Naming Your Child “Jesus”...

[Likkmee]

In Islam its Quite Popular to name your male child Mohammed. No one gets upset. Unless of course you spell it wrong.
But in Christianity I’ve noticed something quite odd. Hispanics name their male children Jesus quite frequently. Yet... I’ve never known any white Protestant males named Jesus. So I thought to myself perhaps this is a Catholic tradition. But then I got to thinking about it... And I realized that I had never heard of a white catholic male named Jesus...
But then again I’m not sure that christianity forbids naming your child Jesus in the Bible so...
What’s the deal? Why the difference? Do some sects of Christianity deem this practice heretical, while others consider it a mark of honor? Why? Just wondering about the difference in the custom. Thanks.

If you name your child Jesus, you're probably Cuban, Mexican, or Puerto-Rican.

Oye! Hay-soos!

Just wondering --- what are you if you name your child "Marion"?

Semi-literate. The name should be Mariano( male) or Mariana talves Miriam(female)

 

[DrLove]

Kinda just the way it is

People of English-speaking origin won’t use Jesus as a personal name; it makes them squirm with discomfort. Somehow taboo. The closest they come to using Jesus is by way of the name “Joshua.” People of Hispanic decent, however, fully embrace the given name Jesús for their little boys as a genuinely heartfelt demonstration of their reverence to Jesus. The name has become so popular within the Latino-American culture, that “hay-SOOS” feels like just another boys name with Spanish flair so in some cases, it may not even be tied to religion. In any case, it’s clearly the Spanish-speaking Americans, or those of Hispanic/Latino origin, driving the popularity of this name. Jesus has been on the U.S. popularity graph for over a century. The name received moderate usage at the turn of the last century, but fast-forward to this century with the growing Latino population in America, you'll find that Jesus sits squarely on the list of Top 100 most favored boys’ names.​

Jesus - Baby Boy Name Meaning and Origin | Oh Baby! Names

 

[HaShev]

In Islam its Quite Popular to name your male child Mohammed. No one gets upset. Unless of course you spell it wrong.
But in Christianity I’ve noticed something quite odd. Hispanics name their male children Jesus quite frequently. Yet... I’ve never known any white Protestant males named Jesus. So I thought to myself perhaps this is a Catholic tradition. But then I got to thinking about it... And I realized that I had never heard of a white catholic male named Jesus...
But then again I’m not sure that christianity forbids naming your child Jesus in the Bible so...
What’s the deal? Why the difference? Do some sects of Christianity deem this practice heretical, while others consider it a mark of honor? Why? Just wondering about the difference in the custom. Thanks.

Ummm but even the many characters making up the myth and image of Jesus were not named Jesus, so the point is mute.
Yeshu (the son of Mary the Harlot of 100bc), Yehuda (the Galilean Herod era Christ), Theudas(the river Jordan Pilate era christ), Benjamin (the Egyptian)were not named Jesus.
View attachment 201952

I remember Jesús Alou not from the Astros but his earlier career, and what I remember apropos to this thread is that baseball announcers and commentators suddenly went to great lengths to perfect their Spanish pronunciation, taking care to make "Hay-zeus" sound nothing like "Jesus". His brother, who played at the same time, they just called him "Matty" although his given name was Mateo. If another Spanish-culture player ("Latin" is too vague) was named Antonio he became "Tony"; if one was named José he usually stayed José but there was no attempt to purify the vowels. But once Jesús Alou came along it was suddenly all about perfect Spanish diction.

I got the distinct impression that everybody was bending over backward to avoid any semblance of the sound of "Jesus". As if to say, "it's OK, we're not really saying 'Jesus' and besides it's his name, what are we gonna do?". And if Jesús Alou's name came up on the TV screen it was imperative that the announcer would say his name, "Hey Zeus", to discourage the TV audience from jumping up and screaming that they're putting the name of Jesus on TV.

In Catholic school one was commanded to bow one's head upon the utterance of the name Jesus, even if one was not the utterer. It seems to be some kind of Puritan and/or Germanic booga-booga thing that simply doesn't exist in the Spanish world.

Proper transliteration is important otherwise "names can be blotted out". Like you notice J having an H sound so to did Y(J) in Hebrew which is why I posted to notice that the book Yohshua(Joshua) is called Hosea (Proper transliteration).
Christian missionaries trying to convert Jews try and make the name fit YHWH and in making the IeSous name Jewish fail misserably attaching that name to an actual Historical figure, because Yeshu is a 100bc character is not the same as the Herod or Pilate era characters and Rabbi Yhshv (transliterated as Hshva) was his mentor Rabbi Yohoshua ben Perachya who fled the King Jannaeus Alexander persecution of Pharisee around 88bc?
So neither attempt at naming the idol in a Hebrew name actually establish a historical persona named Jesus in the AD era. When you combine figures accounts renaming the figure is necessary, and only when you try to establish the historical do you run into reality that there is more then one era and character being made into one new image and thus new name IeSous (the swine) as in the forbidden one.
The mask made over Baal (the father of morning star) worship.

 

[Stormy Daniels]

But Joshua and Isaiah are not "Jesus". And it takes a leap of thought to move past the simple sound of "Joshua" to its derivation, which is a whole 'nother side of the brain. That's too abstract. You're trying to apply logic to a taboo, which is by definition illogical.

So the taboo is not on the etymology, but on the utterance. And it is very much widely known in the Anglosphere, else we would not be having this discussion. If we were all Brazilians writing in Portuguese it simply wouldn't be a curiosity given no taboo in the culture and simply a preference that Spanish has and Portuguese doesn't.

See my notes on Jesús Alou above, which was the first time many of us saw the name Jesus applied to a living person, and how those Anglophones confronted with the name did handstands to avoid Anglicizing his name when they had no issue Anglicizing other Spanish names.

A specific taboo might not be rationale to a given observer, but that does not mean that you affix the label of "taboo" in a way that doesn't amount to an actual taboo. Fallacies are also illogical, by definition, but we can still understand clear definitions for what constitutes fallacies.

The problem is that you are speaking from the point of view of a 21st century American English speaker, and seem to be assuming that your present perspective has been true at every point in history, up to those moments we are speaking about from 2000 years ago.

Something cannot be a secret taboo. That is impossible. Taboo exist at the cultural level. Taboos don't have to necessarily be codified into formal laws, but in order to exist they must be known and understood--even if some people disagree--by the general society. Cannibalism is generally taboo. Incest is generally taboo. Suicide is generally taboo. Society strongly frowns upon these things and strongly pressures people to not engage in them, at the risk of significant social punishment, possibly as severe as ostracism. If giving one's child the name of "Jesus" were a taboo among American Christians, then we would know it.

You are correct that "Jesus" and "Joshua" and "Isaiah" are different words in the 21st century American English speaking ear, eye, and mind. But you are missing the point. If a taboo existed among all Germanic peoples against using the name of "Jesus" for newborn children, then that would indicate that the taboo was a very old practice, originating from the common origins of modern Germanic people and carrying through as they differentiated into distinct English, Dutch, Scandinavian, and German cultures.

A taboo that old would not apply to the modern term "Jesus" that is used in English more as a title than a name. It would apply to original forms of the name and the Germanic forms that developed. Because 2nd century Germanic speakers didn't use the word "Jesus". They would not have known that term. The Germanic forms of Yeshua would have been subject to any such taboo.

Also worth noting that throughout much of the early CE history of Europe Rome dictated religious belief. It would be unusual for a religious taboo over the name of Jesus to develop strictly within Germanic cultures, yet be absent in Romance language cultures.

 

[shimon]

The thing people do not get either they miss it on purpose or through ignorance is that the letter J has only really been around since the 16 th century when it was added to the alphabet. Thus there was no “ jESUS “ but there was ESUS the god of the Gauls who was triune in nature and was worshipped by placing a body of a man in a tree and ritually piercing him so the blood would flow to the ground.. Many of the Christian places of worship, holidays etc etc were superimposed on or copied from the Gaulish religion of ESUS thus add a J to the front and walla you have now superimposed your deities name over or in front of the real deity and hidden it in plain sight with none the wiser... This is the tried and true method of covering up in plain site using words instead of Swords..... I would suspect that the reason The name Jesus is so popular in the Spanish areas is because originally the Gauls came from this area and they have continued to carry this name with them wherever they go or live forgetting it was originally ESUS.....

This is folk etymology, and overlooks the obvious. As you say, "J" is historically linked to "I" (as well as "Y", for the record). So suggesting that the "J" was added gratuitously and arbitrarily makes no sense. We should, instead, expect earlier forms of "Jesus" to use an "I" instead of the "J".

The original Gospels were written in Greek. Those where then translated into Latin. The modern form "Jesus" (originally "Iesus") is the Latin form of the Greek. That Greek rendering would be more or less "Iesous" in the Roman alphabet. That Greek form is a transliteration of the Hebrew (possibly Aramaic) name.

This myth is easily disproven by following the paths of various Romance languages as they individually diverged from vulgar (common) Latin.

In Portuguese "I am" is rendered Eu sou. In Spanish it's (I think, I don't speak Spanish) Yo soy.
Matter of fact in Portuguese (and presumably Spanish) you don't even need the subject since the verb form denotes the case: "Eu sou brasileiro" or "Sou brasileiro" both mean "I am Brazilian" just as "je suis français":means "I am French".

So....
Je suis
Yo soy
Eu sou

Three parallel paths from Latin to their respective evolved languages, obviously all related and obviously from the same root. Yet Spanish speakers don't call Jesus "Yosoy".

The idea that je suis is somehow related to Jesus simply because of a similar final spelling is absurd. "I am" is a universal state of being; we could hardly have a language that didn't have a way to express the first person.

Just to riff on this myth a bit further, by the same logic German Christians should be calling Jesus "Ichbin" --- which is remarkably similar to the Japanese ichiban which means "number one".

And WAH LAH another myth started. Hope I get royalties.

I have made my points I will let others decide for themselves who is correct.. I was using the Je Suis to prove a point... If others are not lazy they will research for themselves and figure it out ... It is their choice whether to accept what they learn or reject it...

You didn't make a point -- you cited an orthographic coincidence and tried to build a bridge to it. That bridge goes nowhere. I blew it up tracing the evolutions from vulgar Latin.

Thus you may call me "Ichiban".

You need to understand it is not a contest and you didn’t blow anything up except in your mind.. It is about a sharing of information and ideals and concepts and each of us can grow and make up our minds with the facts we are given... Some people will grow and evolve from reading these ideas and other will not the choice is theirs... It is only your ego that thinks you have won in some fashion...

 

[Picaro]

Don't know that it matters, since the name 'Jesus' wasn't original to the Christ Jesus; there were several prominent Jews named 'Jesus', including a priest, in the decades before and during the Christ's years of ministry. The name existed and had meaning before the NT Jesus as well as after, so it's not really sacrilegious to name your kid Jesus. Joachim Jeremiah mentions two in his historical study Jerusalem in the Time of Jesus for one source, and I've seen others with the name Jesus mentioned as well.

Well, actually I erred here; the name Jesus turns up 4 times in the list of High Priests in Jerusalem from 200 B.C. to A.D. 70 alone, and many more times in names of ordinary people on other lists.

From the High Priests list:

Jesus (Jason), 175-172 B.C., Jesus, son of Phiabi (to c. 22 B.C.), Jesus, son of See (until A.D. 6), Jesus, son of Damnaius (c. A.D. 62-65).

So, the name Jesus is also being used in both Alexandria and various regions of Syria as well as in Jerusalem before the birth of Jesus of Nazareth comes along.

Don't see any connections with Gaul or Spain or France or any of that weirdness.

the list is on pages 377 and 378 of the book cited above, titled COMPLETE LIST OF HIGH PRIESTS FROM 200 B.C. TO 70 A.D., [/B]with page references to the text where they are discussed in context.

 

[Picaro]

Jesus son of Damneus (
In the Antiquities of the Jews (Book 20, Chapter 9) first-century historian Josephus states that Jesus ben Damneus was made high priest after the previous high priest, Ananus son of Ananus, was removed from his position for executing James the brother of Jesus (James the Just).[2] After a large number of Jews complained and petitioned the king. Jesus ben Damneus himself was deposed less than a year later.

Josephus' reference to James the brother of Jesus
And now Caesar, upon hearing the death of Festus, sent Albinus into Judea, as procurator. But the king deprived Joseph of the high priesthood, and bestowed the succession to that dignity on the son of Ananus, who was also himself called Ananus. Now the report goes that this eldest Ananus proved a most fortunate man; for he had five sons who had all performed the office of a high priest to God, and who had himself enjoyed that dignity a long time formerly, which had never happened to any other of our high priests. But this younger Ananus, who, as we have told you already, took the high priesthood, was a bold man in his temper, and very insolent; he was also of the sect of the Sadducees, who are very rigid in judging offenders, above all the rest of the Jews, as we have already observed; when, therefore, Ananus was of this disposition, he thought he had now a proper opportunity. Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrin of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned: but as for those who seemed the most equitable of the citizens, and such as were the most uneasy at the breach of the laws, they disliked what was done; they also sent to the king, desiring him to send to Ananus that he should act so no more, for that what he had already done was not to be justified; nay, some of them went also to meet Albinus, as he was upon his journey from Alexandria, and informed him that it was not lawful for Ananus to assemble a sanhedrin without his consent. Whereupon Albinus complied with what they said, and wrote in anger to Ananus, and threatened that he would bring him to punishment for what he had done; on which king Agrippa took the high priesthood from him, when he had ruled but three months, and made Jesus, the son of Damneus, high priest.
Flavius Josephus: Antiquities of the Jews Book 20, Chapter 9, 1[3] For Greek text see [1]

While the authenticity of some passages in Book 18 of Antiquities of the Jews has been subject to debate, the overwhelming majority of scholars consider the discussion of the death of James in Section 9 of Book 20 to be authentic.[4][5] Those who debate the authenticity of the passage argue that James brother of Jesus was James ben Damneus who was the brother of Jesus ben Damneus who is made high priest after the removal of Ananus.

The works of Josephus refer to at least twenty different people with the name Jesus, and in chapter 9 of Book 20, Jesus the son of Damneus is thought by many to be distinct from the reference to "Jesus called Christ", who is mentioned along with the identification of James.[6] John Painter states that phrase "who was called Christ" is used by Josephus in this passage "by way of distinguishing him from others of the same name such as the high priest Jesus son of Damneus, or Jesus son of Gamaliel" both having been mentioned by Josephus in this context.[7]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_son_of_Damneus#cite_note-7

Jesus son of Damneus - Wikipedia

I had to delete some Greek and Hebrew words form this cite; apparently Greek and Hebreswwords are 'banned', so you will have to go to the link to see them.

 

[Pogo]

The thing people do not get either they miss it on purpose or through ignorance is that the letter J has only really been around since the 16 th century when it was added to the alphabet. Thus there was no “ jESUS “ but there was ESUS the god of the Gauls who was triune in nature and was worshipped by placing a body of a man in a tree and ritually piercing him so the blood would flow to the ground.. Many of the Christian places of worship, holidays etc etc were superimposed on or copied from the Gaulish religion of ESUS thus add a J to the front and walla you have now superimposed your deities name over or in front of the real deity and hidden it in plain sight with none the wiser... This is the tried and true method of covering up in plain site using words instead of Swords..... I would suspect that the reason The name Jesus is so popular in the Spanish areas is because originally the Gauls came from this area and they have continued to carry this name with them wherever they go or live forgetting it was originally ESUS.....

This is folk etymology, and overlooks the obvious. As you say, "J" is historically linked to "I" (as well as "Y", for the record). So suggesting that the "J" was added gratuitously and arbitrarily makes no sense. We should, instead, expect earlier forms of "Jesus" to use an "I" instead of the "J".

The original Gospels were written in Greek. Those where then translated into Latin. The modern form "Jesus" (originally "Iesus") is the Latin form of the Greek. That Greek rendering would be more or less "Iesous" in the Roman alphabet. That Greek form is a transliteration of the Hebrew (possibly Aramaic) name.

This myth is easily disproven by following the paths of various Romance languages as they individually diverged from vulgar (common) Latin.

In Portuguese "I am" is rendered Eu sou. In Spanish it's (I think, I don't speak Spanish) Yo soy.
Matter of fact in Portuguese (and presumably Spanish) you don't even need the subject since the verb form denotes the case: "Eu sou brasileiro" or "Sou brasileiro" both mean "I am Brazilian" just as "je suis français":means "I am French".

So....
Je suis
Yo soy
Eu sou

Three parallel paths from Latin to their respective evolved languages, obviously all related and obviously from the same root. Yet Spanish speakers don't call Jesus "Yosoy".

The idea that je suis is somehow related to Jesus simply because of a similar final spelling is absurd. "I am" is a universal state of being; we could hardly have a language that didn't have a way to express the first person.

Just to riff on this myth a bit further, by the same logic German Christians should be calling Jesus "Ichbin" --- which is remarkably similar to the Japanese ichiban which means "number one".

And WAH LAH another myth started. Hope I get royalties.

I have made my points I will let others decide for themselves who is correct.. I was using the Je Suis to prove a point... If others are not lazy they will research for themselves and figure it out ... It is their choice whether to accept what they learn or reject it...

You didn't make a point -- you cited an orthographic coincidence and tried to build a bridge to it. That bridge goes nowhere. I blew it up tracing the evolutions from vulgar Latin.

Thus you may call me "Ichiban".

You need to understand it is not a contest and you didn’t blow anything up except in your mind.. It is about a sharing of information and ideals and concepts and each of us can grow and make up our minds with the facts we are given... Some people will grow and evolve from reading these ideas and other will not the choice is theirs... It is only your ego that thinks you have won in some fashion...

C'mon dood. I called you on a fake etymology. Just admit it already.
Or prove me wrong and show me that your cockamamie fake theory has merit. Any merit whatsoever.

 

[Pogo]

But Joshua and Isaiah are not "Jesus". And it takes a leap of thought to move past the simple sound of "Joshua" to its derivation, which is a whole 'nother side of the brain. That's too abstract. You're trying to apply logic to a taboo, which is by definition illogical.

So the taboo is not on the etymology, but on the utterance. And it is very much widely known in the Anglosphere, else we would not be having this discussion. If we were all Brazilians writing in Portuguese it simply wouldn't be a curiosity given no taboo in the culture and simply a preference that Spanish has and Portuguese doesn't.

See my notes on Jesús Alou above, which was the first time many of us saw the name Jesus applied to a living person, and how those Anglophones confronted with the name did handstands to avoid Anglicizing his name when they had no issue Anglicizing other Spanish names.

A specific taboo might not be rationale to a given observer, but that does not mean that you affix the label of "taboo" in a way that doesn't amount to an actual taboo. Fallacies are also illogical, by definition, but we can still understand clear definitions for what constitutes fallacies.

The problem is that you are speaking from the point of view of a 21st century American English speaker, and seem to be assuming that your present perspective has been true at every point in history, up to those moments we are speaking about from 2000 years ago.

No -- I spoke of fifty years ago. I have no way to know what was going on 2000 years ago, nor did English even exist as such. Nor would Jesus (the biblical figure) have been widely known.

Something cannot be a secret taboo. That is impossible. Taboo exist at the cultural level. Taboos don't have to necessarily be codified into formal laws, but in order to exist they must be known and understood--even if some people disagree--by the general society. Cannibalism is generally taboo. Incest is generally taboo. Suicide is generally taboo. Society strongly frowns upon these things and strongly pressures people to not engage in them, at the risk of significant social punishment, possibly as severe as ostracism. If giving one's child the name of "Jesus" were a taboo among American Christians, then we would know it.

This is all completely accurate. And indeed we do know it. If we didn't we'd have a bunch of Anglophone Jesuses running around and nobody would have been bending over backward to pronounce the name of Jesús Alou just so, in perfect Spanish diction, to avoid resembling the English version.

You are correct that "Jesus" and "Joshua" and "Isaiah" are different words in the 21st century American English speaking ear, eye, and mind. But you are missing the point. If a taboo existed among all Germanic peoples against using the name of "Jesus" for newborn children, then that would indicate that the taboo was a very old practice, originating from the common origins of modern Germanic people and carrying through as they differentiated into distinct English, Dutch, Scandinavian, and German cultures.

A taboo that old would not apply to the modern term "Jesus" that is used in English more as a title than a name. It would apply to original forms of the name and the Germanic forms that developed. Because 2nd century Germanic speakers didn't use the word "Jesus". They would not have known that term. The Germanic forms of Yeshua would have been subject to any such taboo.

You're still failing to distinguish between the three names. Again, such a taboo is directly on the word association, not on the etymology. People go years of their lives, not uncommonly their entire lives, without ever knowing the derivation of their own name. But everybody knows from infancy what their name IS. And that's two different things. English distinguishes between "Jesus" and "Joshua" to the extent that nobody uses the latter to mean the son-o-god guy, and everybody understands the former out of the single name --- because it's not used for anybody else. Why it's not used for anybody else is up for question but suffice to say, even today you'd be met with raised eyebrows if you called yourself, or your child, "Jesus" in an Anglophone environment. The question of course is what's raising those eyebrows.

Anyway it's just one-half of a spontaneous theory that it has anything to do with "Germanic". The other half was "Puritan".

Also worth noting that throughout much of the early CE history of Europe Rome dictated religious belief. It would be unusual for a religious taboo over the name of Jesus to develop strictly within Germanic cultures, yet be absent in Romance language cultures.

Why? Rome dictated religious practice and politics --- it could not dictate cultures. If it could have done that, the languages of French, Spanish, Portuguese and Italian, let alone their offshoots, could have been strangled in their cribs.

 

[zaangalewa]

As a side note: ""Immanuel", "Manuel" and so on are also names for Jesus.

 

[HenryBHough]

Liberals don't name children "Jesus".

They go for the REAL messiah thing: Barack.

Well....."real" to liberals........

 

[zaangalewa]

The father and the mother are common names in all latin countries... but the son is definitely a spanish tradition.

Exactly. The Muslims had governed once big parts of Spain. "Isa" is a very popular name under Muslims too. That's perhaps the start of this Spanish-Catholic tradition. A pure Catholic tradition is it for example to give a man sometimes the second forename "Maria". "Carl Maria" for example.

And perhaps also important in this context: The Nazis used as a marker for Jews in passports the forenames "Israel" and "Sarah". Every man was named "Israel", every woman "Sarah". This was an important marker for their racism, because there was no difference to see between Jews and other Germans.

 

[Picaro]

Also worth noting that throughout much of the early CE history of Europe Rome dictated religious belief.

False. 'Rome' didn't dictate anything; the feudal Lords ran their fiefs as they saw fit. 'Rome' itself was never in agreement among itself most of the time, and in any case most of the population in Europe was illiterate, never knew anything about Christianity, and the peasantry remained largely pagan in belief and outlook.

 

[Toro]

A lot of whites name their child “Christian.” (It is a beautiful name BTW)

Do Jews name their kids “Jew” or Muslims name their kids “Muslim?”

 

[zaangalewa]

there is no evidence that either Jesus or Mary or Joseph spoke greek. Not even the angel Gabriel spoke (speaks) greek

Aramaic - they spoke Aramaic.

 

[Picaro]

Well, in any case, the name was common long before the New Testament era and not exclusive to Jesus of Nazareth, so no need for the taboo.

 

[zaangalewa]

Jesus and God are considered holy names. No mortal should take on their name, they should remain unique. Abraham, Isaac, etc are not holy names and can be used.

Who says so? When god sent his son he got a widespread totally normal Jewish name.

 

[Cellblock2429]

Okay.

Now, WTF is 'Walking Dead'?

/——-/ The Walking Dead is a top rated Sci Fi TV series. the walking dead - Google Search

 

[Picaro]

Jesus and God are considered holy names. No mortal should take on their name, they should remain unique. Abraham, Isaac, etc are not holy names and can be used.

Who says so? When god sent his son he got a widespread totally normal Jewish name.

So, who were 'Jews' before Abraham? There was no such tribe, so would Abraham and Sarah technically be Gentiles? He paid tribute to a non-Jewish King. That would make his sons the first Jews, theoretically anyway. I guess one could claim God re-invented them as 'Jews', in the 'Born Again' sense of evangelical practices.

This raises an issue of why the obsessions with genealogies and the like, and the 'racial purity' farce that was the focus of Orthodox Jewish life re the 'exiles' and the advent of the dissident movements that came along after 300 B.C. or so that generated the schism between the real Jews, Christians and messianic Jews, and the racist nazi Jews for the next 1800 years, with the racist Jews allying themselves with the murdering looting Islamo-Vermin for centuries. It must really suck for the racist sects that the Christian Jews are nearly the only reason the 'racially pure' Jews even exist and weren't exterminated long ago. How ironic, and infuriating for the 'Master Race' types that must be. No wonder they're gibbering loons.

 

[Marion Morrison]

From Mexico down....millions of children are named Jesus.

And none named Satan, which in all reality SHOULD be a common name for these bean chomping mentiroso ladrones.

No? What about Satan Claus, the dyslexic Kris Kringle?