They require a license to drive, but to parent …
posted at 8:40 am on December 17, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
No, I’m not going to get all statist and start demanding that the government approve people for reproduction … but sometimes that option doesn’t sound all bad. Plenty of parents hang atrocious names on their offspring, cursing them for life, but Heath and Deborah Campbell really take the cake. Well, not literally, which is why this Nazi admirer got headlines this morning on the wire services (via Cristy Li):
The father of 3-year-old Adolf Hitler Campbell, denied a birthday cake with the child’s full name on it by one New Jersey supermarket, is asking for a little tolerance. Heath Campbell and his wife, Deborah, are upset not only with the decision made by the Greenwich ShopRite, but with an outpouring of angry Internet postings in response to a local newspaper article over the weekend on their flare-up over frosting.
“I think people need to take their heads out of the cloud they’ve been in and start focusing on the future and not on the past,” Heath Campbell said Tuesday in an interview conducted in Easton, on the other side of the Delaware River from where the family lives in Hunterdon County, N.J.
“There’s a new president and he says it’s time for a change; well, then it’s time for a change,” the 35-year-old continued. “They need to accept a name. A name’s a name. The kid isn’t going to grow up and do what (Hitler) did.”
I’m sorry — did the man who named his child after one of the worst genocidal madmen of history demand tolerance? Campbell walks around in authentic Nazi boots and decorates his house with swastikas, and then demands that people be tolerant of his intolerance. It sounds like a Monty Python skit: No one expects the Nazi Tolerance Inquisition!
And by the way, it wasn’t just the name, either:
Karen Meleta, a spokeswoman for ShopRite, said the Campbells had similar requests denied at the same store the last two years and said Heath Campbell previously had asked for a swastika to be included in the decoration.
You know, nothing says Happy Birthday to a toddler like a big ol’ swastika in the middle of a birthday cake.
And why did these parents lay an Adolf on their child? I mean, besides all of the Nazi worship going on in Chez Campbell? Because “no one else in the world would have that name.” No kidding. Ever wonder why, genius?
Greenwich ShopRite is not a government agency, and they don’t have to do business with the Campbells if they choose to refuse them. It’s not intolerance — it’s a business decision. Campbell could protest it and try to start a boycott, but something tells me that ShopRite’s customers might feel better knowing that the goose-stepping Campbells won’t be anywhere in the vicinity.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3
I’ve read a lot of your posts. You are not dumb but this is a dumb statement.
They are perverts UNTIL they stop doing those acts AND they stop trying to seek approval for the doing of those acts.
Nobody calls them perverts if they aren’t justifying their choices AND being public about it.
Hate the sin and hate the promoter of sin – that’s my motto. And I’m not a Christian.
platypus on December 17, 2008 at 1:00 PM
promoter= promotionplatypus on December 17, 2008 at 1:00 PM
Speaking of fetishes…
MadisonConservative on December 17, 2008 at 1:01 PM
That’s evident.
MadisonConservative on December 17, 2008 at 1:02 PM
Thanks for confirming that you will continue with your narcisstic behavior on this blog. You have energized most people here to support Pro 8. Thank you!
Blake on December 17, 2008 at 1:04 PM
Then my comment doesn’t apply to you.
I get your point, but that’s because legally they’re lower than animals.
Esthier on December 17, 2008 at 1:05 PM
My gr.gr grandfather immigrated from Germany in the late 1880′s. His first name was Adolph, by 1930 he changed his first name to Edward and his birthplace France. A simple stone mason knew what that name would bring. He also was a member of The Mutual Aid Society, until it disbanded in 1939. Mutual Aid helped Jews immigrate to the US from Germany.
calgrammy on December 17, 2008 at 1:06 PM
Maybe you are that dumb.
Look, there is no such thing as homosexuality. That is a “honeypot” argument designed to trap people into discussing an irrelevant point or assuming a false premise.
Animals do not have sexuality. They have sex instincts and they do not have a lot of brain matter to work with so sometimes they do stupid (from our point of view) things.
If you look to animals for your standards, then it’s no wonder your standards are so inferior (both morally and practically). Perverted sex kills. Indiscriminate sex kills.
Monogamous married sex gives life. It’s called family.
platypus on December 17, 2008 at 1:08 PM
Forgot to add my grgrgrandfather was Catholic not Jewish.
calgrammy on December 17, 2008 at 1:08 PM
Oh look. The President of Iran posts here.
MadisonConservative on December 17, 2008 at 1:10 PM
Damn them to hell. Or Pakistan. What’s the difference? Both breed terror and are very poor, dependent on welfare and false prophets.
HotAirJosef on December 17, 2008 at 1:29 PM
Zing! The Mot du jour. You cant coach stuff like this.
Mike D. on December 17, 2008 at 1:36 PM
Look, if you don’t understand the basic definition of a word, it’s really not my problem.
Esthier on December 17, 2008 at 1:43 PM
Name me 5 “rightists” who “indulge” Pat Buchanan.
If you can’t demonstrate that most Rightists tolerate, much less agree with Buchanan on this issue, then you are guilty of trying to tar an entire movement with the actions of a single man.
Which of course, is about as deep into logic as your average liberal is capable of delving.
MarkTheGreat on December 17, 2008 at 2:12 PM
Poor kid.
Then again, in that photo he does look a teensy weensy bit like Damien, doesn’t he?
Y-not on December 17, 2008 at 2:28 PM
Good points. What kind of parents want to turn their toddler’s birthday into a political stunt? They can’t even be nice to their own kid on his birthday.
Blake on December 17, 2008 at 2:42 PM
We already know the answer to that question, considering the high number of derogatory generalizations he’s made about conservatives.
MarkTheGreat on December 17, 2008 at 2:44 PM
Using the commerce clause, the courts have been pretty much able to ignore the rest of the constitution.
MarkTheGreat on December 17, 2008 at 2:48 PM
Wonder what the reaction would be if these “parents” named the child, oh, I don’t know let’s say,..Nappy Ho Campbell.
christene on December 17, 2008 at 3:20 PM
Makes me wonder how some many base their theology on so many texts they really haven’t read. I gather this person isn’t eating shellfish anytime like…ever, hasn’t had sex when his wife is menstruating, or any of the 3000 other laws perpetuated in the OT.
Speak what you want, but don’t claim to speak for God either. You don’t. You speak for you and only you. You are not the oracle of truth. In addition, I would venture YOU don’t even read arabic, aramaic, or greek. As well, I’d say you only spout what is given to you via that spoon. Ignorance is bliss.
JP1986UM on December 17, 2008 at 3:33 PM
Some people name their kids “Mohammed.” Should they be denied birthday cakes because he was a genocidal maniac? If not, why can’t somebody name their kid “Adolf Hitler”? I mean, I wouldn’t do it, but this goes to parental rights.
PersonalLiberty on December 17, 2008 at 3:40 PM
Homosexuality is discussed in the New Testament as well, unlike the law against shellfish.
Now some people only obey the words of Jesus, and it’s true that Jesus never said anything about homosexuality (or rather if he did, it wasn’t written in the four gospels or in his conversation with Saul/Paul).
Esthier on December 17, 2008 at 3:40 PM
He told the adultress, “Go and sin no more.” Byt this he forbids sex outside of marriage.
He said that “in the beginning” man and woman were made for each other. He didn’t say anything about “longtime companions.”
Akzed on December 17, 2008 at 3:45 PM
Perversion IS the sin. Unless your definition of “is” is different than mine.
kirkill on December 17, 2008 at 3:47 PM
and when I saw the pic, I thought it was a lesbian couple.
kirkill on December 17, 2008 at 3:47 PM
If they are obeying the words of Christ, their language and actions would be very different. Speaking as a Christian, I think the arguments being bandied about are silly. Of course they are abandoning the OT, but yet in one of Paul’s letters, he says very succinctly “The bishop should have ONE wife…” (I Tim3) We also know there were sects of early christians where having more than one wife was accepted. I don’t gather these english literalists are gonna somehow endorse polygamy already, are they? No, the linguistic idiot wing of conservatism will persist in making arguments which result in “bible war: the verses”.
Makes me want to go stone someone to re-enact gospel scenes….
JP1986UM on December 17, 2008 at 3:49 PM
Me too. Maybe he’s compensating for something.
Akzed on December 17, 2008 at 3:49 PM
You’re right. He didn’t say anything about them.
You’re confusing sin with sinner.
Esthier on December 17, 2008 at 3:50 PM
More likely men who were already polygamists were converted, and excluded from the episcopacy. There’s nothing in the NT that endorses polygamy.
Akzed on December 17, 2008 at 3:51 PM
Are you arguing that because Jesus didn’t actually mention something, He was all for it?
Akzed on December 17, 2008 at 3:56 PM
JP1986UM on December 17, 2008 at 3:49 PM
You shouldn’t accuse someone else of ignorance, when you put yours so blatantly on display.
1) The condemnations of homosexuality are in both the old and new testaments.
2) The visions of Peter in Acts freed Christians from the dietary laws of the Jews. At the same time it was determined that Christians did not first have to become Jews.
MarkTheGreat on December 17, 2008 at 3:59 PM
Nope.
Esthier on December 17, 2008 at 4:00 PM
A classic case of the parent doing something to make a statement, not thinking what this is going to do to this poor child later on in life.
It’s kind of like a more absurd version of the trend that celebrities have of naming their children completely idiotic names, like “My Name is Earl’s” Jason Lee naming his son Pilot Inspektor. WTF are these people thinking? Maybe they aren’t, which is the problem.
Chuckie on December 17, 2008 at 4:02 PM
Its brilliant! Look at all the advertising he has gotten through the names he gave his children!
His children can change their names later on, so this isn’t really a story, but the blogs and news shows are continuing to give him attention.
TheMightyQuinn on December 17, 2008 at 4:08 PM
One can’t make a case that Jesus was tolerant of homosexuality since scripture doesn’t quote him directly on the subject. It is more clear in scripture where he identifies divorce and remarriage as constituting adultery.
dedalus on December 17, 2008 at 4:10 PM
Actually, the people I was referencing there are people like JetBoy who find no biblical basis for homosexuality being a sin.
I don’t know anyone who only obeys the words of Christ and yet also finds homosexuality a sin, though I do agree with you that Christians should show more kindness.
Oh, and as to your discussion of polygamy, the Old Testament also spoke against multiple wives, but that doesn’t mean David and Solomon obeyed that one either. Religious people don’t always meet their own standards, but that isn’t necessarily proof that the standards are incorrect.
Esthier on December 17, 2008 at 4:10 PM
I know the feeling.
tom on December 17, 2008 at 4:12 PM
Shouldn’t that win a prize for Biggest Stretch to Make a Thread About your Favorite Topic?
tom on December 17, 2008 at 4:19 PM
All too true. Watch out for any argument made that depends on typical liberal code phrases like, hate the poor, homophobe, bigot, racist, Big Oil, Big Business, etc.
tom on December 17, 2008 at 4:23 PM
I almost wrote something about that in the post, but thought it would be seen as a slam against the kid, not the parents. But you’re right, he’s a dead ringer for the kid in the first Omen movie.
Ed Morrissey on December 17, 2008 at 4:26 PM
In all my studies I don’t quite remember this little ‘fact.’
Which sect(s) where these that allowed more than one wife?
Religious_Zealot on December 17, 2008 at 4:53 PM
Forget everything negative I ever wrote about you. Finally, you get something right. Congrats.
grdred944 on December 17, 2008 at 5:25 PM
I think you’ll find you were mistaken about me and that we agree more than you would have thought.
I’m a Christian. I know as well as anyone how flawed we can be.
Esthier on December 17, 2008 at 5:27 PM
Licenses and approval lists would only do what all birth control measures do: keep intelligent, educated people from having children while dumbasses continued to breed.
ashleymatt on December 17, 2008 at 6:17 PM
I quoted from the article; it wouldn’t surprise me if the article merely quoted from the guidelines, but the article does claim a ‘spokesperson’ stated it to them. One can only hope that they wouldn’t be so stupid as to go through with it just because ‘the guidelines said so’
Be interesting to see nevertheless..
Reaps on December 17, 2008 at 7:33 PM
*catches up on rest of thread*
Dammit.
I hate you all.
Reaps on December 17, 2008 at 7:37 PM
I just don’t get how people that ugly can look in the mirror and think they are superior.
StephC on December 17, 2008 at 8:49 PM
Wow! You just can’t make this stuff up!! It really is a sad shame that this poor kid has been born to nutjobs like these.
4shoes on December 17, 2008 at 9:20 PM
I’m late to the post again but when I saw the front page photo I thought it was a story about gay adoption, err Lesbian adoption.
This story is worse, can the kid ever do anything in life? can he, or his siblings overcome the handicap their parents have burdened them with? Life will not be kind to them.
Gwillie on December 17, 2008 at 9:51 PM
those parents are pure alright, pure inbred!
Noneya on December 17, 2008 at 11:03 PM
Being rejected by a grocery store is really redneck. But being rejected because you named your kid Adolf Hitler goes straight through into white trash.
Sekhmet on December 18, 2008 at 12:55 AM
My God….
Someone needs to rescue that child.
Boy does this case test a lot of my core beliefs about parental rights and authority.
Hawkins1701 on December 18, 2008 at 3:46 AM
Someone needs to rescue that child.
Hawkins1701
Who? You…me…Ed? Who gets to decide that the children are so damaged by their parent’s philosophy that they must be removed by the state? Where is that line, past which you are OK with removing children from their homes? Extreme right? Extreme left? I know that some of you think a conservative household equals child abuse. Same for liberal households with others of you. I just can’t think of a single living human being with whom I would entrust that power. Like I said before in other words, some uglies we have no choice but to live with if we are to have any hope of living in freedom.
SKYFOX on December 18, 2008 at 5:37 AM
I have had to handle with neo-nazi/skinheads/3rd Reich lovers before. I would say its like talking to a wall. But with them its more like talking to a pile. Pile of what? Well, whatever you want it to be. I have no patience for these people or that belief. I’m glad they didn’t get their cake. I would have offered a savage beating of equal or lesser value to make up for it.
Gatsu on December 18, 2008 at 7:32 AM
I sleep better at night knowing that American neo-Nazis are so incompetent they can’t even frost their own damn birthday cakes.
gridlock2 on December 18, 2008 at 7:47 AM
lol
maverick muse on December 18, 2008 at 8:37 AM
Great points and very, very well said.
We must all be very careful of what we wish upon others. Many far left Liberals think things like Home Schooling amount to child abuse, some States are cracking down on even spanking your child, some States are taking your kids away if you smoke around them. Let’s not rush to give any additional power to these folks. But I must say, this case is so sad on so many levels.
Mark Garnett on December 18, 2008 at 8:39 AM
Headline Photo Caption appeared to be a lesbian couple with a kid, and the parents’ eyes look perverted. So the dad’s a “he” Hitler lover along with his wife; the eyes are windows to the soul.
So SHE can’t bake a cake and decorate it for her son’s birthday without causing an uproar since she couldn’t force someone else to do it Hitler’s way.
No need to bash the name Adolf as it belonged to many good men before Hitler’s Nazi ruination.
maverick muse on December 18, 2008 at 8:50 AM
So what of the Hitler family pre-Adolf and Nazi Germany?
maverick muse on December 18, 2008 at 8:51 AM
So tell me, Esthier, why as an Evangelical Christian, I cannot condemn perversion? Also tell me, why I should not condemn perversion?
These people have an option, (I dont know if I’d call it a right, because with rights comes responsibility and these people dont seem very responsible to me) to name their offspring anything they want. However, why make this kid’s life harder than what it is, seeing the parents he’s forced to live with?
Then on the other hand, if they named their kid “Joe Smith” we would not be discussing them here today would we? I think desire for attention is the sole reason the parents hung this on the kid.
abcurtis on December 18, 2008 at 9:20 AM
I don’t remember which letter it is, but when Paul was describing the virtues needed by church leaders, he mentioned being the husband of one wife.
MarkTheGreat on December 18, 2008 at 9:21 AM
There’s an old quote in the legal system about hard cases making bad law.
It’s meant for cases like this. Cases where it’s pretty obvious, at least to us, that these guys are bad parents and something should be done.
The problem is that once you do something, you then create precedent for other people to use in cases that you wouldn’t view as being quite so clear cut.
MarkTheGreat on December 18, 2008 at 9:25 AM
I just love it when people throw in the old “eating shellfish” argument when someone quotes out of the OT. The “shellfish” thing is Mosaic DIETARY LAW, one of the Mosaic Laws, ceremonial, moral, civil and dietary that were fulfilled THROUGH and BY Jesus the Christ. Homosexuality is still a sin in the NT too, see 1st Corinthians 6:9 for example. So please, (and I say this with all due respect, not being derogatory toward you) educate yourself a little bit in God’s covenants with His people, use some discernment, and drop this stupid shellfish argument. It’s made from whole cloth and wont work on those who are saved by grace.
Btw – the shellfish ban was given to the Jews, I am a Gentile, under grace and not law (Romans 6:14), and I enjoy shellfish. The fact that I do wont keep me out of Heaven.
abcurtis on December 18, 2008 at 9:40 AM
MTG – It’s 1st Timothy 3:2 and 1st Timothy 3:12. These are the qualifications Paul gave to Timothy for Bishops (Pastors) and deacons. Neither a bishop nor a deacon is to have more than one wife at a time, during this time in history when polygamy was practised.
abcurtis on December 18, 2008 at 9:46 AM
Yes, Esthier, we do fall short. That’s why we are so thankful for grace. And yes, “religious” people do have problems, including those who practice Christianity as a “religion.” Christianity is a relationship with the Christ, not a religion.
abcurtis on December 18, 2008 at 9:50 AM
Yes, I’m aware of those passages…
…but that doesn’t answer the point JP1986UM was making when he said “We also know there were sects of early christians where having more than one wife was accepted.”
Obviously the community in Ephesus (where Timothy was stationed) was a very pagan community where polygamy (among other things) was common.
But that doesn’t lead us to “knowing” that “sects of early Christians” accepted polygamy.
Religious_Zealot on December 18, 2008 at 10:07 AM
The poor pathetic child will be ridiculed inceasantly by his peers and probably many of his teachers.
I’m all for parents’ rights, but naming your kid Hitler seems to border on child abuse. IMHO.
Disturb the Universe on December 18, 2008 at 10:31 AM
Bingo.
redfoxbluestate on December 18, 2008 at 4:24 PM
So torn on this story I don’t even know…
On one hand, I don’t believe the government should interfere in peoples’ lives.
On the other hand, I wish the child services would take the kids from these asshats.
scrubbiedude on December 18, 2008 at 7:23 PM
So torn on this story I don’t even know…
On one hand, I don’t believe the government should interfere in peoples’ lives. Let people discipline there own children, etc.
On the other hand, I wish the child services would take the kids from these morons for even considering naming their kids what they did. And I applaud the business for refusing them.
scrubbiedude on December 18, 2008 at 7:25 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3