Referring to the underlying story — this is one of those things I always feel torn about. On the one hand, it would be arguably cruel to saddle a baby with the name "Lucifer." But where does one draw the bright light, and on what basis. Can babies be named after other figures in living religion (good, bad, or indifferent)? What about babies named "Jesus"? Or, heck, "Nick"? How about other names from the Bible? Is Herod okay? Or John? Or what about other obnoxious or deridable names? Or what about "normal" names that are spelled in a mockworthy fashion in an goofball attempt to make the kid be "unique" ("Q'hadhereene"?), or are simply made up ("Tushwaya")? Or what about that awful old family name chosen to appease wealthy Uncle Ebenezer that will lead to endless beatings in school from the bullies?
And who gets to decide? Do you let people petition to prevent certain names? Or is there a government board to do it? And who sits on that — partisan appointees, bureaucrats, religious leaders, artists, child psychologists, linguist, what?
You end up with being one of those countries with a list of 50 names that are legal. And that's not a good thing, either.
It's one of those places where there's no accounting for tastes or way to prevent people from having awful ones.
Reshared post from +The Onion
[American Voices]
“Well, in that case, I’m glad me and my daughter Anal don’t live in New Zealand.”
Embedded Link
New Zealand Bans Naming Babies ‘Christ,’ ‘Lucifer’
73 view(s)
A friend told me about a coworker who wanted to name her daughter "Latrine." She apparently knew what it meant but really liked the sound of it.
>_<
and there is La-a (Ladasha)