Re: CHAT: cultural interpretation [was Re: THEORY: language and the brain]

* Mark J. Reed said on 2003-07-03 23:55:11 +0200
> > > For instance, compare the Scandinavian practice of requiring that
> > > babies be given first names chosen from a church-approved list with
> > > the U.S.'s mandatory separation of church and state and complete
> > > governmental apathy toward what and how people are named.
>
> > Not that it matters alot, but at least Sweden does not have a such practice.
>
> Well, it does matter.  I made a sweeping generalization and got called on it.
> Sorry.  What I said is, or recently was, reportedly true in Norway,
Nope. Never has been, and isn't the case now. It's the same as in Sweden,
plus it's frowned upon to use a last name as a first name and the first
name is preferably not gender-neutral. I doubt a church would have allowed
the norse non-christian names fr instance.

I've also heard that there are countries where you can only take church-
approved names; that these are generally only the names of saints, and
that France is such a country. Further, that among other the french Basques
and the Bretons are not amused by this. Urban legend?

As for the position of the church in the state; yes there are obligatory
lessons in Religion in school (which is by some teachers used to
brainw^Wproselytize) and I sincerely hope the human-rights court in
Strasbourg puts a stop to this once and for all, but Norway is also the
country with the world's largest humanist organization, HEF
(Human-Etisk Forbund) of which I am a member.

(As a friend jokingly said the other the day, HEF is the Sinn Fein of
Hedningesamfundet [the Heathen Society]. There's also the new "Holistisk
Forbund" IIRC, for the New Agers. HEFers are usually sceptics, as am I,
so I think the last one is quite cute :) non-religious indeed...)


t.

Replies