jump to last post 1-2 of 2 discussions (16 posts)

Taliban or Tennessee: A parent cannot name its own child?

  1. Credence2 profile image87
    Credence2posted 3 years ago

    No offense to those that call the "Volunteer State" home, but this is truly an outrage. Wasn't it in Tennessee where  adherents to Islam were hassled when they wanted to buid a mosque? Are we still fixated on the period of the 'Scopes Trial'?

    The Right is always talking about 'freedom', yet this judge illegally brings her religious dogma and doctrine into her decision. Since when has the First Amendment been put on hold? Obviously, for the rightwinger, some people are more free than others. 

    See the link below:
    What is your take on it, you have already heard mine!

    http://news.yahoo.com/tenn-judge-change … 23538.html

    1. Cody Hodge5 profile image61
      Cody Hodge5posted 3 years ago in reply to this

      But.....I thought only liberal judges were destroying the Constitution?

      And the South really thinks its capable of running elections without oversight?

      1. Credence2 profile image87
        Credence2posted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Hi, Cody, so what is going on 'down there'? I have to wonder. Certainly do not want to throw out the baby with the bathwater, but can't I even name my own kid?
        So what sort of tyranny is this?

    2. profile image82
      Education Answerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      I get that you feel that the judge overstepped her authority.  The Taliban, however, might be a bit much.

      Though I find it irritating, from a religious standpoint, that somebody would name their baby Messiah, I am in agreement with you about this being too invasive.  We are Americans, and we can choose our own names, thank you.  By the way, I am a member of the Right, a conservative.  I do not appreciate government intrusion upon freedoms.  That stance is conservative.

      1. Credence2 profile image87
        Credence2posted 3 years ago in reply to this

        EA, I knew that you would be too clever to allow yourself to caught in such a blatant double standard for a conservative. This may be one of the few times that we are on the same page.

        But I wonder though, how does the GOP get together, you have the pragmatists (Christie) the social conservative-tea party (Rick Santorum) and the growing libertarian movement best representated by Sen. Paul of tenn.
        How do you all get those disparate factions together for 2016?

        1. Ralph Deeds profile image70
          Ralph Deedsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          My recollection is that in Quebec new or expecting parents are given lists of approved girl and boy names from which to choose. Not sure whether this is still the case.

          1. Credence2 profile image87
            Credence2posted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Ralph, I did not know that Quebec would make such a restriction, what is the basis of it?

            1. Ralph Deeds profile image70
              Ralph Deedsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Not sure. Here's a link to baby naming laws in several places not including Quebec:
              http://mentalfloss.com/article/25034/8- … aming-laws

              1. Ralph Deeds profile image70
                Ralph Deedsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Perhaps my comment was not correct or times have changed since I heard about the rule 40-some years ago from American parents whose child was born in Montreal. However, here's a link that indicates that names are sometimes challenged by the Quebec government:

                http://www.nancy.cc/2009/10/12/names-ch … t-un-ange/

                1. Credence2 profile image87
                  Credence2posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  This is bizarre, Ralph. Regardless, I do not want to give the conservatives any ammunition. That practice is totally unAmerican.
                  The links were quite revealing, I am just surprised that Canada, a nation with a strong democratic tradition, would have such a policy.
                  Thanks for providing the info.

                  Cred2

                  1. Ralph Deeds profile image70
                    Ralph Deedsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    I think the policy applies only in Quebec which has had secessionist tendencies going back many years. As I recall there was a movement to secede or perhaps affiliate in some fashion with France. I seem to recall that there was a referendum on secession which was defeated.

                    Here's a Wikipedia link to issues between Quebec and the rest of Canada:

                    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quebec_sov … y_movement

                    "Tension between the francophone, Catholic population of Quebec and the largely anglophone, Protestant population of the rest of Canada has been a central theme of Canadian history, shaping the early territorial and cultural divisions of the country that persist to this day.[6] Supporters of sovereignty for Quebec believe that the current relationship between Quebec and the rest of Canada does not reflect Quebec's best social, political and economic development interests. Moreover, many subscribe to the notion that without appropriately recognizing that the people of Quebec are culturally distinct, Quebec will remain chronically disadvantaged in favour of the English-Canadian majority. There is also the question of whether the French language can survive within the geographic boundaries of Quebec and where French-Canadian society and culture fits into what is an increasingly multicultural country. Separatists and Independentists are generally opposed to some aspects of the federal system in Canada and do not believe it can be reformed in a way that could satisfy the needs of Quebec's French-speaking majority. A key component in the argument in favour of overt political independence is that new legislation and a new system of governance could best secure the future development of modern Québécois culture. Additionally, there is wide-ranging debate about defence, monetary policy, currency, international-trade and relations after independence and whether a renewed federalism would give political recognition to the Quebec nation (along with the other 'founding' peoples, including Canadian First Nations, the Inuit, and the British) could satisfy the historic disparities between these cultural "nations" and create a more cohesive and egalitarian Canada.

                    "Several attempts at reforming the federal system in Canada have thus far failed because of, particularly, the conflicting interests between Quebec's representatives and the other provincial governments' representatives. There is also a degree of resistance throughout Quebec and the rest of Canada to re-opening a constitutional debate, in part because of the nature of these failures—not all of which were the result simply of sovereignists and federalists not getting along. To cite one case, in a recent round of constitutional reform, Elijah Harper, an aboriginal leader from Manitoba, was able to prevent ratification of the agreement in the provincial legislature, arguing that the accord did not address the interests of Canada's aboriginal population. This was a move to recognize that other provinces represent distinct cultural entities, such as the aboriginal population in Canada's Prairies or the people of Newfoundland (which contains significant and culturally distinct French-Canadian, English-Canadian, Irish-Canadian and Aboriginal cultures- and many more)...."

        2. profile image82
          Education Answerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          I doubt they will be able to do so.  Our party is fragmented into opposing ideologies.  Our only hope is that people vote against the opposing candidate, the democrat.  How many people have you heard say that the only reason they voted for the POTUS was because Romney was worse?  Sad as it may be, that appears, at this point, to be our only hope.  IF H. Clinton is the nominee, that hope becomes pretty slim.

          Sadly, I see the writing on the wall, and it isn't pretty.  Now, if a candidate, like Reagan, comes forward and changes everything, we may have a chance.  I'm not holding my breath.

          Best wishes.

          1. Credence2 profile image87
            Credence2posted 3 years ago in reply to this

            All the best to you to EA, I wasn't particularly hot on Reagan, but there is no question that he was a sea change in the political landscape, at the least the perception of it prior to his inauguration.

            I thought that the question on the future of conservatism in America warrented a thread of it own.

            1. profile image82
              Education Answerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Hi,

              Yes, I think it warrants a thread, though it may be a slightly depressing one for some of us.  We're down now, and I don't see a way out in the immediate future.  Still, the same was said of the democrats from 1980 to 1992.  The tides seem to always change, but I can't, for the life of me, see the immediate way out of the debacle that is my party.  Where have all the conservatives gone?  All I see is political games and pandering for votes.  At this point, most republican candidates will get my vote, because I am so displeased with the opposition, not because I want to vote for them.

              Best wishes.

  2. innersmiff profile image78
    innersmiffposted 3 years ago

    Take away the concept of a "legal name", and take away the problem.

 
working