Category: News and Views
Well folks, I came across this article after hearing about it on youtube and thought I'd repost it here. It might be interesting if you all weigh in. Start arguing, now.
A self-proclaimed Nazi dad and his wife cannot have back their four children, three of whom have Nazi-inspired names, a court has ruled.
Adolf Hitler Campbell, six, and his younger sisters Joycelynn Aryan Nation, five, and Honszlynn Hinler, four, were taken into custody in January 2009.
State officials also took another son, Hons Campbell, from his parents Heath and Deborah Campbell just hours after he was born in November.
Seized: A Superior Court has ruled that Heath and Deborah Campbell cannot take back their children, including Adolf Hitler Campbell (centre)
Seized: A Superior Court has ruled that Heath and Deborah Campbell cannot take back their children, including Adolf Hitler Campbell (centre)
A New Jersey Supreme Court judge has now ruled that the four children will not be returned to their parents, who have since separated.
The Nazi-inspired names came to light after a store refused to decorate a birthday cake reading 'Happy birthday Adolf Hitler' in December 2008.
Um, my internet was freaking out.
I have no idea what happened to the original post, but let's try this again. I'm hoping to start an argument read up, folks.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2152679/New-Jersey-parents-named-children-Adolf-Hitler-Aryan-Nation-back.html
Also, while I'm here I feel compeled to weigh in. No, I don't think there's sufficient grounds to remove custody. There are lots of kids each year who's parents are not self-proclaimed Nazis that still get neglected, damaged and abused but are never removed from those environments. It's not like a cps agent knocks on someone's door and says well "your name is peter, so you must be a godly responsible parent."
While I certaintly don't think publicizing a name like that was very wise government agencies need to pick their battles. If it was an issue of an unsafe home I could totally understand that decision. The same could apply to theKKK which still exists but no longer openly commits crimes. Funnily enough, the FBI has for the most part seaced tracking their moves. While the history of the organization is certaintly prejudice and brutal free speech is free speech. Kids are taught from a young age what the holocaust means and we have plenty of opportunities for self-discovery. Names don't make criminals, attitudes do and based on some of the stories I've heard. I think I would rather have Nazi parents than be shifted from foster home to foster home for years on end. So, what do you guys think. Do you agree that names are just names? Or do you believe this was an ethical decision and why.
I'd be highly surprised if this was a true story. I'll see what I can dig up on its authenticity.
However, assuming that it is true, its wrong to base the removal on the fact that they named their children that. However, it can be assumed that they would have taught their children their backward and idiotic Nazi ideals (not that the modern day Nazis have any idea what the original ones were, but I digress). So, I can understand wanting to remove children from that environment.
But then, that brings up the question of what we're going to call good environments. Could we, for example, take away Fred Phelp's children? I think we should, but then what's stopping the court from taking away atheist children. Which, parenthetically, they already do. So we've entered a quagmire of what ifs.
This is a touchy subject for me. I do think the government should have the right to remove children from bad homes, but I think they over-use that power by a drastic amount. I also think the system into which the children are sent needs to be drastically revamped and improved if we are going to consider it a viable option. Same with adoption in this country, but that's a whole different kettle of slimy little fish.
So there you have it, my rambly thoughts after an all-nighter. You're welcome.
Cody is right, and I are married to a Chick who works as an educator in the social services environment. And she has stories all the time of state returning kids to families she would find questionable in terms of drugs and alcohol abuse, etc.
Cody's bit on the atheist children has historic precedent: States in the Northeast could remove children from homes where the Parents did not recognize the Trinity until the mid 1800s.
Anyway even she and I have disagreemetnts sometimes as to when and how, me being from a quite libertarian / independent persuasion on a lot of these things. It's hard for most of us to accept that they do these things on sometimes subjective grounds, and without some hard definitions. And that works both ways. She has seen situations where she from her experience knew there was likely abuse going on, but could not prove it.
And other times, other people are being quite subjective.
Cody, I'm afraid for engineer types like you and I, the social services types are quite a bit too subjective, though there are some good ones who work hard at being fair, the Chick being one though of course I am biased that way.
I'd be interested to see the real deal on the above incident also.
Sorry guys, but this is a true story. I stumbled upon this years ago too, when I was studying journalism in college and I tried like hell to disprove teh reality of it. I don't know anymore: i dont' actually have an oppinion on this one because as cody said, this is a touchy subject. Do I think they should have been removed on the basis of their names alone? No. But who in their right mind would call their kid Hitler anyway. lol. So then parents are questionable in the very least.
Sorry to say it Leo, but atheist parents still lose their children. Usually in divorce cases. If one parent is a Christian and one is aan atheist, the atheist will usually lose custody of the children. Its a sad fact. Just goes to show how convoluted the system is.
Family Court is a rigged game when it comes to men anyway but that is entirely another issue for which I would take a lot of heat. lol
I can believe what you say, though, Cody. Especially certain parts of the country. Even some of the high desert cow country out here, those who complain we city folk are encroaching on their rights, but then come to us to pay for their roads and schools. Again better not delve too far down there or I'm liable to take some heat for getting this sidetracked.
But yeah I can believe it.
My personal opinion is that if demonstrable harm is coming to the child - physical harm and neglect - then the court can step in. I know people like the Chick will say (and have said, in my case), there are traumas and other nonphysical harm that should be factored in. She's not talking one atheist one Christian though.
But it is a slippery slope. It's an area into which I fear to tread, since a lot of damage has been done in the so-called best interest of people but it has mainly political leanings or meets the emotional insecurities of a few delicate souls.
I could tell you of the idiot paperwork the schools wanted us to voluntarily sign about how the home was going to be child safe meaning weapons, alcohol and other things out of reach of teenagers, and alcohol and tobacco consumption was only to be done when the teenagers weren't around. These aren't Christian puritan prudes, but just another kinda nonsensical Puritan prude. No baby gir at my house, be it daughter, niece, friend of one or several, was ever harmed by Ol' Leo having a few while they were sleeping over, watching movies and texting the hell outa who knows what. And I for one never put the John Hancock on any of their volunteer papers though I think the chick did.
It's legislated silliness to make people feel like they're doing something, most of the time. Another way to stick it to the working man, I say. So there ya go. I've definitely made myself unpopular with many with that attitude, but there's more that agree with it than many of your prudes might realize.
Hmm. This is indeed a very difficult topic. I do remember a news article about the bakery refusing to decorate the cake with Happy Birthday Adolf Hitler. If I had the energy tonight, I’d look up the story to see whether the whole custody thing was real, but I don’t, so I won’t. I will idly wonder about whether you could argue that in certain contexts, some names can arguably be tantamount to child abuse. It’s not the sort of direct form of abuse the way hitting or emotional/mental abuse is, but really, some of the stories you hear make you go hmm. I remember, for instance, a story I heard once from someone who actually witnessed it. She was sitting in a waiting-room waiting to be seen by a doctor when she overheard a nurse come up to a woman who just happened to have had a child with her. The nurse said to the woman: “I’m not sure how to pronounce this name, but it’s spelled S-h-i-t-h-e-a-d.” The woman, apparently incensed, said to the nurse: “That’s Shetayed!” as though the nurse was supposed to know how a word that’s normally pronounced “Shithead” was supposed to be pronounced in the case of the child. (I tried to spell the word phonetically for those of you using screenreaders, but it’s difficult.) Anyway, you see the problem? You can’t literally prevent a parent or parents from calling a child Shetayed and having it spelled like Shithead, but you gotta wonder about some people. Doesn’t this person read? Doesn’t this person have the commonsense to know you really probably shouldn’t saddle a kid with a name that’s gunna be the social kiss of death to her as far as other kids are concerned? The same might be said, and probably even more so, for naming your kid Adolf Hitler whatever. I mean, book after documentary after story has been written about the real Hitler and what a monster he was and what monstrous things were done in his name – everything from the invasion of Poland to Kristalnacht to Auschwitz. And yet some modern-day moon-calves have it in their head to brand a kid they’re supposed to love with the name of Adolf Hitler? Guess he better not bring home a Jew to meet Mama and Papa. Or maybe that’d be just revenge for what his parents did; I’m not sure. Not sure where I’m going with this; just talking out the front part of my head.
Yes but you've got to remember that for the most part Europeans have adopted a "forget and forgive" attitude about world war II. And yes the custody bit is true, I read about it on 3 other fairly reputable news sights in the states so I'm sure this must be true. We also have to take into consideration that Adolf is also a very common name. If the parents aren't doing any real harm to themselves or the children I don't see why it should be a problem. Should cps then remove children from homes who's parents support polygamy? Whether you agree with Hitler's approach, he was equal parts madman equal parts genius and arguably a great statesman. One's choices should be a measure of their character and not their abilities. As long as the parents don't go blowing people's heads off or causing a ruckus I don't see why this should be an issue. The American military has arguably killed more than the germans in the "name of democracy." So does that make us any better. The means still accomplishes the end.
Only in America.
Of course the children should have been removed. People like those parents shouldn't be creating children. They're crazy. They're nuts. They should be in some sort of hospital for sick fantacists or something.
the way you wrote that name to make it pronounce it better, makes it sound like shitty. how is that any better than shithead?
and
I don't think that story was in america, it was in Germany right??? Not taking the time to go look back up... sorry.
actually it was in America. In new jjersey, if I recall correctly
The way I tried to write it was shet-taide. Sorry if it didn't work. Some people have different screenreaders and different soundcards, so it sounded reasonably the way I wanted on mine. And yes, the Hitler story was in America. As far as whether parents should have their children removed from the home for naming their child something like Hitler, I'm not so sure you'd get it to fly. You have this thing called the First Amendment, and it might be seen as an imposition on the freedom of speech to remove a child from the home for giving your child a name the rest of society, including myself, finds repellant. Also, you'll get people arguing, and successfully, I think, that being able to remove a child from the home when you don't like the name his/her parents gave him/her at birth is a slippery slope. Yes, Hitler is a repellant name to the vast majority of humanity, but taken to its most extreme obsurdity, you can probably be a child protection worker of some sort who doesn't like the name Muriel or Horatio or Ebenezer and get a child removed because nobody saddles children with such names anymore. Just sayin'.
Or that judge who tried to prevent those people from naming their son Mesiah.
Of course it was in America! Where else do such crazy nutters have children? Have you heard the one about the virgin births? That's something else that would only happen in America. Those women should have their children taken off them too.
Well if we're just going to start spouting off things. Christians should have their children taken away. All of them. They're stupid and shouldn't be trusted with young minds.
see why I said its a dangerous thing to say who can and can't have their children taken away?
Should have just named him Adolf Shickelbruber and everything probably would have been okay.
As Cody said in Post 3, many of these new fool Nazis have no idea what the original Nazis were all about. I went to school with a number of these my senior year in high school.
Definitely fools, the lot of them.