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

Bingo.

I’m all for parents’ rights, but naming your kid Hitler seems to border on child abuse. IMHO.

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

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 people don’t always meet their own standards, …

Esthier on December 17, 2008 at 4:10 PM

Romans 3:23 – ALL have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.

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.

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

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.

JP1986UM on December 17, 2008 at 3:33 PM

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.

But I must say, this case is so sad on so many levels.

Mark Garnett on December 18, 2008 at 8:39 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.

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

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.

For Christians to say they hate the sin but love the sinner and then go around calling them perverts (and worse)… it’s a bit much.

Esthier on December 17, 2008 at 12:53 PM

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.

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.

SKYFOX on December 18, 2008 at 5:37 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.

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

lol

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.

Someone needs to rescue that child.

Boy does this case test a lot of my core beliefs about parental rights and authority.