I knew a girl named M. Not short for Emily or anything else. The letter M. And she got the better name. Her brother was 3. The numeral. How did that poor kid fill out a scantron test?
I'm all for interesting names, but some sense of sanity needs to be maintained.
On the other hand, my name is Christopher, and I've always hated having a normal, bland name. Once I figured out what it meant, I was even more distressed, seeing as I was raised atheist (mom always said she just liked the name). As far as I'm concerned, it's just something I respond to. I do not think of myself as Chris. Most people refer to me by my last name. I have always wished I had a slightly more interesting and unusual name.
Did you read what he said? He said that "indoctrinating" them into the religion of the parents was child abuse, and that naming a child such as that was child abuse and that the parents are in a "hysterical plight" and out of their minds. That's the disgusting intolerance of his comment.
There is a difference between indoctrinating into and showing your faith, Brian. As much as some like to pretend otherwise, there are people who live so much focused on their religion that absolutely everything else plays second fiddle. These people are bad news to their entire environment for all kinds of reasons. His point is that someone willing to give such a name to their own child is likely to belong to this group of people. I can't say I think he's wrong. Can you?
Yeah, and so do some non-religious parents.
I'm not talking about tolerating actual child abuse. I'm talking about the vitriol and hate being spewed by this guy with his claims about religion - that's the intolerance.
I assume you have not listened to what memes certain religious groups actively spread? Certainly, you can always claim that people should aim for being better than their opposition, but that's a very difficult prospect, isn't it? And, of course, one way or another, when you see your opponents spreading hatred and lies, it behooves us all to show that we do not approve. My interpretation is that it's not religion he's criticising, but fanaticism. Fanaticism should be criticised.
My interpretation is that it's not religion he's criticising, but fanaticism. Fanaticism should be criticised.
But the naming of a child is not absolute proof of fanaticism. As I said, my name means "bearing christ", were my parents fanatics for naming me that? While agree that parents that name their kids something like what was mentioned are more likely to be fanatics, the fact that the named their kid something like all by itself is not proof that they are.
There is a difference between indoctrinating into and showing your faith, Brian. As much as some like to pretend otherwise, there are people who live so much focused on their religion that absolutely everything else plays second fiddle. These people are bad news to their entire environment for all kinds of reasons.
And again, these types of lunatics exist in every group of people, including atheists. Your focus (and Taliesin's) on the religious aspect is my issue here.
His point is that someone willing to give such a name to their own child is likely to belong to this group of people. I can't say I think he's wrong. Can you?
Ah, so, a parent that gives a child a hyper-religious name such as being discussed likely belongs to a group of fanatical lunatics, but a parent naming their child "Aragon" is unlikely to be a whack-job living in a fantasy world?
Funny how that works.
I assume you have not listened to what memes certain religious groups actively spread? Certainly, you can always claim that people should aim for being better than their opposition, but that's a very difficult prospect, isn't it?
Sure. And I've listened to the memes certain non-religious groups spread.
Hate, bigotry, intolerance and idiocy are everywhere (as evidenced by this thread). Continuing to focus on the specific group only serves to expose yours.
And, of course, one way or another, when you see your opponents spreading hatred and lies, it behooves us all to show that we do not approve. My interpretation is that it's not religion he's criticising, but fanaticism. Fanaticism should be criticised.
The mere naming of this child has shown us the parents spreading hatred and lies?
My interpretation is he's a hypocritical bigot. He's a precious unique snowflake with a cool unique name, and his parents are evidently so much more sophisticated and intelligent than the religious parents giving their child a unique name.
But the naming of a child is not absolute proof of fanaticism. As I said, my name means "bearing christ", were my parents fanatics for naming me that? While agree that parents that name their kids something like what was mentioned are more likely to be fanatics, the fact that the named their kid something like all by itself is not proof that they are.
Surely you'll concede there's a difference between naming a boy "Christian," vs. naming him "KillAllUnbelieversByTheSword"? Likewise, there would be an equal difference bewteen naming a boy "Darwin," vs. naming him "AllReligiousPeopleAreMorons."
Likewise, there's surely a difference between tolerance of "normal" religious views, vs., for example, tolerance of murder of infidels. I personal find it unconscionable when certain Muslims assassinate people over cartoons. Does that make me full of "hate, bigotry, intolerance and idiocy"? Does it make me prejudiced against Islam? Or is it simply me saying that no one should be put to death simply for doodling?
These are issues that knee-jerk reactions and binary thinking do not in any way help.
But the naming of a child is not absolute proof of fanaticism. As I said, my name means "bearing christ", were my parents fanatics for naming me that? While agree that parents that name their kids something like what was mentioned are more likely to be fanatics, the fact that the named their kid something like all by itself is not proof that they are.Surely you'll concede there's a difference between naming a boy "Christian," vs. naming him "KillAllUnbelieversByTheSword"? Likewise, there would be an equal difference bewteen naming a boy "Darwin," vs. naming him "AllReligiousPeopleAreMorons."
Likewise, there's surely a difference between tolerance of "normal" religious views, vs., for example, tolerance of murder of infidels. I personal find it unconscionable when certain Muslims assassinate people over cartoons. Does that make me full of "hate, bigotry, intolerance and idiocy"? Does it make me prejudiced against Islam? Or is it simply me saying that no one should be put to death simply for doodling?
These are issues that knee-jerk reactions and binary thinking do not in any way help.
So are you claiming that "Friede mit Gott allein durch Jesus Christus (Peace with god only through Jesus Christ)" is the same as "KillAllUnbelieversByTheSword". That seems a pretty dramatic leap there.
Being against people that kill others isn't being a bigot. Saying someone is a religious fanatic merely because they name their child "As-Salāmu `Alaykum (Peace be upon you)" probably means you are.
So are you claiming that "Friede mit Gott allein durch Jesus Christus (Peace with god only through Jesus Christ)" is the same as "KillAllUnbelieversByTheSword". That seems a pretty dramatic leap there.
Being against people that kill others isn't being a bigot. Saying someone is a religious fanatic merely because they name their child "As-Salāmu `Alaykum (Peace be upon you)" probably means you are.
Thank you. I couldn't state this better if I spent a year trying.
I personal find it unconscionable when certain Muslims assassinate people over cartoons. Does that make me full of "hate, bigotry, intolerance and idiocy"? Does it make me prejudiced against Islam? Or is it simply me saying that no one should be put to death simply for doodling?
Not at all. I find the actions of so-called Christians in the days following the 9/11 tragedy, assaulting Muslims simply because of their beliefs (or anyone that looked Arab or remotely similar, such as the number of Sikhs who were attacked because they were wearing a Dastar) as equally unconscionable.
I personal find it unconscionable when certain Muslims assassinate people over cartoons. Does that make me full of "hate, bigotry, intolerance and idiocy"? Does it make me prejudiced against Islam? Or is it simply me saying that no one should be put to death simply for doodling?Not at all. I find the actions of so-called Christians in the days following the 9/11 tragedy, assaulting Muslims simply because of their beliefs (or anyone that looked Arab or remotely similar, such as the number of Sikhs who were attacked because they were wearing a Dastar) as equally unconscionable.
And I also find the actions of the Soviets towards people of faith just as unconscionable. No group is immune to abuse to or from others.
|
So are you claiming that "Friede mit Gott allein durch Jesus Christus (Peace with god only through Jesus Christ)" is the same as "KillAllUnbelieversByTheSword". That seems a pretty dramatic leap there.
Agreed, and I'm sure that's why Kirth did not compare it to "Friede mit Gott allein durch Jesus Christus (Peace with god only through Jesus Christ)", instead comparing it to "AllReligiousPeopleAreMorons."
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Not kidding, you can do some research at the Social Security Administration yourself. Although I'm sure that Madison as a girl's name was used before Splash on occasion, it was not considered by the general public until the movie.Madison as a boy's name was used regularly before. It is, after all, a surname with a strong pedigree in the United States.
funny thing... When I first read Alpha Flight, I thought "Who the hell would name their boy 'Madison'?" I've *always* thought of it as a girl's name.
So are you claiming that "Friede mit Gott allein durch Jesus Christus (Peace with god only through Jesus Christ)" is the same as "KillAllUnbelieversByTheSword".
That's the exact opposite of what I'm claiming. Turn off the binary thinking for just a minute. There's a spectrum -- FmGADJC is a hell of a lot goofier than just "Christian," but nowhere near as bad as KAUBtS.
So are you claiming that "Friede mit Gott allein durch Jesus Christus (Peace with god only through Jesus Christ)" is the same as "KillAllUnbelieversByTheSword".That's the exact opposite of what I'm claiming. Turn off the binary thinking for just a minute. There's a spectrum -- FmGADJC is worse than "Christian," not as bad as KAUBtS.
Ok, I was confused because we were talking about the former and not the latter until you introduced it. You seemed to be defending the poster who said the former was an indication of some religious extremism. Of course naming children in a certain fashion can be very indicative of a parent's extremist views. I just thought that the poster was making a huge jump. If it had been the latter name then I probably would have agreed with them.
You seemed to be defending the poster who said the former was an indication of some religious extremism.
And again, that's the problem with binary thinking -- if I don't agree with you 100% down the line, the knee-jerk reaction is that I must be defending the "other side." To hell with all that.
You seemed to be defending the poster who said the former was an indication of some religious extremism.And again, that's the problem with binary thinking -- if I don't agree with you 100% down the line, the knee-jerk reaction is that I must be defending the "other side." To hell with all that.
Well you didn't seem to be saying you disagreed with the other poster. If you had disagreed with us both, then I might not have saw it that way.
EDIT:
I might also point out that you present your argument in a binary form.
You did not clearly state that you thought there was a continum where "Christian" was near one end and "KillAllUnbelieversByTheSword" was near the other and that "Friede mit Gott allein durch Jesus Christus (Peace with god only through Jesus Christ)" was somewhere in between. You instead introduced a this vs that approach. In which case we have to decide where the "Friede ..." would fall. I don't think we disagree very much, but when you present your argument in a binary fashion, do not be surprised when people take it that way.
I don't think we disagree very much, but when you present your argument in a binary fashion, do not be surprised when people take it that way.
Especially when they are already claiming martyrdom.
I don't think we disagree very much, but when you present your argument in a binary fashion, do not be surprised when people take it that way.Especially when they are already claiming martyrdom.
I don't think that is what I was doing. I was trying explain why I responded in kind. I wasn't suggesting that I was a victim of your post. I fail to see why you would even post a comment like this. It does nothing to further the conversation.
Actually, he just used two examples. He didn't claim they were the ONLY two examples.
EDIT:
I might also point out that you present your argument in a binary form.
I didn't say he did. I said he presented a "this" vs. "that" and then left it obscure as to whether the actual issue being discussed feel into either of them or not. I just question the "this" vs. "that" approach when saying you are not being binary in your thinking as it seems a pretty binary approach.
EDIT:
Let me try to explain why I was confused by Kirth's point. We have a poster say there was this really wacky religious name (but not "kill all non-believers" name) allowed. Then a poster comes on and says, "See his parents are fanatics". I and others say, "The name doesn't necessarily show they are fanatics." Kirth then says, "Obviously there is a difference between Christian vs Kill all non-believers". I mean, yeah there is a difference, there are a lot of differences, spelling, how it is said, blah blah, but we weren't talking about kill all non-believers so why was that introduced? What was his point. He seemed to me to be categorizing the name with the kill all believers, seeming to saying "sure you see how this name is different than something like christian". It didn't make sense to me, and that is why I asked for clarification. The issue has been clarified, I fail to see why we are still discussing it (as I continue to do so).
OK< I can see I probably need to clarify where I'm coming from.
1. Realistically, when people want to name a kid something like "Our Only Salvation is Through Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ," it's not about the kid. It's about thinking how clever they are, that every teacher on the first day of class every year will announce "Our Only Salvation is Through Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ," while calling roll, and when the kid gets his driver's license, the person at the DMV counter will need to announce it, etc., etc. It's a blatant attempt to try and require that everyone around the kid verbally affirm your personal take on life to everyone around them. There would be very little difference in me naming a kid "There Is No God, and If You Believe in One You're Wrong!" So, yeah, I'd say the parents are almost certainly fairly fanatical in that regard -- it's not enough to practice their faith, they want to try and make everyone around them announce it as well, and they're willing to use their child as a potentially unwilling tool for those ends. Claims of "hatred, bigotry, and intolerance" for calling them out on it are, in my opinion, misplaced.
2. At the same time, I equally believe that claiming children brought up in a faith are being "abused" is also extremely misplaced and definitely inappropriate for polite discussion. So that's one very dark line I want to draw -- saying a name is inappropriate, needlessly aggressive, and basically fanatical is NOT the same as claiming faith is abuse, nor should it be used as a springboard to get there, in my opinion. And if the latter is why the claims of bigotry and intolerance are being leveled, I might to some extent agree -- but I think that distinction should clearly be made, and we shouldn't automatically lump all of the "that name is basically an act of aggression" people in with the "faith is abuse" people.
3. Now, I mentioned the word "aggression," but that's still a VERY far cry from violence, so that's yet another clear distinction I want to make. I would much rather they name their kid "Our Only Salvation is Through Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ," to be an a@%&!&@, rather than something like "Now Is the Time to Butcher All Infidels!," to try and provoke that. I don't mean the first name is hunky-dory -- it's not -- but I do mean that there could still be a lot worse. One can be a fanatic or borderline fanatic without also being a murderer, or advocate of such. So if you think the name they gave their kid is just awesome, I may think you're a bit fanatical, but I don't think you're necessarily violent. And given the number of examples provided of people who can't seem to separate fanaticism from violence, this is a point we can't make often enough.
4. That said, naming a kid "Our Only Salvation is Through Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ" is a VERY far cry from naming your kid "Mary" or "Joseph."
I see trouble when people disingenuously ignore just about any of the distinctions I'm trying to make here.
|
Well, this thread has certainly jumped the rails. We've gone from 'I don't think Aragorn is a good name for a kid, fellow fantasy geeks, so please give your kids socially acceptable common names,' to some strange argument that, in effect, naming my daughter Arwen isn't comparable to naming her Mary, but is no different from naming her Faith and Love in Jesus Christ, Forever and Ever, Amen. Except that, while we may know what Mary translates to in English, and what Arwen approximates, both of those names are simply sounds to most English ears. The long overtly-religious name 'Faith and Love in Jesus Christ, Forever and Ever, Amen' is essentially a sentence written in the English language. Reaction and general feelings from this latter name are leagues from the reactions and feelings for two former names.
Also, how did we go from the OP post to this religious argument?
Also, how did we go from the OP post to this religious argument?
We went from fantasy dork names -> inappropriate names in general -> "you're a fanatic if you use the latter" -> "everyone hates poor downtrodden Christians."
|
|
Also, how did we go from the OP post to this religious argument?We went from fantasy dork names -> inappropriate names in general -> "you're a fanatic if you use the latter" -> "everyone hates poor downtrodden Christians." -> "I like strawberry shortcake."
Fixed. At least, how I think it should go.
Jason's Deli has really good shortcake.
Jason's Deli has really good shortcake.
I like how, if you get the salad bar, you also get unlimited free gingerbread mini-muffins and corn muffins. I don't know who thought to put those together, but unlike a lot of things, I'm in no great hurry to separate them out again.
Also, how did we go from the OP post to this religious argument?
Rather than Kirth's summation, it was more the comment that things like this were "typical of the religious mind".
My son is Tian, Phoenix, Indiana, Nolan and my daughter is Caisa (Ki Sa), Alora, Aare, Nolan and they go to school with a host of kids that make their names look very normal. Tamima, Sabela, Shteg, and various other names that aren't the usual boring western names that you can yell into a crowd and many people will wonder if you are addressing them.
it was more the comment that things like this were "typical of the religious mind".
I would hope that things like that are, in fact, NOT typical of the religious mind. I would normally assume that religious people, for the most part, are confident enough in their faith to practice it privately, without using their children as walking billboards for it.
|
|
Also, how did we go from the OP post to this religious argument?Rather than Kirth's summation, it was more the comment that things like this were "typical of the religious mind".
Keep in mind, you responded to a four-day old post, and the argument got started between a bunch of posters who didn't even write the post you responded to.
Keep in mind, you responded to a four-day old post, and the argument got started between a bunch of posters who didn't even write the post you responded to.
So?
I dunno, but the statement "Friede mit Gott allein durch Jesus Christus (Peace with god only through Jesus Christ)" is not a very clear one. There are several possible interpretations. At least one of these is "Act peaceably only to fellow christians". I don't see why that's so much better than the virtually synonymous "Kill all unbelievers".
Certainly, giving your child such a name does not absolutely guarantee that you are a fanatic. However, I would still state that someone who does stands a VERY good chance of being one. Someone with a sensible grasp of their religion would be unlikely to inflict that name on their child.
Then again, he will most likely only be called Fred.
Aaaaand the gold medal in the long jump goes to Sissyl!
|
funny thing... When I first read Alpha Flight, I thought "Who the hell would name their boy 'Madison'?" I've *always* thought of it as a girl's name.
Not kidding, you can do some research at the Social Security Administration yourself. Although I'm sure that Madison as a girl's name was used before Splash on occasion, it was not considered by the general public until the movie.Madison as a boy's name was used regularly before. It is, after all, a surname with a strong pedigree in the United States.
Yeah, that's the funny thing, isn't it? When I was a kid, Madison was a last name. You thought Presidents, the capital of Wisconsin, and advertising (Mad Men style, so it's male, male, male). The name means "Maud's Son", so it suggests that the name's bearer is a son. Madison was quite clearly NOT a girl's name.
However, during a time when Mallory and Melissa and Melinda were in, someone took Darryl Hannah and gave her character the name Madison. It was meant to be jarring, a joke because there's no way a real woman would be named Madison. Surprise, surprise. Now we have a whole generation that thinks Madison is quite clearly and obviously a female name.
I think that there's an important lesson in this, though. What one generation accepts as a common and "normal" name is not what the next generation considers normal. You don't see names like Pervis and Hortense anymore. Walter's a couple generations back, Jennifer is Generation X, but almost disappeared among children now. So, maybe this generation thinks Marko, and the next thinks Aragorn. That is, unless naming laws prevent the evolution of names in a culture. Furthermore, we use entertainment to define our names all the time. So, if you're wondering whether that little boy could be called Elric, remember Madison.
NOTE: Just because Madison was not a girl's name, it doesn't stop it from ever being used, of course. Girls have been given boys' names and surnames as given names for centuries. Take a look at the SSA listing for "Michael" or "John" for girls in the past. Oh, and why the heck is she named "Darryl"? So, as I said before, Madison was not a girl's name. Doesn't stop it from being used, but it wasn't a girl's name.
Aaaaand the gold medal in the long jump goes to Sissyl!
And the gold medal in political correctness goes to Brian E. Harris, for his dedicated work in ignoring the problems that follow with religion, no matter if it's fanatic! Huzzah!
My middle name is Thorin. As in Thorin Oakenshield, from the Hobbit. My dad liked his nobility, and hoped I would come to exemplify those qualities.
I think I've turned out okay.
And the gold medal in political correctness goes to Brian E. Harris, for his dedicated work in ignoring the problems that follow with religion, no matter if it's fanatic! Huzzah!
Riiiight.
Did I once say that there weren't problems? No. I agreed there were, but said that they weren't limited to religion or those that follow it, like you keep trying to insinuate.
Your whole argument has been "some religious people abuse their children, so religion is horrible!"
Get a clue.
My middle name is Thorin. As in Thorin Oakenshield, from the Hobbit. My dad liked his nobility, and hoped I would come to exemplify those qualities.
I think I've turned out okay.
And ultimately, there's not an issue with an odd name, be it a fantasy-fiction inspired name, or a religion inspired name.
Neither are my cup of tea, but they aren't my kids.
Naming your kid Aragon Strider Smith is odd. Naming your kid There Is But One God And Mohammed Is His Prophet Jenkins is odd.
It doesn't mean that the first parent is delusional, and the second one is going to train his kid to build IEDs. It means that both were inspired by something dear to them, and apparently aren't ashamed of that.
Naming your kid Aragon Strider Smith is odd. Naming your kid There Is But One God And Mohammed Is His Prophet Jenkins is odd.
It doesn't mean that the first parent is delusional, and the second one is going to train his kid to build IEDs. It means that both were inspired by something dear to them, and apparently aren't ashamed of that.
Again, I disagree. In the second case, it's a pretty transparent bid to try and gets teachers, clerks, etc. to call out "There Is But One God And Mohammed Is His Prophet!" in public places. It has nothing to do with the kid, and everything to do with trying to game the system to co-opt bystanders into advertising for you.
