Lucifer?

526SadieSadie

From Yahoo News:

We're all familiar with the oddball baby names that Hollywood celebs hang around their children's necks here in America, but apparently, New Zealand has had enough.

The country's baby name registrar has officially banned the name "Lucifer" after not one but THREE sets of parents tried to name their babies after the spawn of the devil.

So take note, Odd Baby Name Haters: There's actually a baby name that's more tragic than, say, "Jermajesty" out there.

[Poll]

ILoveRedVino

As much as I want to vote "no way", there are some names that are just plain cruel.  Lucifer?  Some family named their kids Hitler and Arian Nation a few years ago.  Honestly, it is setting the kid up for failure, is cruel, and borderline abusive, in my opinion.

I work in a hospital and we recently had a kid in named Natas.  Satan backwards.

Emiliana7

As much as I dislike bad names- I don't think the gov't have a roll in out and out banning of names. However, situations like the girl named Tullulah does the hula- yes, just for the fact that its not a name but moreso a sentance. Tullulah (I might be misspelling that) is a fine name and they would have been fine if they would have stopped there.

And I think Lucifer is still better a name than Jermajesty.

sugarpumpkin716

ILoveRedVino:

As much as I want to vote "no way", there are some names that are just plain cruel.  Lucifer?  Some family named their kids Hitler and Arian Nation a few years ago.  Honestly, it is setting the kid up for failure, is cruel, and borderline abusive, in my opinion.

I work in a hospital and we recently had a kid in named Natas.  Satan backwards.

holy crap dude...

Enchanted616

I'm kinda torn on this one.  IMO, Lucifer should absolutely not be banned, it is an actual name.  As someone said last time this post came up, though.. I get banning naming your kid "aajjeinf1143" and saying its pronounced nick, or something.

 

Not to thread jack, but does anyone remember a couple years ago when a couple got their kids taken away (for other reasons) by CPS, and the three were named "Adolf Hitler," "Nazi," and "Aryan Nation"?  I'm usually against government censorship in any form, but I'm really on the fence on this one.  I could see banning names with such obvious hate behind them, I don't know.

Enchanted616

ILoveRedVino:

As much as I want to vote "no way", there are some names that are just plain cruel.  Lucifer?  Some family named their kids Hitler and Arian Nation a few years ago.  Honestly, it is setting the kid up for failure, is cruel, and borderline abusive, in my opinion.

I work in a hospital and we recently had a kid in named Natas.  Satan backwards.

 Haha, I'm slow. 

526SadieSadie

I heard about the couple with Hitler and Aryan Nation, they got them a birthday cake with a swastika on it.  Lovely.

I joke about the OBGYN handing little Pilot Inspektor back to the parents and saying "Uh-uh.  Try again please." But it's totally unfair to actually ban names.  One person commented on the article saying that Lucifer meant "The Giver of Light" and had nothing to do with the devil. 

526SadieSadie

I heard about the couple with Hitler and Aryan Nation, they got them a birthday cake with a swastika on it.  Lovely.

I joke about the OBGYN handing little Pilot Inspektor back to the parents and saying "Uh-uh.  Try again please." But it's totally unfair to actually ban names.  On person commented on the article saying that Lucifer meant "The Giver of Light" and had nothing to do with evil. 

CurlyFry16

As much as I would like to vote yes, bringing the government into such a personal decision is ridiculous. Where would you draw the line?

mlf625

Absolutely not.  As sick and wrong as *I* may think it is to name your kid Lucifer, the government actually banning names is a slippery slope.

526SadieSadie

mlf625:

Absolutely not.  As sick and wrong as *I* may think it is to name your kid Lucifer, the government actually banning names is a slippery slope.

It's scary.  But I guess I shouldn't be surprised by a country that doesn't let single women or gay couples adopt or have foster children (last I checked, anyway)

BlindysWife

On one hand, YES. It's one thing for parents to have the freedom of spelling their kids' name stupidly, or something strange like Pilot Inspektor. But it's quite another when the name is hateful or negative. I'm thinking along the lines of Felon (see post below, yikes), Hitler or DummyHead. KWIM?

But on the other hand, I don't know how you'd ever draw the line or be truly objective in making the decision on what is acceptable and what isn't. 

ycristina84

Considering that the basis for this is because in Christianity Lucifer is evil, I think it's absolutely ridiculous. Christianity is not the only religion is this world, nor is it in America. I don't think people should be forced to conform to that if they don't even believe in the Devil or the stigma behind the name...

To be honest, I think it's kind of a cool name. I wouldn't use it, but I don't think it's as bad as Aryan Nation or Adolf Hitler. I think we can all agree that there is no contesting that these are based on pure evil and there is no other way to interpret them. Lucifer at least was the cat in Cinderella, so they can always use that

526SadieSadie

ycristina84:

Considering that the basis for this is because in Christianity Lucifer is evil, I think it's absolutely ridiculous. Christianity is not the only religion is this world, nor is it in America. I don't think people should be forced to conform to that if they don't even believe in the Devil or the stigma behind the name...

To be honest, I think it's kind of a cool name. I wouldn't use it, but I don't think it's as bad as Aryan Nation or Adolf Hitler. I think we can all agree that there is no contesting that these are based on pure evil and there is no other way to interpret them. Lucifer at least was the cat in Cinderella, so they can always use that

Haha!  Jack-Jack and Gus call him Rue-sah-fee!  Yes, I'm only 6 years old.

I agree with your arguement 100%.  If Damien isn't on the banned list, Lucifer shouldn't be either.  It's another name associated with the devil (even before The Omen) and if its ok, Lucifer should be too.

There are so many more offensive names, I'd be interested to find out what other names are banned.

Kissimi21

While there are some truly horrible names out there, I am against allowing the government the right to tell people what to name their children.  They never know where to draw the line.  A few years ago in Quebec, a couple sued the government for not allowing them to name their daughter Heaven (I think it was Heaven or something like it).  Not because it's a bad name, but because the government said it sounded "too English". 

JMU_Bride09

Technically, his name was Lucifer BEFORE the Fall, before he became the devil. And I believe that the name itself (Adolph included) is not evil and should not be banned. Also, no government should have that kind of power. That's ridiculous. It's not a name I would use because of the connotation, but it shouldn't be banned.

WashingtonQueen

The only rules that our government has for naming a child are that you are not allowed to use numbers or symbols, letters only. Although some name are just stupid crazy, I think that as a free country, we should always be allowed the freedom to name our kids what we want. I would be pissed off if I had to get someone's approval to name my child.

RedCardinal

mlf625:

Absolutely not.  As sick and wrong as *I* may think it is to name your kid Lucifer, the government actually banning names is a slippery slope.

This!

Ruby_Soho

526SadieSadie:

mlf625:

Absolutely not.  As sick and wrong as *I* may think it is to name your kid Lucifer, the government actually banning names is a slippery slope.

It's scary.  But I guess I shouldn't be surprised by a country that doesn't let single women or gay couples adopt or have foster children (last I checked, anyway)

Um... yes they can, they just can't adopt as a couple. The Act that law comes from dates from 1955 and there is a new bill in the process of being written. That is the only area of LGBT inequality, along with the right to marry, left in our laws. Except we allow civil union which gives them the same legal status as a married couple.

So lets not get into a country bashing here. You agree with a law or you don't but there's no need to bag a whole country, especially when you obviously know sweet eff all about it. I'd also like to point out that there are many states in America where you can still marry your first cousin...

Yules

Enchanted616:

I'm kinda torn on this one.  IMO, Lucifer should absolutely not be banned, it is an actual name.  As someone said last time this post came up, though.. I get banning naming your kid "aajjeinf1143" and saying its pronounced nick, or something.

 

Not to thread jack, but does anyone remember a couple years ago when a couple got their kids taken away (for other reasons) by CPS, and the three were named "Adolf Hitler," "Nazi," and "Aryan Nation"?  I'm usually against government censorship in any form, but I'm really on the fence on this one.  I could see banning names with such obvious hate behind them, I don't know.

Totally agree with this post. I'd ban the nazi names before Lucifer. It's embarasing that these were used right here in New Jersey, a very diverse state where these children are going to be teased all their lives.  

ycristina84

Ruby_Soho:

526SadieSadie:

mlf625:

Absolutely not.  As sick and wrong as *I* may think it is to name your kid Lucifer, the government actually banning names is a slippery slope.

It's scary.  But I guess I shouldn't be surprised by a country that doesn't let single women or gay couples adopt or have foster children (last I checked, anyway)

Um... yes they can, they just can't adopt as a couple. The Act that law comes from dates from 1955 and there is a new bill in the process of being written. That is the only area of LGBT inequality, along with the right to marry, left in our laws. Except we allow civil union which gives them the same legal status as a married couple.

So lets not get into a country bashing here. You agree with a law or you don't but there's no need to bag a whole country, especially when you obviously know sweet eff all about it. I'd also like to point out that there are many states in America where you can still marry your first cousin...

I don't normally butt in, but that is really rude and condescending. If someone wants to "bash" their country, they have the right to do so. The same right you have to be so patriotic. And no, gay couples cannot marry in most states nor can they adopt. And as someone that does love this country, I am also very disappointed that these basic rights are not being met. The way you say "only area of LGBT of unequality" really irks me. That is all the areas! What areas are left?! And civil union, or pretending to be straight/single to adopt is a great injustice and does make our country look pretty shitty. My brother cannot adopt nor marry in my state and it breaks my heart. And I think that is something to bash any day of the week. We are all entitled to opinions, but there was no need to belittle what she was saying! And what exactly are you implying by the cousin comment? It really only further shows the backwardness of the laws. Cousins can marry, but same sex couples cannot. I'm confused to how that makes your point... (Please forgive the formatting, as this stupid iPhone doesn't let me break paragraphs!)

Ruby_Soho

ycristina84:

Ruby_Soho:

526SadieSadie:

mlf625:

Absolutely not.  As sick and wrong as *I* may think it is to name your kid Lucifer, the government actually banning names is a slippery slope.

It's scary.  But I guess I shouldn't be surprised by a country that doesn't let single women or gay couples adopt or have foster children (last I checked, anyway)

Um... yes they can, they just can't adopt as a couple. The Act that law comes from dates from 1955 and there is a new bill in the process of being written. That is the only area of LGBT inequality, along with the right to marry, left in our laws. Except we allow civil union which gives them the same legal status as a married couple.

So lets not get into a country bashing here. You agree with a law or you don't but there's no need to bag a whole country, especially when you obviously know sweet eff all about it. I'd also like to point out that there are many states in America where you can still marry your first cousin...

I don't normally butt in, but that is really rude and condescending. If someone wants to "bash" their country, they have the right to do so. The same right you have to be so patriotic. And no, gay couples cannot marry in most states nor can they adopt. And as someone that does love this country, I am also very disappointed that these basic rights are not being met. The way you say "only area of LGBT of unequality" really irks me. That is all the areas! What areas are left?! And civil union, or pretending to be straight/single to adopt is a great injustice and does make our country look pretty shitty. My brother cannot adopt nor marry in my state and it breaks my heart. And I think that is something to bash any day of the week. We are all entitled to opinions, but there was no need to belittle what she was saying! And what exactly are you implying by the cousin comment? It really only further shows the backwardness of the laws. Cousins can marry, but same sex couples cannot. I'm confused to how that makes your point... (Please forgive the formatting, as this stupid iPhone doesn't let me break paragraphs!)

Did you notice that *I* live in New Zealand. I'm defending New Zealand and New Zealand law? (not being snarky, just checking because I'm not sure why you're getting so annoyed!)

I'm saying that just because some crap laws exist is not a reason to vilify an entire country. She's said she's not surprised of the name law because NZ is a country that doesn't allow X. I'm saying that one law does not a country make. Just like the US has stupid laws allowing you to marry your cousin.

And there's lots more to LGBT equality than just marriage, there's the right to have intercourse for one, which did use to be illegal.

In New Zealand, LGBT couples can adopt, they don't need to pretend to be single BUT both members of the couple cannot adopt. So if one person comes to the relationship with a child, the partner cannot adopt that child. Yet. Yes, it's unfair they can't adopt together but they can technically adopt. They can also foster.

ycristina84

Ruby_Soho:

ycristina84:

Ruby_Soho:

526SadieSadie:

mlf625:

Absolutely not.  As sick and wrong as *I* may think it is to name your kid Lucifer, the government actually banning names is a slippery slope.

It's scary.  But I guess I shouldn't be surprised by a country that doesn't let single women or gay couples adopt or have foster children (last I checked, anyway)

Um... yes they can, they just can't adopt as a couple. The Act that law comes from dates from 1955 and there is a new bill in the process of being written. That is the only area of LGBT inequality, along with the right to marry, left in our laws. Except we allow civil union which gives them the same legal status as a married couple.

So lets not get into a country bashing here. You agree with a law or you don't but there's no need to bag a whole country, especially when you obviously know sweet eff all about it. I'd also like to point out that there are many states in America where you can still marry your first cousin...

I don't normally butt in, but that is really rude and condescending. If someone wants to "bash" their country, they have the right to do so. The same right you have to be so patriotic. And no, gay couples cannot marry in most states nor can they adopt. And as someone that does love this country, I am also very disappointed that these basic rights are not being met. The way you say "only area of LGBT of unequality" really irks me. That is all the areas! What areas are left?! And civil union, or pretending to be straight/single to adopt is a great injustice and does make our country look pretty shitty. My brother cannot adopt nor marry in my state and it breaks my heart. And I think that is something to bash any day of the week. We are all entitled to opinions, but there was no need to belittle what she was saying! And what exactly are you implying by the cousin comment? It really only further shows the backwardness of the laws. Cousins can marry, but same sex couples cannot. I'm confused to how that makes your point... (Please forgive the formatting, as this stupid iPhone doesn't let me break paragraphs!)

Did you notice that *I* live in New Zealand. I'm defending New Zealand and New Zealand law? (not being snarky, just checking because I'm not sure why you're getting so annoyed!)

I'm saying that just because some crap laws exist is not a reason to vilify an entire country. She's said she's not surprised of the name law because NZ is a country that doesn't allow X. I'm saying that one law does not a country make. Just like the US has stupid laws allowing you to marry your cousin.

And there's lots more to LGBT equality than just marriage, there's the right to have intercourse for one, which did use to be illegal.

In New Zealand, LGBT couples can adopt, they don't need to pretend to be single BUT both members of the couple cannot adopt. So if one person comes to the relationship with a child, the partner cannot adopt that child. Yet. Yes, it's unfair they can't adopt together but they can technically adopt. They can also foster.

Wow. I totally missed the NZ thing. I just get very passionate about this subject. And I was assuming she was saying that she wouldn't be surprised if that happened here (the U.S.) because of that. I didn't think she was making any connection to NZ at all... I apologize if it seemed I was attacking, but it certainly doesn't change what I was trying to say. You were quite dismissive at the lack of rights...Again though, I'm sorry. I'll make a point next time to really read people's location, 'cause I never do!