New Post
Search
Help[Opinions] Makes me very glad we have a name law in Denmark. (m)
in reply to a message by Sabrina Fair
That makes it so we can't give our children names like those. *Rolls eyes*
But Jensen for a girl? Maybe it's because it's the most popular, ordinary and boring last name in Denmark and that it means "Jens' Søn" ("Son of Jens").
And all Hansel Alexander needs now is a sister called Gretel-something. Then the fairy tale siblings are complete: Hansel & Gretel to be precise.
But Jensen for a girl? Maybe it's because it's the most popular, ordinary and boring last name in Denmark and that it means "Jens' Søn" ("Son of Jens").
And all Hansel Alexander needs now is a sister called Gretel-something. Then the fairy tale siblings are complete: Hansel & Gretel to be precise.
Archived Thread - replies disabled
1
Replies
Also means the government is sticking its nose where it doesn't belong.
1
Really?
There is a law for names in Denmark?
There is a law for names in Denmark?
1
Yep.
The law was made by the Danish church and if you want to use a name, not on the apporved name lists for both boys and girls, you have to go through them.
Saves us from having to see names, like those in Sabrina Fair's BA list, on children walking around here in Denmark.
The law was made by the Danish church and if you want to use a name, not on the apporved name lists for both boys and girls, you have to go through them.
Saves us from having to see names, like those in Sabrina Fair's BA list, on children walking around here in Denmark.
1
There is in Germany too.
At least, there was when my mom was born. As far as I know it's still that way. My grandmother wanted to name my mom Cissy, but it wasn't in the book, so she wasn't allowed to. In the end, it worked out better that way, for my mom anyway.
At least, there was when my mom was born. As far as I know it's still that way. My grandmother wanted to name my mom Cissy, but it wasn't in the book, so she wasn't allowed to. In the end, it worked out better that way, for my mom anyway.
This message was edited 4/2/2008, 4:55 PM
1
In Italy too
In most countries of continental Europe, I believe. It basically bans names that can be considered disgracious, ridiculous or harm the child. I know Americans see this as a massive violation of parents' rights to name their kids whatever they want, but IMHO it preserves the child's right to have a more or less decent name, while stopping some parents to express a whim, rather than a human right (because no one can convince me that someone names a child God Lucifer or LaPimp because they genuinely believe that will be a great name for their baby).
Some countries actually have prescribed lists of allowed names, that's too restrictive even for me.
In most countries of continental Europe, I believe. It basically bans names that can be considered disgracious, ridiculous or harm the child. I know Americans see this as a massive violation of parents' rights to name their kids whatever they want, but IMHO it preserves the child's right to have a more or less decent name, while stopping some parents to express a whim, rather than a human right (because no one can convince me that someone names a child God Lucifer or LaPimp because they genuinely believe that will be a great name for their baby).
Some countries actually have prescribed lists of allowed names, that's too restrictive even for me.
1
And what the law says?
1
According to the law, every child has to be named with a name that is from a book of names that the government has put together. If the name or the spelling isn't in the book, you can't give your child that name. It started out as some Latin, Greek, and German names. I think they include quite a few more origins now.
This message was edited 4/2/2008, 5:19 PM
1
I wonder what the straws that broke the camel's back were...
...because I think we are in dire need of such regulations in America. Surely we have exceeded the extremes that inspired the Germans to regulate their naming a billion fold with names like Dreamz Cum-Tru and Heavenleigh Nevaeh-Crystal. I'd vote YES on a regulated list.
I am pretty sure the rule in Germany is that you have to prove the name has been given to someone else before (so no Laquawndriana) and also the name's linguistic derivation (no Nevaeh, in other words).
...because I think we are in dire need of such regulations in America. Surely we have exceeded the extremes that inspired the Germans to regulate their naming a billion fold with names like Dreamz Cum-Tru and Heavenleigh Nevaeh-Crystal. I'd vote YES on a regulated list.
I am pretty sure the rule in Germany is that you have to prove the name has been given to someone else before (so no Laquawndriana) and also the name's linguistic derivation (no Nevaeh, in other words).
This message was edited 4/3/2008, 9:53 AM
1
I strongly disagree that we are in need of such regulations here in America. Just as I would rather see a thousand guilty people go free than one innocent person punished, I would rather see a thousand children named Nevaeh than one couple not allowed to use an innocuous name that just happens not to be on the government's "list". It's only a name. If any person dislikes their name so strongly, they're free to use another and/or to legally change it.
As for your argument that the government already regulates where we can drink or smoke, so it may as well regulate what we can name our children, that really has no validity. Perhaps it does infringe on our freedom too much in those areas, but how does that justify allowing it to further infringe on our freedoms in another area?
I appreciate the fact that we do not have naming laws in this country because we have a tradition and a heritage of respecting personal freedom. I wish you did too.
As for your argument that the government already regulates where we can drink or smoke, so it may as well regulate what we can name our children, that really has no validity. Perhaps it does infringe on our freedom too much in those areas, but how does that justify allowing it to further infringe on our freedoms in another area?
I appreciate the fact that we do not have naming laws in this country because we have a tradition and a heritage of respecting personal freedom. I wish you did too.
1
See my reply below entitled "Well...."
1
I think it's needed to an extent but I am all for weird named if we had naming laws 'd proably not be allowed to name my kid River [which I am planning to someday] so I'm kind of sad if we had laws in US.
1
I just don't understand why the government feels the need to control where we can drink and smoke, but naming children is totally irrelevant and has no consequences ?!?
1
good point
As an European, I've always found the argument that naming laws are "anti-democratic" somewhat irksome.
As an European, I've always found the argument that naming laws are "anti-democratic" somewhat irksome.
1
How is such an argument irksome?
1
because Europeans value democracy and freedom just as much as Americans
1
I'm sure most do.....
but that doesn't change the fact that European countries were not originally founded upon those ideals, while the USA was. Nor does it change the fact that this inevitably leads to subtle cultural differences. Nor does it invalidate my argument.
but that doesn't change the fact that European countries were not originally founded upon those ideals, while the USA was. Nor does it change the fact that this inevitably leads to subtle cultural differences. Nor does it invalidate my argument.
1
Mmm, I was under the impression that democracy was first established in ancient Greece, and that Americans inherited their founding values from Europe, since that's were they came from originally. And that most European nations have in their histories a founding momemt of emancipation from an internal or foreign tyranny that may be compared to the US becoming independent from Britain.
Anyway, I really don't want to cause pointless and OT controversy. What you don't seem to realize that what is at stake here is a difference in mentality, not of historical values at some deep level. There's a slightly different perception of individualism, and relations with state institutions, in the US and Europe. I'm sure that, if I had bee raised in the US, there's a strong chance I'd consider naming laws, amongst with various other regulations, unfair and limiting. I don't want to persuade any American here that America should have naming laws, though I am in favour of them and I'm glad my country has them. But a lot of these values are relative, and people of this forum come from a variety of different nationalities and cultures.
Anyway, I really don't want to cause pointless and OT controversy. What you don't seem to realize that what is at stake here is a difference in mentality, not of historical values at some deep level. There's a slightly different perception of individualism, and relations with state institutions, in the US and Europe. I'm sure that, if I had bee raised in the US, there's a strong chance I'd consider naming laws, amongst with various other regulations, unfair and limiting. I don't want to persuade any American here that America should have naming laws, though I am in favour of them and I'm glad my country has them. But a lot of these values are relative, and people of this forum come from a variety of different nationalities and cultures.
1
Well...
Well, in an abstract sense, some people abuse the democratic ideal to justify their cruelty toward others. For example, Fred Phelps and Shirtley Phelps-Roper spreading their unfounded hateful defamation all over America on the grounds that it is free speech and protected under the first amdendment.
This idea could also be applied to Americans who are ignorant of the consequences of choosing a distasteful name for their child. Now, while I think many names are terrible, I generally see very few that I'd personally censor as a judge (though really I'd like to name ALL new babies myself), but there are also MANY examples that could cross that line (e.g. Dreamz Cum-Tru, Her'mahjusztee da Bomb, Pryncess Perfekt, Shouting Star, etc.) that are just plainly cruel to their recipients' well-being in society. There is a line one can cross where you're no longer covered by democratic principles--though it may be difficult to cross--people seem to be straddling it more and more.
Personally, I think putting Dreamz Cum-Tru on a birth certificate should be grounds for a horse-whipping (though it MAY be a glittery horsewhip with an acryllic airbrushed carnival design on it so the punishment is more tailored to the offence).
Well, in an abstract sense, some people abuse the democratic ideal to justify their cruelty toward others. For example, Fred Phelps and Shirtley Phelps-Roper spreading their unfounded hateful defamation all over America on the grounds that it is free speech and protected under the first amdendment.
This idea could also be applied to Americans who are ignorant of the consequences of choosing a distasteful name for their child. Now, while I think many names are terrible, I generally see very few that I'd personally censor as a judge (though really I'd like to name ALL new babies myself), but there are also MANY examples that could cross that line (e.g. Dreamz Cum-Tru, Her'mahjusztee da Bomb, Pryncess Perfekt, Shouting Star, etc.) that are just plainly cruel to their recipients' well-being in society. There is a line one can cross where you're no longer covered by democratic principles--though it may be difficult to cross--people seem to be straddling it more and more.
Personally, I think putting Dreamz Cum-Tru on a birth certificate should be grounds for a horse-whipping (though it MAY be a glittery horsewhip with an acryllic airbrushed carnival design on it so the punishment is more tailored to the offence).
This message was edited 4/3/2008, 5:50 PM
1
true
1
Yes, you're right.
1
wow ok thanks!!!I didn't know that !!!
1