice.

That is like saying it's not abusive to verbally abuse your children if you can't prove they are damaged.

No, it isn't. It's saying that you are making up the "abuse" thing, since there is no evidence of actual abuse, only two politically-incorrect names. Names aren't "abuse".

It's saying that you are making up the "abuse" thing, since there is no evidence of actual abuse, only two politically-incorrect names.

The evidence of abuse, is their names.

You are confusing results of abuse, with signs of abuse.

Again, that is like saying giving my child cocaine is not abusive, because you can't prove there is damage resulting from me giving my child cocaine.

You are once again out of your league.

That's not "evidence", it's just your agendized opinion; you regard politically-incorrect names as "abusive",

Legalizing pot and smoking weed is an "agendized" opinion you dope. But that doesn't mean giving your kid weed is subjective.

A name is not an illegal drug, you moron.
More of your false equivalence

Ok, but neither is alcohol or cigarettes. If parents let their 3 year old smoke cigarettes and give them alcohol, that is abuse.

You are arguing universal truths and confusing legal classifications with them.

You lie again.

Commenting on Islam and so on and the violent injunctions within…

The ability to override cognitive dissonance is an important one in humans.

All three of the monotheistic faiths at play in the middle east, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam have some very violent and absolutist statements part and parcel of their overall package, but… the questions are, do they actually practice them and how receptive to the idea that the plain reading is preeminent are the average coreligionists?

There is no archaeological evidence at all that the Jews ever engaged in mass slaughter of enemies no matter what the Torah says. There is in opposition vast cultural and historical evidence that they actually have gone to great lengths to avoid engaging in the more violent aspects and indeed, tried very hard to avoid meting out violent penalties prescribed. If you want people who date back to the prevalent times of the idea of an eye for an eye and argue against a simple take of it, read the Talmud, the second holiest work in Judaism.

Moving forward, Christians were largely descendant from Greeks and Romans not Jews, largely due to Paul. They were not founded on the same corpus of thought and had their own ideas, many of which were good ones and still today make up the bulk of the western classics, but they missed the part about not taking everything literally and during the Dark Ages and Inquisition the church engaged in a lot of out and out negative behavior that was a lot less loving than Jesus actually taught anyone.

Islam was founded by a warrior from a semi-nomadic tribal culture with very definite ideas about politics, fidelity, honor, and so on which led to a much quicker descent to self-righteousness and Islam's history reads like one like catalog of internal wars, pogroms against infidels and Jews especially, more internal wars, so on.

So, is the old simplistic idea of en eye for an eye and spare not the unbeliever an active school of thought among Jews? Nope. Not the most right wing charedi believes it. It has no voice anywhere among Jews.

What about Christians? Is Christian Supremacy a thriving notion? Nope. Christians mostly make the a priori assumption of being superior by way of accepting Jesus as savior. Others are at most to be pitied and ignored, preferably chatted up and converted if they'll just come to a service or two and pump grace.

Islam? Sadly, Islamic Supremacy is a very loud, very widespread voice in Islam and there's no counter to it. Allowed to thrive amongst their people for a long time, it is now in this age of Islamic nations with modern money and technology a serious threat as these ideas can move with lightning speed and do not make the mistake of thinking these are primitive people. As with other humans, they understand that misery born of poverty and most especially psychologically self-created is an excellent tool for making extreme viewpoints easily accepted.

It's how neo-Nazis and their ilk spread among disaffected white youths, how Black Panther extremism spread among young black men in the 60s, and how the Klan spread among southerners in the 1800s. Once people are economically disadvantaged, it is relatively easy given human tendencies to convince the people that someone else is causing it, and they should be hated and that those selling the message have the answers.

The thing that will stop this is when ALL the Muslim peoples are prosperous and their corrupt governments gone. When they have freedom to do as they wish and freedom from despotism, and their work and rewards reconcile with each other, then their self-interests will do the rest and self-interest of the prosperous is never in line with war without good solid rational reasons. Jihad just doesn't match a stable well off society and that's the big thing keeping this going.

Jews and Christians are by and large cognizant at least subliminally of their overall religious history and philosophies and more to the point much more prosperous and comfortable in their nations where they are dominant than Muslims are where they are dominant. Cognitive dissonance is much easier to overcome and contradictions lived with when people have internalized and understanding of the need to behave that seemingly bizarre way of holding two opposing ideas as equally true but acting on neither exclusively.

In NJ, truth and reality very seldom meet. DYFS is forever going after a parent before they check facts or for that matter. Before they even check if it is illegal. The parents will get their children back. As it should be. While saddling your child with a dumb name is not restricted to only movie stars and people from NJ. It is not illegal to do so. And is just another case of our new Government wanting to help you.

One is physiological abuse and one is psychological abuse.

Wrong! One is a name, which is not anything resembling "abuse", and the other one is actual abuse.
Are you too stupid to know the difference, or are you just lying to get attention?

Psychological abuse,

also referred to as emotional abuse is a form of abuse characterized by a person subjecting or exposing another to behavior that is psychologically harmful. It involves the willful infliction of mental or emotional anguish by threat, humiliation, or other verbal and non-verbal conduct. It is often associated with situations of power imbalance, such as situations of abusive relationships and child abuse.

These parents are psychologically abusing their children emotionally inflicting emotional anguish on them by the humiliation they will cause for taking advantage of the power imbalance they have as parents and naming them according to their twisted mental disorder.

How would I describe my experience sitting through 5 units worth of Ethnic Studies at UC Santa Cruz:

Psychological abuse,also referred to as emotional abuse is a form of abuse characterized by a person subjecting or exposing another to behavior that is psychologically harmful. It involves the willful infliction of mental or emotional anguish by threat, humiliation, or other verbal and non-verbal conduct. It is often associated with situations of power imbalance, such as situations of abusive relationships and child abuse.

Nailed it! Hell, our president has the middle name Hussein. You think we could get a Hitler elected? Cmon man.
The right has gone mad.

That's the worst argument you've ever made.

So, if We elect Michael Hitler Smith, Hitler will stop being a bad name?

You really can be a clown.

Yet you used the fact that BHO had it as his middle name to prove it wasn't bad.

Not true. My point that it was AS BAD, as Hitlers. Obviously people think the name Hussein is bad. There are plenty of dip shits in this country.

There was nothing to "extrapolate".

Don't use words you aren't smart enough to define.

"Hussein" isn't a bad name because we just elected a President with that middle name. By that logic, if we did that same with Michael Hitler Smith, it would cease to be a bad name too.

That was never my argument. You terrible reading comprehension. That is not my fault.

You got me Proof….i left out a word. Yeah for you.