3 Children removed from NJ parents

[Chesspiece_face]

While I do see your argument about freedom of whatever, I think these people just pushed the envelope too far and might not even be completely sane. I'd recommend a full psychological evaluation for the entire family before I'd let the children go back to live with the parents.

I don't see any reason to think they are not sane in the technical sense, but it's pretty obvious they have extremely narcissistic tendancies and are willing to throw their children under the bus at any given chance to better help fight whatever fight they think they are fighting. They instigated this whole thing with that FOX news thing (which as far as i'm concerened they can cry a river. The business suplying the cake has the right to refuse service to anybody for any reason. Tough.) As far as I can tell the safety of the children came into question because they went out grandstanding in that FOX news program that they were being unfairly treated. (Again, cry me a river. If you go around promoting Adolf Hitler etc. you lose all credibility fighting a battle over equal treatment.)

Kandrathe : "I agree that we, the public, don't need to know, but it is obvious that the parents don't know what case exists against them either. That is what is wrong here."

Or it's possible that they do know what case exists against them and they act towards it in the same narcissistic ways they have repeatedly exhibited in the past, that this is somehow an unfair world just out to get them and not a situation of their own making.

[ShadowHM]

We probably have very different ideas about the role of government and that of citizen in a free society.

I firmly believe that your free right to do what you please stops when it hurts someone else. I am sorry you disagree on that.

[kandrathe]

I firmly believe that your free right to do what you please stops when it hurts someone else. I am sorry you disagree on that.

We don't disagree on that. But, there is a difference between a fair trial and a lynch mob.

[eppie]

Parents should be responsible for their children, and only when deemed unfit should children be removed.

I am not sure if it is wise to come up with a list of illegal names but it is very clear that when you call your child hitler you are an unfit parent. Times change, and if these people would be living in nazi germany they would probably fit in just fine, but that is not the case.

They should send these morons on a trip around some concentrations camps in eastern europe and see if they change their mind.

There are probably however many hundreds of thousands of unfit parents, and the bad influence of this on society is huge, most of them however have nothing to fear from their government so I think it is not necesarry to think up doom scenarios about your 'totalitarian government'.

[Crusader]

Now consider that the swastika (certainly a hated symbol) were replaced instead with the Star of David (hateful to Muslims), or the Cross (hated by atheists, and non-Christians), or a confederate flag, or just a bumper sticker what was politically controversial (such as pro-choice or pro-life).

There's quite a big difference between a current religious symbol and the symbol of a long dead empire that wanted world domination at the price of commiting genocide which started a war that cost millions of lives.

[ShadowHM]

We don't disagree on that. But, there is a difference between a fair trial and a lynch mob.

There certainly is a difference. But I am not seeing how your analogy holds in this case at all.

A couple had their children removed from them, for specific reasons that were not disclosed to the public at large. However, the broadly stated rationale was the safety of their children. In my mind, nothing trumps that - no appeals to 'parents rights' will trump that at all.

The truth will out. It should out in a reasonable amount of time. And THEN you get to carry on about tyranny and lynch mobs and erosion of your rights and all that, should your dire suspicions be discovered to have merit. In the meantime, all it looks like to me is that you have a desperate need to complain and worry out loud in this forum and you are all too willing to jump to conclusions when circumstances on the surface seem to bolster your fears.

Your whole premise in this is that an attention-hungry mother's unsworn and unsupported testimony to a story-hungry press is accurate. :blink:

[Mordekhuul]

Oh, yes I did. I just disagree with you. I believe the benefit of the doubt should go to the parents, until such time they have an actionable case. If there is evidence of abuse, then arrest and charge the guilty and seize the children at the same time.

Is that practical? If police or CPS see evidence of abuse, is that enough to arrest the parents (or even know which parent to arrest), or do they need time to build a case?

If the latter, there is no safe choice for the child other than immediate removal while evidence is gathered.

That said, I have a friend that has been screwed by a false child abuse claim (made by a fairly crazy daycare woman that encouraged the kid to call her "mom", among other things). CPS only spent enough time to see that there wasn't evidence of abuse, and not enough time to fully clear the person of the accusation, and he wasn't able to legally adopt the child (a child from his now wife's previous marriage) in that state because of the allegation sticking around in the system.

[kandrathe]

There's quite a big difference between a current religious symbol and the symbol of a long dead empire that wanted world domination at the price of committing genocide which started a war that cost millions of lives.

Is it illegal to display a swastika, or have a swastika tattoo? Is being hated grounds for having your children taken from you?

[kandrathe]

I've heard stories of parents involved in gangs in Los Angeles where mothers had their children taken away from them because they choose to live a lifestyle that put the welfare of their children in jeopardy. I see no difference here, and don't disagree with what has been done by the state.

Wow. Even worse. These "gang members" are usually the children of dirt poor people that have little choice but to join the neighborhood gang or die. In essence then, CPS removes their children because they are forced to live in barrios.

When I was young and trouble was brewing in school, I often got pulled singled out by the teachers, but it wasn't because I was the one causing trouble, but rather most of the other students were doing said activity the wrong way and I was "in-the-way", so rather than correct the majority, then choose to focus on altering my behavior. While I did not think this was fair growing up in school, I realize now that it was to keep the peace.

It sounds like injustice to me. It didn't matter to anyone because you were under aged, and the school has all the power.

I've heard of it happening lots also in prisons where the inmate standing up for himself is sentenced to solitary confinement even though he was not the instigator nor the attacker, however this was done to for *his* benefit rather he felt that way or not. Again, I see no difference here.

Except a felon is stripped of rights.

Young Adolf gained popularity when Fox News did a stint about a cake store refusing to spell out his name on a cake. Perhaps the parents of Adolf thought they could get sympathy by taking their story to the news, but instead got their child taken away from them.

Yup. They are stupid. They are really really stupid. They asked for attention, and they got it. Maybe not the kind they were looking for, because they were deluded in thinking they could do whatever they wanted.

Did they break any law? I'm not sure, but putting a child in a state of perpetual endangerment because of your lifestyle is an offense the CPS can act upon to remove a child from a home, and I do think this case fits the bill quite nicely - parents driving cars with Nazi symbols on them in public, naming their children after known and hated figures of history, etc. While I do see your argument about freedom of whatever, I think these people just pushed the envelope too far and might not even be completely sane. I'd recommend a full psychological evaluation for the entire family before I'd let the children go back to live with the parents.

Maybe all parents should be psychologically tested at the hospital before being allowed to take home their newborns.

[kandrathe]

The truth will out. It should out in a reasonable amount of time. And THEN you get to carry on about tyranny and lynch mobs and erosion of your rights and all that, should your dire suspicions be discovered to have merit. In the meantime, all it looks like to me is that you have a desperate need to complain and worry out loud in this forum and you are all too willing to jump to conclusions when circumstances on the surface seem to bolster your fears.

There is more to my position than just blind trust in the veracity of the statements of the mother. But, you are right "Truth will out" is right. That, and, my faith that the entire justice system has not been blinded, yet. Yes, even idiot Nazi's have rights in America. It is exactly this reason why we have the court system to protect the rights of the minority, no matter how hateful their beliefs might be. Is it damaging to give your child a stupid or hateful name? Who is to decide what is and what is not psychologically damaging then? A boy named Sue indeed.

NYT -- A Boy Named Sue, and a Theory of Names

[Lissa]

Is it illegal to display a swastika, or have a swastika tattoo?

In Germany it most definitely is.

[kandrathe]

In Germany it most definitely is.

I've heard that, "Under German law, performing a Hitler salute, wearing Nazi uniforms or displaying the swastika can carry a penalty of up to three years in prison." Also, denying the holocaust is a crime I believe in most of Europe.

I understand why they did that in Europe, however, I think the cauterizing light of truth is a better cure for wrong minded ideologies. The literate, and well educated philosopher should be willing, and strong winded in denouncing such things as Nazism, fascism, and totalitarianism. Of course, when the revolution comes, the intelligentsia are the first up against the wall.

[Tal]

Doesn't this thread fall under Godwin's Law? <_<

[kandrathe]

Doesn't this thread fall under Godwin's Law? <_<

Technically, no since it is not a hyperbolic reference. The topic itself is Adolf Hitler Campbell.

[Hammerskjold]

What should we think about all the name sakes of Micheal Collins, or the babies named "Osama" after 9/11?

Or godforbid, 'Hussein' after the first Gulf war! It's terrible enough that a baby would be named after an alcoholic drink like Michael Collins (or his equally drunk brother, Tom).

Anyone named 'Who-Sayin' in the west will probably face incredible odds and ignorance, I mean I wouldn't bet on anyone having such a moniker to be a president of the US of A anytime soon.

Now consider that the swastika (certainly a hated symbol)

Hated and rightfully so, in most of the West. But if we're talking globally and historically, the swastika was not a Nazi invention. Like a lot of what they did, they took an ancient symbol and corrupted it for their own (ab)use. Many people would like the swastika back, and they're not neo-nazis.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4188141.stm

The word 'Aryan' IIRC, can also refer to ancient Persia and have nothing to do with 'HHWHITE POWAH'.

Having swords and war paraphenalia may not mean you're a neo nazi, unless you're also going to lump in war historians and archaelogists as nazi sympathizers.

All those things individually and in context may not mean much. But collectively and in this context, well let's just say I'm not convinced that the parents mentioned in the link are Hindu-Persians who are avid WW2 historians. And they just happen to name their offspring 'Hitler', maybe to remind the world to 'Never Forget'. I reeeeally doubt that.

Isn't there a more worthy group deserving of your RAAWR RAAWR RIGHTEOUS RAGE coming to their defense? Like say, pornographers? Legally compliant and freedom of expression loving, pornographers?

If you do feel like replying, I'll save you the trouble and energy. Instead I'll politely hint that legal pornographers can always use your support be it financial, emotional, or political. Everyday their minority yet legal and non-extremist views are being suppressed and oppresed by the hat-pin brigade run government. Not many will come to their help.

But I believe passionate people like you who believe in the cause of Freedom and Liberty can make a difference. Pornographers are under emotional and financial siege from the tyrannical government, almost to the breaking point. One recent production could barely afford to hire 2 women performers, and only 1 cup to share between them. Truly heartbreaking.

You can send cheque or money order to:

(Defend Our Porn)
14141 Covello St. 8C
Van Nuys, CA 91405

[kandrathe]

Isn't there a more worthy group deserving of your RAAWR RAAWR RIGHTEOUS RAGE coming to their defense? Like say, pornographers?

There are plenty of people fighting for that cause. I don't support it, but if it is your Casus Belli, then more power to you. I save the obscure unpopular causes for RAAWR RAAWR RIGHTEOUS RAGE and equally unpopular discussions on the LL. I was thinking today that I should have been a defense attorney, because I believe everyone should be treated as innocent until guilt is established. I guess that is not a popular view here. Here's your torch and pitchfork.

For the important stuff, like Gitmo, ethnic cleansing, and people disappearing in the night I actually write letters to my elected representatives. They seldom write back, which is very disappointing.

[ShadowHM]

I was thinking today that I should have been a defense attorney, because I believe everyone should be treated as innocent until guilt is established. I guess that is not a popular view here. Here's your torch and pitchfork.

You do seem to be enjoying the posture of brave defender of the downtrodden. :lol: Please carry on. I shouldn't bother to try to point out any inconsistencies to someone who is having such fun riding their hobby horse.

[Hammerskjold]

I was thinking today that I should have been a defense attorney, because I believe everyone should be treated as innocent until guilt is established. I guess that is not a popular view here. Here's your torch and pitchfork.

Wow my own torch and pitchfork, thanks! What gift can I give in return. Ah! Here's your violin. It's not the world's smallest, but it's close.

Yeah, innocent until proven guilty is an unpopular view here. The more popular view is of course, if someone does not cotton to your own views, well they must support the complete and extreme polar opposite. That must be it. That's why some folks in this thread wrote they want to see more facts first, because they're just itchin for some lynchin'.

Ok Seriously. Yes people should be treated as innocent until found guilty, but keep your common sense too. Since when does the allegation of being a neo-nazi even remotely in the same ballpark as a pro life\pro choice bumper sticker?

Shadow basically already summed up a salient point you seem to either ignore or don't get. Parents do have rights (more importantly responsibilities) but so do the kids. Birthing children does not give one complete and total ownership over them. In the past and in some places that's still the sad and brutal rule of the day. Unless that's what you meant by defending freedom and fighting tyranny.

I'll try it from another perspective. Would you have reacted the same way if the kids are not blood relation, but were up for adoption by the same set of people?

At the very least, I'm going to guess that you will at least agree that there should be a very thorough check and investigations in any prospective parents. This is a kid we're talking about after all, not a dog. Hell, my relatives went through a pretty thorough interview when they adopted a cat from the shelter! I would hope the standard would be at least that high if not higher for a human.

We're not talking about the parent's 'minority' views, we're really talking about the potential extreme-ness (and not in a good Mountain Dew X-treme) and the red flags of the allegations in that article.

But hey you're right, maybe all the parents want to do is wipe the stain of the 'Hitler' name. Maybe all they want to do is raise him with the best possible resources and education, so that one day he can cure cancer, AIDS, bring productive peace in the Middle East, and invent faster than light space travel that unites humanity. So when his name is uttered, people can say, "No it's OK, he's the -GOOD- Hitler!'.

To even think of anything else, would presume guilt until proven innocent. And lynching, can't forget the lynching.

[Jester]

There are plenty of people fighting for that cause. I don't support it, but if it is your Casus Belli, then more power to you. I save the obscure unpopular causes for RAAWR RAAWR RIGHTEOUS RAGE and equally unpopular discussions on the LL. I was thinking today that I should have been a defense attorney, because I believe everyone should be treated as innocent until guilt is established. I guess that is not a popular view here. Here's your torch and pitchfork.

For crying out loud, you're wondering why this kind of stupid grandstanding is unpopular, when one moment you're standing on principle, and the next, you're accusing your compatriots, who have said little more than "well, we don't actually know one way or the other here" of being an angry mob with torches and pitchforks.

Some perspective please.

-Jester

[kandrathe]

For crying out loud, you're wondering why this kind of stupid grandstanding is unpopular, when one moment you're standing on principle, and the next, you're accusing your compatriots, who have said little more than "well, we don't actually know one way or the other here" of being an angry mob with torches and pitchforks.

I may have been mistaken about the scolding and sarcastic way his post was written. I guess I reacted to that. I tend to wear my emotions on my sleeve here, and I feel righteous indignation when a bunch of child protection people drive up and based on what appears to be allegations and hearsay, end up driving off with someone's kids. Sure, yes, this is an extreme case where you wonder why there isn't a license needed for birthing.