http://www6.comcast.net/news/article...19/Friday_s.Child/?cvqh=itn_friday

ROME — What's in a name? If the name is Friday, shame and ridicule, according to Italian judges who forbade a couple from naming their child like the character in "Robinson Crusoe."

For more click the link..


Soooo.. Why can't they name their kid Friday? I understand not naming a kid Osama Bin Laden or something like that, but Friday??

And in other news, fans of the land of make-believe are outraged..

This thing with the names is becoming more and more ridiculous, but not because of the bureaucracy that allows or disallows them, it's because of the parents who can't come up with something decent. There are more and more kids today who have a name that may indeed subject them to shame and ridicule.

Those Italian judges did the right thing.

Well, I wish names like Shaniqua and laqweef and shrolanda and other idiotic names that .. inner city.. residents name their kids would be banned.. Something like FRIDAY is more "normal".. I guess..

Quoting Airlinelover (Reply 2): Well, I wish names like Shaniqua and laqweef and shrolanda and other idiotic names that .. inner city.. residents name their kids would be banned.. Something like FRIDAY is more "normal".. I guess..

Around here my fav "creative" name is Maikkon, (spelled "my-con"...), that is the result of our illiterate parents trying to name the kid "Michael". A few yrs ago I met an yugoslavian guy in a conference and he introduced himself as "Yamezdin"...but his ID card said "James Dean"....yep exactly like that! "J" in serbian sounds like "i", so his parents idea of naming him after the actor didn't go that well.

There was a kid in Colombia who's name was Usnavy (US Navy)

In Southern Africa, its common to see names like Pinky, Doctor, Computer, and Innocence.

Quoting LooneyToon (Reply 4): Innocence.

Innocence, while rare, has in fact been a named that was used by Popes.

Quoting Airlinelover (Reply 2): Well, I wish names like Shaniqua and laqweef and shrolanda and other idiotic names that .. inner city.. residents name their kids would be banned

Perfectly normal, perfectly healthy. Can't judge.   
It's a black thing and us crackers just don't understand.  

Quoting LTU932 (Reply 1): This thing with the names is becoming more and more ridiculous, but not because of the bureaucracy that allows or disallows them,

Oh no, they catch some of the blame for this crap. Why exactly should the government have a say in what you name your kid no matter how stupid it might be.

Quoting LTU932 (Reply 1): it's because of the parents who can't come up with something decent.

And these are the folks that should be subjected to sterilization otherwise we will eventually be overrun by idiots with stupid names.  

Quoting LTU932 (Reply 1): There are more and more kids today who have a name that may indeed subject them to shame and ridicule.

Oh boo frickin hoo. Everybody gets teased as a kid. It's part of life. If having a stupid name causes a kid such anguish then they have bigger problems to worry about. I still say the parents should be beaten senselessly though for giving out such dumbass names.

Quoting LTU932 (Reply 1): Those Italian judges did the right thing.

No they didn't. I'm so glad that all of Italy's other problems have been solved that they can take care of denying names to kids.   

Quoting Airlinelover (Reply 2): Well, I wish names like Shaniqua and laqweef and shrolanda and other idiotic names that .. inner city.. residents name their kids would be banned..

I don't know or heard of any white or latino people with those names that live in the inner city!

Quoting Tsaord (Reply 7): I don't know or heard of any white or latino people with those names that live in the inner city!

I believe that was his point. You only hear names like that out of one ethnic group.

Check this out.... Australia, not Italy  

Quoting LooneyToon (Reply 4): There was a kid in Colombia who's name was Usnavy (US Navy)

There's one woman here whose name is Disiten (DC-10) ! No prizes for guessing the job of her father when she was born! Not sure whether she ended up marrying a planefreak though... with a name of Avia Disitenty... Perhaps a spotter might have fallen in love with her name! LOL

Someone needs to remind the bureaucrats that make up the Italian state that they do NOT own Italy's children.

Quoting MD-90 (Reply 11): Someone needs to remind the bureaucrats that make up the Italian state that they do NOT own Italy's children.

Well there are laws to naming; in Italy as well as (probably) everywhere. They're there to protect the child from irresponsible parents. I imagine it's the authorities' job to implement these laws.

Quoting DeltaGator (Reply 6): No they didn't.

Yes, they did. I mean, unless the name Friday is part of the culture of any ethnic group, there's no reason to call a kid Friday.

Quoting DeltaGator (Reply 6): Oh boo frickin hoo. Everybody gets teased as a kid.

Teasing is not the problem, it is expected everywhere and anytime. The problem is when it becomes total ridicule, and that is the case here. Just look at all those celebrities, from which most, if not all of current generation celebrities, including in the US, constantly come up with odd and outrageous name. I mean, would you like your daughter to be called "Apple" à la Gwyneth Paltrow?

Quoting Rara (Reply 12): there are laws to naming; in Italy as well as (probably) everywhere.

Down here in Latin America, most countries don't even have such laws. Otherwise, there wouldn't be this current surge in weird names down here.

I personally vowed myself that if I ever have kids, they'll get a name that is commonly given to kids, not something "fancy".

Quoting LTU932 (Reply 13): I mean, unless the name Friday is part of the culture of any ethnic group, there's no reason to call a kid Friday.

Says you, and I suppose your government as well. I'm sorry but it just seems a bit too much "Big Brother" to me. Plus, if the kids have stupid names it makes it easier to pick them out for what will eventually be their inherited stupidity from the dumbass parents that gave them such a name.

Quoting LTU932 (Reply 13): I mean, would you like your daughter to be called "Apple" à la Gwyneth Paltrow?

No, but then I'm not a pompous blowhard asshole like that skank.  

Quoting LTU932 (Reply 13): I personally vowed myself that if I ever have kids, they'll get a name that is commonly given to kids, not something "fancy".

The problem is that you and I have brains and can think like rational people and realize what a stupid name would do to our kids in the long run.

Quoting Rara (Reply 12): Well there are laws to naming; in Italy as well as (probably) everywhere. They're there to protect the child from irresponsible parents.

How about you spend that money on educating these dumb ass parents a little bit so maybe they don't continue to crap out unwanted stupid kids with idiotic names that will eventually be a burden on society? Crazy idea I know but why not head the stupidity off at the pass early on.

Today flight is on a MacDonnell Burring MD-40-40 Aircraff, it is a double-deck whispa jet hun. I am your head hostest, Shriley Q. Liqua, how you durrin'? Today I am assisted by Tonkiqa, Shaniqua, Daniqua, Laquisha, Taquisha, and miss Rondha, we do not know the sexual urrientation of Miss Ronda, but you may be please to axe her after we have reached cruuzin' altiturde. I ain't gonna tell you how to fastin ya seatbelt, if you dat iggnunt, you best get off the playen...now sit down and shut up and here we go!

(Yeah, there are worse names than "Friday")

FO REALZ

Quoting Rara (Reply 12): Well there are laws to naming; in Italy as well as (probably) everywhere. They're there to protect the child from irresponsible parents.

That state is not the Great Parent Who Must Take Care of All of Us Children Because We're Too Dumb Too Take Care of Our Own. Bureaucrats, legislators, and judges have absolutely no right to tell any parent what she can name her child. That's outrageous. There may actually be a boy (or girl, for that matter) out there named Shithead, but no one has any right to interfere with a parent naming his child what he wants. If the kid doesn't like it then he can change his name when he's old enough to be legally recognized.

I had a former coworker whose parents did not name him. He only had a last name. Apparently his parents where stringent hippies from Oregon, and believed that if he wanted a first name, he would get one himself. He told me that it only made his life harder when trying to take care of essential issues such as at the DMV.

Kris

Quoting UAL747 (Reply 15):

                

Terrible, but I laughed.

Cheers,
Cameron

As a DAD
I'd think of a name for my kid,then think about the pet names that name would invite,consider it only thereafter.  

regds
MEL

Quoting UAL747 (Reply 15): Today flight is on a MacDonnell Burring MD-40-40 Aircraff, it is a double-deck whispa jet hun. I am your head hostest, Shriley Q. Liqua, how you durrin'? Today I am assisted by Tonkiqa, Shaniqua, Daniqua, Laquisha, Taquisha, and miss Rondha, we do not know the sexual urrientation of Miss Ronda, but you may be please to axe her after we have reached cruuzin' altiturde. I ain't gonna tell you how to fastin ya seatbelt, if you dat iggnunt, you best get off the playen...now sit down and shut up and here we go!

ROFLMAO!!!!! Except.. "I am assisted" should be "I iz helped"

hehe

Chris

Quoting DeltaGator (Reply 14): How about you spend that money on educating these dumb ass parents a little bit so maybe they don't continue to crap out unwanted stupid kids with idiotic names that will eventually be a burden on society? Crazy idea I know but why not head the stupidity off at the pass early on.

Not a bad idea at all. Yet statistics will tell you that there's always the occasional idiot who will name his son "Hitler" because he likes the little 'tache. No education will completely prevent that.

Quoting MD-90 (Reply 16):

Alright, thanks for the ultra-libertarian view on things.   Doesn't that usually come from those types that will first argue against any authority of the state in name laws, and then rave on about some retard celebrity naming her daughter "Rosewater Goodsmell" or whatever, and cry about the loss of morals and values and where this world is coming to?

Quoting MD-90 (Reply 16): That state is not the Great Parent Who Must Take Care of All of Us Children Because We're Too Dumb Too Take Care of Our Own. Bureaucrats, legislators, and judges have absolutely no right to tell any parent what she can name her child. That's outrageous. There may actually be a boy (or girl, for that matter) out there named Shithead, but no one has any right to interfere with a parent naming his child what he wants. If the kid doesn't like it then he can change his name when he's old enough to be legally recognized.

I entirely disagree. Some people ARE too dumb to take care of their children. You need to be qualified for any job, to get a driver's license, a gun license, etc. But anyone who can copulate can be a parent. A child is not the property of his/her parents (if anyone disagrees with this view, I cannot do anything about it, but I consider anyone who thinks they own their children to belong in the same category of human scum as Pol Pot or Hitler or Idi Amin). What I find it "outrageous" is that you care more about a parent's right to name their child anything, even something derogatory, than about the child's right to grow up with a normal name. Such laws are designed to protect the child's rights and welfare. Instead of putting the blame on legislators and "bureaucracy", imagine how it would have been if you were a child with a name like that. By the time the child were "old enough to be legally recognized", they would have been through hell with such a name.

If someone tried to name their child Shithead, or some other such clearly derogatory name, I would probably take that baby away from the parents and put him/her up for adoption. I cannot imagine that any good parent who loves their children would give their child a name with negative connotations. Ever heard of something called child abuse? Swearing at your children is child abuse, let alone giving them a derogatory name. Are you out of your mind?

Probably in most civilized countries, it would be illegal to give your child a clearly derogatory name. And there are laws in many places limiting at least somewhat what name you can give your child. I am from Canada, and while in most provinces, as in the US and other Anglo-Saxon jurisdictions, you generally have a free hand in giving your child a name, the registrar could probably call into question some name (s)he thinks is inappropriate. I have heard of a case in Quebec (has a Civil Code, not Common Law, there are clear legal provisions about people's names) where some parents wanted to name their child Spatule (French for spatula. WTF???) In Czechia, where I currently live, there are clear rules for naming children: boys can't be given girls' names and vice-versa. Two living siblings cannot be given the same name. If the name is foreign-sounding, you must show that it has been used before. The case with the boy called "Vendredi" in Italy is far from unique.

I don't see giving your child a name as a right. It's a duty that must be done responsibly. Any names that are significantly likely to cause a child problems or that would give legitimate reason for resentment should simply not be given. If I wrote the law, the rules would be tougher. As a minimum, I would ban inventing new names or corrupting old ones, giving children the same name as another living sibling, giving your child the exact same name as a living parent (I don't care s**t for your "family tradition". Your child's right to have a distinct name from dad and not be confused with him, be in his shadow etc should come first. If the father was John Michael, you could still name your child, for example, Michael John or Iain Michael), giving any name that was more likely than average to cause ridicule, or be excessively difficult to prounounce in the country you are living in, as well as eg. naming your boy Jane or your girl John. If someone resents that, if someone thinks its draconian, I couldn't care less. There would still be many names to choose from and the point of the law would be not to restrict any personal freedoms of yours. Call yourself Mud if you wish, but you should be under obligation toward your child to give him/her a name (s)he can live with reasonably.

One of my employees is named 'America'. She often just introduces herself by her middle name of 'Lynn', though, when dealing with clients as it's much easier than having to explain "yes, my name really is America".

Well parents should name their kids like they won´t but they should think about the consequences such a kid could face in school....

How about the famous Mary Joanna 

Quoting Rara (Reply 21): Doesn't that usually come from those types that will first argue against any authority of the state in name laws, and then rave on about some retard celebrity naming her daughter "Rosewater Goodsmell" or whatever, and cry about the loss of morals and values and where this world is coming to?

Yes, I will definitely argue against the state having any naming laws, but not to cry about the loss of morals and values and make a big stink about it. If you want to name your kid China or De'mon (one of MSU's football players), that's no one else's business.

Duke, thanks for the carefully thought out reply.

Quoting Duke (Reply 22): I entirely disagree. Some people ARE too dumb to take care of their children.

They very well may be, but when you write that, it makes you sound like you're clearly superior in knowledge and experience and that you should determine how other people raise their children.

Quoting Duke (Reply 22): A child is not the property of his/her parents (if anyone disagrees with this view, I cannot do anything about it, but I consider anyone who thinks they own their children to belong in the same category of human scum as Pol Pot or Hitler or Idi Amin).

I agree. But in the same category of human scum as Pol Pot or Idi Amin? No.

Quoting Duke (Reply 22): What I find it "outrageous" is that you care more about a parent's right to name their child anything, even something derogatory, than about the child's right to grow up with a normal name.

I care more about civil liberties and the diminishing of freedom by states.

Quoting Duke (Reply 22): imagine how it would have been if you were a child with a name like that. By the time the child were "old enough to be legally recognized", they would have been through hell with such a name.

Hell, as you put it, that's largely a product of state schooling. But that aside, yes, I wouldn't want to have a name like Shithead (pronounced Sha-teed).

Quoting Duke (Reply 22): If someone tried to name their child Shithead, or some other such clearly derogatory name, I would probably take that baby away from the parents and put him/her up for adoption.

Now this is truly outrageous. Do you really support using agents of the state (who are backed up by naked force if you resist) to take people's babies away from them permanently if they name their child something that you disagree with? I don't think I can adequately express how horrifying it is that there are people out there who even speculate about this scenario.

Quoting Duke (Reply 22): I don't see giving your child a name as a right. It's a duty that must be done responsibly.

It is the fundamental right of the parents to name their children and it is also a duty that should be done responsibly.

Quoting Duke (Reply 22): Any names that are significantly likely to cause a child problems or that would give legitimate reason for resentment should simply not be given.

Agreed. But the state doesn't need to be involved. Family and friends should counsel the parents against giving their kid a highly problematic name.

Quoting Duke (Reply 22): As a minimum, I would ban inventing new names or corrupting old ones

I think it reflects on the parents, especially when they misspell common names, but you cannot ban inventing new names or changing old ones. That is fundamentally wrong.

Quoting UAL747 (Reply 15): Today flight is on a MacDonnell Burring MD-40-40 Aircraff, it is a double-deck whispa jet hun. I am your head hostest, Shriley Q. Liqua, how you durrin'? Today I am assisted by Tonkiqa, Shaniqua, Daniqua, Laquisha, Taquisha, and miss Rondha, we do not know the sexual urrientation of Miss Ronda, but you may be please to axe her after we have reached cruuzin' altiturde. I ain't gonna tell you how to fastin ya seatbelt, if you dat iggnunt, you best get off the playen...now sit down and shut up and here we go! (Yeah, there are worse names than "Friday")

I have that on my iPod. Crew love it. I play it to crew and stations who haven't heard it on the p.a. (BEFORE passengers board).

It still makes me laugh!!!

Quoting MD-90 (Reply 25): I think it reflects on the parents, especially when they misspell common names, but you cannot ban inventing new names or changing old ones. That is fundamentally wrong.

Very much reflects on the parents. Would love to hear the conversation between a kid who keeps getting teased about his/her name and their parents as to why they picked that name (I was hungry and it was in the pantry (child named LeMonjello (lemon jello), for example)).

Name your child whatever it is you feel you need to, but with that comes the torment you possibly put your child through.

Think, people, think.

Wait, that may be just the problem. They don't.

MD-90, If you write that parents should have the right to name their children something offensive, don't expect a namby-pamby response.

Quoting MD-90 (Reply 25): Quoting Duke (Reply 22): I entirely disagree. Some people ARE too dumb to take care of their children. They very well may be, but when you write that, it makes you sound like you're clearly superior in knowledge and experience and that you should determine how other people raise their children.

And what if I do? If I think I know better, I have the right to state my opinion and promote it. What you are saying is a convenient excuse, a cop-out which enables people to do what they want with their children. You seem to assume that there are no universal values for raising children. Society should ban clearly harmful things and have serious standards for parents. Just because people disagree on this issue does not mean there are no absolutes, only that there are different opinions (which to some extent goes hand in hand with different levels of being civilized).

Quoting MD-90 (Reply 25): Quoting Duke (Reply 22): A child is not the property of his/her parents (if anyone disagrees with this view, I cannot do anything about it, but I consider anyone who thinks they own their children to belong in the same category of human scum as Pol Pot or Hitler or Idi Amin). I agree. But in the same category of human scum as Pol Pot or Idi Amin? No.

If my comment seems strong, my point is not that such parents are the same as mass murderers. Rather that those who think their children are their property are acting like dictators and diminishing their human value.

Quoting MD-90 (Reply 25): I care more about civil liberties and the diminishing of freedom by states.

I don't recognize any civil liberties that infringe on the rights of others. Claiming that parents should have the right to do with their children pretty much as they please is to me the same as saying that husbands' civil liberties were infringed on when the state stepped in and made it illegal to treat their wives as they wanted.

Quoting MD-90 (Reply 25): Now this is truly outrageous. Do you really support using agents of the state (who are backed up by naked force if you resist) to take people's babies away from them permanently if they name their child something that you disagree with? I don't think I can adequately express how horrifying it is that there are people out there who even speculate about this scenario.

Read again what I wrote. I did not write that I would take away a child just because I disagree with their choice of name. I said I would PROBABLY do so if someone came up with a DEROGATORY name (your Shithead, or for example, Bitch, or Asshole, or I Hate You), because such a person would. I can hardly imagine that anyone who would give such a name to their child would have good intentions. Why would you give such a name to your child unless you have animosity toward him/her. I never said I would take away a child just because someone wanted to give a bizarre name to their child (eg. Moon Unit Zappa). But giving a name like a swear word or otherwise patently negative would indicate that the person is not fit to parent. You seem to be more horrified at the thought of such a moron having their child taken away than of a child having to grow up with a name that is a bad word.

Quoting MD-90 (Reply 25): It is the fundamental right of the parents to name their children and it is also a duty that should be done responsibly

But you place no enforceable obligation on the parent to do it responsibly. I don't recognize any fundamental right to get gratification from your children at your children's expense.

Quoting MD-90 (Reply 25): Quoting Duke (Reply 22): Any names that are significantly likely to cause a child problems or that would give legitimate reason for resentment should simply not be given. Agreed. But the state doesn't need to be involved. Family and friends should counsel the parents against giving their kid a highly problematic name.

But the other family members can't stop the person from doing so. Many people have gotten away with giving their kids stupid names because they CAN and their children have suffered as a result.

Seriously, I don't think laws which reasonably limit what name you can give a child are much different from laws which make you send your children to school, which ban emotional abuse, or which make you support your child. They are not meant to limit YOUR personal freedom, they are meant to protect the child's interests.

Quoting Duke (Reply 27): Seriously, I don't think laws which reasonably limit what name you can give a child are much different from laws which make you send your children to school, which ban emotional abuse, or which make you support your child. They are not meant to limit YOUR personal freedom, they are meant to protect the child's interests.

I think that's exactly the point. We all value freedom and we want to protect individual freedom whereever possible. But your freedom ends where someone else's freedom is infringed. You can make a point about the freedom of parents to name their child, and it's a good point. But in some cases, it infringes the child's right to grow up hassle-free and without being ridiculed. It's this freedom right of the child that makes naming laws justifiable.

Quoting Rara (Reply 28): I think that's exactly the point. We all value freedom and we want to protect individual freedom whereever possible. But your freedom ends where someone else's freedom is infringed. You can make a point about the freedom of parents to name their child, and it's a good point. But in some cases, it infringes the child's right to grow up hassle-free and without being ridiculed. It's this freedom right of the child that makes naming laws justifiable.

Agreed. But come to think of it, in Germany this could be a matter that is directly handled by the Constitution, specifically Article 1 Paragraph 1 and I quote: "Human Dignity is untouchable. It's protection is the duty of all state powers. (Die Würde des Menschen ist unantastbar. Sie zu schützen ist die Pflicht aller staatlichen Gewalt.)".

Parents by definition have the obligation of guiding their children in basic things, make sure they go to school, and discipline them adequately to teach them their limits. That definition does NOT say that we adults own children or can do what we please with them. Bottom line, some people tend to think that, children and teenagers under 18 do not have any rights at all, and that's totally wrong. Yes, they still have to be under a supervision that is adequate for their age, but they also do have rights, and they have their dignity.

Had this verdict been fallen in Germany, in the German Justice System, it's quite possible that, even if the parents were to challenge it at the Constitutional Court in Karlsruhe, this verdict would stand because it was taken in accordance with Article 1 Paragraph 1 of the Basic Law. I'm sure that in Italy, a similar law or entry in the Constitution, which requires the state to protect and defend Human Dignity also exists.

Quoting MD-90 (Reply 16): That state is not the Great Parent Who Must Take Care of All of Us Children Because We're Too Dumb Too Take Care of Our Own.

Then why do we have child vaccination laws and mandatory schooling?

On a side note, what is your position on mandating that a child has their parents last name?

Quoting Duke (Reply 22): A child is not the property of his/her parents

Totally agree. Unfortunately a lot of societies still place a lot more importance in the last name(s) than in the own ones as a reflection of just that.

Quoting Duke (Reply 27): . . .I have the right to state my opinion and promote it.

But not to impose it, and that's where the problem lies. And the judge has no more rights than you do, either.

Now I am in favor of laws protecting those who don't have an independent state of mind yet, sort of like contract law provides for, but of course there is a point that they must not cross and this issue (naming laws) is a bit in the gray area IMO.

I'm still undecided on this one. . . doesn't sound like a bad idea at all, though. It's kind of a subjective area and that's what bothers me.

Quoting Duke (Reply 27): Claiming that parents should have the right to do with their children pretty much as they please is to me the same as saying that husbands' civil liberties were infringed on when the state stepped in and made it illegal to treat their wives as they wanted.

Spouse abuse has always been immoral and illegal. Some societies have traditionally condoned it and still do, but it did not take the state to eliminate it. And being free to choose your own child's name contrasted to physical abuse? Absurd!

Quoting Pyrex (Reply 30): Then why do we have child vaccination laws and mandatory schooling? On a side note, what is your position on mandating that a child has their parents last name?

I am against mandatory child vaccination laws (in the US the CDC recommends 25 vaccinations by the age of four), and that's despite vaccinations having mercury and other harmful substances in them and being known causes of diseases like the incredible rise in autism among children in the last two decades, AND to top it all off, most vaccines do not have a proven level of efficacy.

I am absolutely against mandatory schooling. Germany's laws were mentioned above, and I am appalled that German parents can (and have been) jailed for attempting to homeschool their children.

Mandating that a child has the parent's last name? I've never known that anyone has ever raised that issue, but if it involves the government mandating that a child share the last name of at least one of the parents, then I'm against that too.

I understand wanting to prevent children from having to grow up with a shameful, embarrassing, or ridiculous name, but no one has the right to use the power of the state (which, as always, is backed up with the point of a gun and the threat of prison) to force someone else to behave the way that he wants him to behave. It's simply wrong. Giving a kid a bad name is not a crime, nor should it be one. If you want to display your ignorance as a parent and misspell your child's name or make up something ridiculous, you have that right to be a fool or at least to look foolish.

I believe the appropriate phrase for this case is "mind your own business."

Meanwhile, Friday was the name of a popular Heinlein heroine in his aptly-titled novel Friday. I think it's a fine name.

Quoting MD-90 (Reply 32): I am against mandatory child vaccination laws (in the US the CDC recommends 25 vaccinations by the age of four), and that's despite vaccinations having mercury and other harmful substances in them and being known causes of diseases like the incredible rise in autism among children in the last two decades, AND to top it all off, most vaccines do not have a proven level of efficacy.

So are you also against a proposal, that was brought up in Germany, to make medical checkups for kids mandatory as well? If you didn't know, in Germany there has been a surge of child abuse cases and related deaths over the past 2 years.

Social and Child Services either don't do their job, or simply cannot do the job because of frequent parental interference, like in the case of little Kevin in Bremen, who was never put into foster care, despite the fact that his father was a junkie and was known to be highly abusive to his child. And now the matter has become a federal problem, which is why, to also assist Social and Child Services, the government is proposing to make medical checkups compulsory, so the doctors can be able to alert the authorities in cases where they get the suspicion that a child has been abused of.

This is also an issue of human dignity, which in Germany is protected by law, and the authorities, as I've said, either haven't done anything or cannot properly do their job, and it took incidents like the recent child deaths in the federal states of Schleswig-Holstein and Mecklenburg-Vorpommern for the government to even make a stand, stop this blatant violation of human dignity and mandating these checkups.

Quoting MD-90 (Reply 32): I am absolutely against mandatory schooling. Germany's laws were mentioned above, and I am appalled that German parents can (and have been) jailed for attempting to homeschool their children.

First off, public schools are free. You don't have to pay anything to get into a public school. And what's so appaling about people getting arrested for trying to homeschool a kid and trying to circumvent this requirement? Education is a priority, and the state needs to make sure every kid gets adequate education. Is homeschooling any better than public or private education? We do have private schools that are sanctioned by the local Education authorities as well, before you ask, but either way, it's a good thing that in Germany, school education is compulsory. Or would you like that countries such as Germany, the United States, the Czech Republic, or any other become countries with high rates of people who did not finish their school studies and with a high illiteracy rate?

Quoting MD-90 (Reply 32): I am absolutely against mandatory schooling. Germany's laws were mentioned above, and I am appalled that German parents can (and have been) jailed for attempting to homeschool their children.

Quoting LTU932 (Reply 34): Education is a priority, and the state needs to make sure every kid gets adequate education.

I'm all for mandatory schooling, but I don't want to see mandatory schooling reduced to the student's mere obligation to attend a public or private school. Mandatory schooling, in my book, means that every child gets the best education available.

I'm certainly not a friend of home-schooling at all, but if parents think it's best to teach and educate their child at home, let them do - but keep an eye on them: Make sure that every now and then a teacher visits the student and that he or she writes a test from time to time.

MD-90 refers to the case of Melissa B, which, however, was an extreme in many aspects. The home-schooling movement reported on it and blew some things out of proportion to make it all worse.

Quoting LTU932 (Reply 34): So are you also against a proposal, that was brought up in Germany, to make medical checkups for kids mandatory as well?

Dead set against it.

Quoting LTU932 (Reply 34): Social and Child Services either don't do their job

It's government, what do you expect, amazing competence?

Quoting LTU932 (Reply 34): First off, public schools are free. You don't have to pay anything to get into a public school.

State schooling is not free. Everyone pays for it, regardless of whether they have children who will ever use it or not.

Quoting LTU932 (Reply 34): but either way, it's a good thing that in Germany, school education is compulsory. Or would you like that countries such as Germany, the United States, the Czech Republic, or any other become countries with high rates of people who did not finish their school studies and with a high illiteracy rate?

Isn't it interesting that in Connecticut before the public schooling movement began the literacy rate was over 98% and what they considered to a literate person to be would embarrass us today? Massachusetts was the first state in the US to institutionalize the Prussian model of forced schooling, which was not meant to teach students how to think and make examined decisions. It was and still is the world over intended to mold students into conformity so that they can be better managed and controlled.

Compulsory is exactly the word.

Quoting MD-90 (Reply 36): It was and still is the world over intended to mold students into conformity so that they can be better managed and controlled.

With the number of different teachers and fellow-students, they come across, I firmly believe that's a non issue. I have worked in a number of schools. They have their problems - uniformity is not amongst them, really.

Back to the original topic:
"Friday" would most likely get an ok - at least when parents can be convinced to give their child a more common middle name.

We have kids here in Germany, whose names are Keanu-Neo, Pumuckl, Fanta, Gneisenauette, Pepsi-Carola and Leonardo da Vinci Franz.
Censored were names like "Beer-tavern", "Crazy Horse" and "Angina".
I'm generally very, very sceptical of prohibitions and believe we have way too many, but I don't really mind those.

Quoting NoUFO (Reply 35): Mandatory schooling, in my book, means that every child gets the best education available.

That's exactly my point.   

Or else, why do we bother participating in the Pisa-Study if we don't give a damn? Why do we bother with a study, that compares the level of education provided in the member countries of the EU, and shows us where we fail and what we can improve upon? Maybe he should ask himself that question. We made it mandatory, because we DO give a damn about our kids and want to give them the opportunity at a great future.

Quoting NoUFO (Reply 35): I'm certainly not a friend of home-schooling at all, but if parents think it's best to teach and educate their child at home, let them do - but keep an eye on them: Make sure that every now and then a teacher visits the student and that he or she writes a test from time to time.

If people want home schooling to be made legal, then the KMK, the Kultusministerkonferenz or Conference of Education Ministers, should make strict guidelines that authorise home schooling. What you're suggesting is a great idea, have the kid do a test under the supervision of a certified teacher and have that teacher also make visits to check up on how the parents are doing the homeschooling.

Quoting NoUFO (Reply 35): MD-90 refers to the case of Melissa B, which, however, was an extreme in many aspects. The home-schooling movement reported on it and blew some things out of proportion to make it all worse.

Never heard of that case before (unfortunately many things that happen in Germany don't get reported even on DW-TV here in Central America, or I tend to miss it because I hardly watch that channel).

Quoting MD-90 (Reply 36): Dead set against it.

Why? Because it violates certain rights? What about the children's right to be safe from any abuse? Or are you against children having ANY rights?

Quoting MD-90 (Reply 36): State schooling is not free. Everyone pays for it, regardless of whether they have children who will ever use it or not.

We pay our taxes for many things, that's correct. However, public education is indeed free in the sense that we don't have to pay any tuition. In fact, if you get kids in Germany, you're entitled to receive money from the government to help you with extra costs and other things that you may require for your child. It's called "Kindergeld", and the more children you have, the more Kindergeld you get. Or are you against paying taxes in general?

Quoting LTU932 (Reply 34): So are you also against a proposal, that was brought up in Germany, to make medical checkups for kids mandatory as well?

Well, I'm sceptical of this as well. What exactly can we expect? Parents won't bring their kids to a doc when his or her health is in poor shape. They will ill-treat their children, then feed it a little better the weeks before they have an appointment and then continue to ill-treat them. Physicians now have another burden on their shoulders, but it should really be the neighbours who should should show a little more compassion and common sense.

Quoting MD-90 (Reply 36): Quoting LTU932 (Reply 34): Social and Child Services either don't do their job It's government, what do you expect, amazing competence?

"Problem" is the democracy, not the government. We expect our government not to infringe privacy.

Quoting LTU932 (Reply 38): It's called "Kindergeld", and the more children you have, the more Kindergeld you get.

Not to forget "Schueler BafoeG" and government can subsidize school trips.

Quoting LTU932 (Reply 38): What you're suggesting is a great idea, have the kid do a test under the supervision of a certified teacher and have that teacher also make visits to check up on how the parents are doing the homeschooling.

That's how the "German part" of Belgium handels the issue, btw, and it seems to work.

Quoting NoUFO (Reply 39): Well, I'm sceptical of this as well. What exactly can we expect? Parents won't bring their kids to a doc when his or her health is in poor shape. They will ill-treat their children, then feed it a little better the weeks before they have an appointment and then continue to ill-treat them.

At least you seem to be open to the idea, despite the scepticism. Of course, the government needs to line out how to carry out these checks and what we can expect from them, but let's see how things turn out in the future because personally, I am all in favour of it especially with the recent child abuse cases and related deaths.

Quoting NoUFO (Reply 39): Physicians now have another burden on their shoulders, but it should really be the neighbours who should should show a little more compassion and common sense.

I agree about the responsibility of the neighbours. However even for them it can be difficult to notice such things sometimes, but if the neighbour or anyone else in the family has his suspicion and is absolutely sure about the suspicion, they should definitely raise the red flag and call the authorities to look into it, even the police if necessary.

Quoting NoUFO (Reply 39): Not to forget "Schueler BafoeG" and government can subsidize school trips.

Yes, I did forget about that.  

Quoting NoUFO (Reply 39): That's how the "German part" of Belgium handels the issue, btw, and it seems to work.

Interesting to know. But if such a thing was to be introduced in Germany, maybe it should first be done on a local or state level, not federally, with sort of like a trial period of maybe one or two years. If it has been proven, then it could be introduced by the other states individually, or even federally.

There was a software engineer in Michigan a few years back who gave his son the same name, but instead of using "Jr.", he used "2.0".

Also, there is a girl from Mississippi in my class at school whose name is Tuesday. And a guy from Dakar whose name is Happiness.

Naming your child is something unique to every family, and while some names may have meaning that we don't know, and therefore can't ridicule, I'm sure there are a lot of people who just give their kids intentionally silly names. My roommate's last name is Vawter, and he plans to name his son Darth.

TIS

Quoting LTU932 (Reply 41): At least you seem to be open to the idea, despite the scepticism. (...) I am all in favour of it especially with the recent child abuse cases and related deaths.

While I am open to it, it seems to be another "fix that fails" in a long row of previous quick-fix solutions that provide temporary results but also produce intense, chronic, and undesirable long-term results. The desired result will be that voters see the government react. They are now a lot calmer than before. The long-term adverse effects are: Higher costs to our health system, more bureaucracy, and neighbours won't look closely, because they are under the delusion that those mandatory medical checkups actually work.

Quoting LTU932 (Reply 41): maybe it should first be done on a local or state level, not federally,

I agree, school is subject to the legislation of each individual state/Bundesland anyway.

[Edited 2007-12-21 18:27:17]

Quoting ANITIX87 (Reply 42): My roommate's last name is Vawter, and he plans to name his son Darth.

Hopefully he allows his spouse to have a saying in this - and/or is going to be proud father of daughters.

Quoting LTU932 (Reply 38): Or are you against paying taxes in general?

Yup.

Quoting LTU932 (Reply 38): We made it mandatory, because we DO give a damn about our kids and want to give them the opportunity at a great future.

I recommend you read John Taylor Gatto's magnum opus, The Underground History of American Education, available for free online at http://www.johntaylorgatto.com/chapters/index.htm.

This is not a thread about education, but I am absolutely against Prussian compulsory indoctrination, aka state schooling.

Quoting MD-90 (Reply 45): Yup.

None of us like paying taxes, but we all know it's a necessary evil.

You seriously need a reality check. This is not Karl Marx's Utopia, this is the real world.  

Quoting MD-90 (Reply 45): This is not a thread about education, but I am absolutely against Prussian compulsory indoctrination, aka state schooling.

Do you have anything against Prussia and anything else German?

Quoting LTU932 (Reply 46): Do you have anything against Prussia and anything else German?

No, I studied German for two years in high school and I want to visit Germany and Austria when I'm able to, especially Vienna.

But I have nothing but contempt for the Prussian model of public education, which is modern statist schooling in America and much of Europe.

I know it's off-topic, but I hope the thread starter don't mind.

Quoting MD-90 (Reply 47): But I have nothing but contempt for the Prussian model of public education, which is modern statist schooling in America and much of Europe.

Mandatory schooling was quickly adopted by other nations for a reason. In those times, most applications for patents and ground-breaking inventions came from Germany. Mandatory schooling bought wealth and progress to Prussia and later the Wilhelminian Reich.

Your premise that mandatory schooling helps to "form" students into obedient servants is dead wrong. I believe the opposite is true:
When Hitler rose to power, access to at least high schools and universities was denied for "non-arians" and children whose parents opposed the regime. This is a pattern other oppressive regimes use as well. Despots are afraid of well-educated subjects. In a demoracy with frequently changing politicians in power - on regional-, state- and nationwide level - "forming" students according to the "ruling class" is pretty much impossible anyway.
School supports emancipation and critics of the prevalent sytem. Suffragettes wouldn't have existed if they had never seen a public school.

Quoting NoUFO (Reply 48): When Hitler rose to power, access to at least high schools and universities was denied for "non-arians" and children whose parents opposed the regime.

To support your point, don't forget that in the DDR, in order to be even able to make the Abitur by going to the Erweiterte Oberschule (their equivalent to our Gymnasium), people had to be as faithful to the regime as possible and a definite heritage from the worker's class was required to even be allowed there. So while in the West, going to High School (or Gymnasium as we call it) was possible as long as you fulfill requirements based on performance, the criteria in the old DDR was mostly based on politics and grades. In a nutshell, if your parents were e.g. suspected to be plotting against the regime or were intending on "illegally" leaving the country, you could kiss the possibility of high school and higher education goodbye.

Most people from pre-unification generations in the Eastern States probably don't even have an Abitur because of this, just an equivalent of a Realschulabschluss or Mittlere Reife, that's it.