Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Opus Dei, grammar issues and Jesus[edit]

I deleted the statements about Opus Dei not allowing individuals who are born "Illegitimately" to become members. I found nothing in the 1982 Statutes of Opus Dei that indicate that this is anything more than misguided rumor (and that is being charitable).

Since there are usages of bastard other than those with connotations of Illegitimacy, and bastard redirects to Illegitimacy, I have added one of those those usages here, but hope that someone else can think through what might need to be renamed, disambiguated, etc. Stan 12:58, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)

i have a problem with this page: it is the destination of bastard but bastard is also a term used in biology to describe the progeny of 2 different species. this definition is nowhere written and you are directly forwarded to this site about Illegitimacy, that has nothing to do with the biological term bastard. Damir Perisa 14:08, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

OK I am having grammar/syntax issues with the following paragraph:

Due to the common use of the word as a mildly profane generic insult for a man, many students are surprised to find that the use of the word to refer to a child of unmarried parents, for example Shakespeare's John the Bastard, is seen as appropriate by their teachers.

I had to read it several times to figure out what it meant. Needs rewrite but I'm still not quire sure what it SHOULD say, anyone willing to chip in? The problem is with the part that begins "for example..." Anyone? Some User Without An Account 25 Mar 2005

Worked on it a bit. What do you think? Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 04:32, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I am going to create a separate page for Bastardy that covers the law in England and Wales, which seems to be more naturally separate.

I took out the section that called Jesus a famous bastard, because He was not a bastard. If anyone opposes to my decision please let me know. -Tyler

In the united states one doesn't[edit]

I live in the united states and I've never heard anyone think it offensive to say "illegitamate child". Also, Born out of wedlock is often supplanted with the even more negative "love child."

Oh, I certainly have heard people find "illegitimate child" offensive, and I don't particularly like the term myself. There are those who say "there are no illegitimate children, only illegitimate parents" ... and I don't even entirely like that expression either. The PC term for "illegitimate children" is "nonmarital children" (sometimes with a hyphen: "non-marital"), which is descriptive without being offensive.

Also, I don't see american morals as holding children innocent of their family status. I'm sure I could find plenty of examples of ordinary, not fanatical people accusing someone of coming from a single parent family. And how often do we hear about statistics of how children born outside married families are suicidal and criminals?

  • I deleted the part about 'Illigitimate children' because the article was innapropriate and in the 21st century, one does not refer to a child as illigitimate.
  • Yeah...."does not".We don't find the term "illegitamate child" offensive here in the U.K. either.Just the word "bastard" is considered offensive.And a couple of small minded people only think it can refer to males...interesting.
  • I disagree, I have heard many people in the Northeast US use the term illegitimate with a negative connotation. I do :-) think the term itself is offensive -- it isjust a statement of fact and proper word usage.

Ifenwick 22:33, 19 March 2007 (UTC)== Was Jesus a bastard? ==Reply[reply]

Or was Joseph, "God in disguise"? Because if Jesus was a bastard shouldn't we mention that the Christian condemnation of illegitimacy is in itself illegitimate?--Greasysteve13 06:37, 21 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm just wondering if anyone could show me the source of the comment about Opus Dei. I just haven't seen it mentioned anywhere else and I'm curious about it. 23 May 2006—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

Hah?...Funnily enough, I don't read the bible that much...—Preceding unsigned comment added by Centurion Ry (talkcontribs)
Thank for your help.--Greasysteve13 06:10, 17 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Do you even understand the condemnation of illegitimacy? Do you know why? You do not sound as if you do.

No, that's totally true (in reference to the editor who edited out the definition that "Jesus was a bastard") that Jesus wasn't a bastard. How could He be? He had (has) a father - God, and on earth legal parents - Joseph and Mary, and I don't know if anyone, at the time of Christ's birth, knew that Jesus was the son of God, and not of Joseph, but Jesus made this known at many instances. However, I think there is some association of abandonment, and/or loss of connection, by the parents from a bastard child, in its precise definition. If you'll remember in the Bible God is always with Jesus. His parents never abandon Him. If the Father and Mother are with the son, then how is the son illegitimate? "But when the Comforter comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of reality, who proceeds from the Father, He will testify concerning Me" (John 15:26, Recovery Version of the Bible). These are the words of Jesus before He was crucified, which shows that the Father's Spirit proceeds from Him, thus connecting the Son with the Father at all times. As Jesus grew up, He "became strong, being filled with wisdom, and the grace of God was upon Him" (Luke 2:40), and a footnote of the Recovery version Bible, to Luke 2:40, describes that "the wisdom of the Saviour's deity (Col. 2:2-3) was revealed in proportion to the measure of His bodily growth. So in v.52." Therefore, unlike contemporary accounts of bastard children, Jesus grows in all the wisdom of God, Who is His Father, and Who has never abandoned Him. So the statement, "Jesus was a bastard child," is untrue. Please comment. Ifenwick 22:33, 19 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You're absolutely right to all people that believe in the basic Christian (Catholic? - I doubt all Christians believe this) dogma. From a strictly historical and secular perspective, however, one could make the argument that Jesus was an illegitimate child. If Mary was a virgin, her marriage to Joseph (they were married, right?) was never consummated, and thus not valid at the time. If Joseph was Jesus' father, Jesus was illegitimate (assuming, again, that they didn't marry while Mary was pregnant. Funny thing about studying ancient history is that we'll probably never know). If, on the other hand, Jesus was indeed the son of God, from a strictly legal perspective, Mary had no formal marriage to God (unless she was some sort of Jewish nun?), and thus Jesus was their illegitimate child.
Either way, I'm pretty sure that whoever added the original comment did so more as an act of vandalism, in an effort to shock, than as an attempt to spark some sort of theological or historical debate. It's mostly irrelevant anyways. Baribeau 19:22, 20 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Child of a packsaddle?[edit]

In Norwegian dictionaries the origin of the word bastard is said to be an old Norse word, bastarðr, meaning son of a mistress (frille) (See dictionary entry here). I find that a bit more plausible than child of a packsaddle, but I don't really know enough about the subject to edit the article here. Any thoughts? -- 14:09, 13 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I always understood the term to be of Scandinavian origin.

Please check my edit.[edit]

I undid this edit, but am wondering if I acted too hastily. Can someone check the changes? My reasoning was that if the original interwiki pages still exist, this is less likely a correct change, but I could be wrong. Thanks. Xiner (talk, email) 14:29, 13 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I changed the interwiki links because the articles were more relevant. The articles Bastard on nn and no deals with the term bastard itself, whereas the articles nn:Fødd utanfor ekteskap og no:Utenekteskapelige barn (both translates into children born outside of marriage) deals with the subject of illegitimate children. -- 15:00, 13 February 2007 (UTC) (Helt)Reply[reply]
Next time, I'll talk on the talk page before reverting. Now that there's undo, edits can be reversed anytime. Sorry about that. Xiner (talk, email) 15:13, 13 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Illegitimacy" broader than bastardy[edit]

The concepts of legitimacy ("lawfullness") and ill- apply to a wide range of inherited statuses, and today are often used in politics (e.g. questions about the "legitimate government" of a country). Dawud

Also note the disambiguation page Legitimacy. I have suggested a merge with Legitimacy (law). – gpvos (talk) 13:29, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

The pages overlap significantly. Also, I think it's better if Illegitimacy became a redirect to the disambiguation page Legitimacy after the merge (see previous comment by Dawud). – gpvos (talk) 13:29, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the merge. However i think it should undergo a rewrite, with SOME verifiability at the same time. I suggest that you put the merge request through to an admin. Perhaps we can get more people to contribute to this discussion as well. businessman332211 14:53, 31 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Tone/Style of Article[edit]

The article seems to have some POV problems, citation problems, and weasel words. Examples:

  • Even now, law in many societies has denied "illegitimate" persons the same rights of inheritance as "legitimate" ones, and in some, even the same civil rights.
  • Nevertheless, the late-20th-century demise, in Western culture, of the concept of "illegitimacy" came too late to relieve the contemporaneous stigma once suffered by such creative individuals, born before the 20th century, as Leone Battista Alberti, Leonardo da Vinci, Erasmus of Rotterdam, d'Alembert, Alexander Hamilton, Sarah Bernhardt, T.E. Lawrence or Stefan Banach.
  • Recently, some people in the United States have taken to stigmatizing the parents, rather than the child, by labeling the parents as "Bastard Parents," because it is the parents who are ultimately responsible for the actions that caused an out-of-wedlock pregnancy.
  • History shows striking examples of prominent persons of "illegitimate" birth. Often they seem to have been driven to excel in their fields of endeavor in part by a desire to overcome the social disadvantage that, in their time, attached to illegitimacy.
Gront 03:30, 5 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, there is a POV problem.

Deleted Bastard Section[edit]

I deleted the 'bastard' section, since I felt it read too much like a dictionary. If I was wrong, feel free to revert my edit and leave a message on my talk page. --Umalee 20:31, 6 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Re-emergence of bigotry" section[edit]

I note that this section has been deleted with the suggestion that it was soapboxing. The deleted section can be seen in the page history here and here.

I support the removal of these edits in their current form but I don't think they are soapboxing and I do think they raise issues that could appropriately be included in this article. A discussion of modern attitudes towards illegitimacy and any potential re-emergence of societal (if not legal) discrimination in the US would be an interesting topic.

In considering the above, there are issues with reliable sources and with giving undue weight to fringe views. For example, I doubt that the comments by Judge Miller will have any impact on either societal attitudes or illegitimacy laws. The same with the blog comments, which were not widespread or coherent enough to make an impact. By themselves, these references are not sufficient to claim that there is a re-emergence of a negative societal attitude. Let's see if we can dig up some more mainstream coverage.

There is also a synthesis issue with claiming that because lawyers seeking clemency say their client is from a 'good family', this automatically creates a stigma for those 'born out of wedlock'. 'Good family' in this context might mean law-abiding, church-going, charitable etc. A more relevant point might be attempts by plaintiffs to itnroduce illegitimacy as a grounds for turning jury sympathies away from a defendant, if any such sources could be found.

Any other views? I think there's something here we can work together on if there's any interest. Euryalus (talk) 22:44, 13 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Here is the proposed Section: I was tipped off to this undercurrent when a Judge appeared on an NPR affiliate in the Bible Belt to castigate the character of an entire swath of humanity which I suspected was a fairly bible-thumping position. Turns out it was. I've included some links - turns out Google is particularly blog-bloated on this, but these ideas are being promoted by "national" organizations, with references to CDC, DOJ, DHHS. The problem in my view is not that certain cherry-picked stats are false, but that they are cited in isolation. For example, divorce is rising in this country while crime is falling, if the principle indicator of crime where birth situation, these two stats should follow each other. for another example, divorce is extremely rare in the mid-east - where they seem to have an abundance of poverty and chaos, and finally, there are anecdotal examples of people - in this articles for example - who excelled from this group - but these cases are left out of the discussion in these Bastarphobic conversations. Sadly, it must still be pointed out to some that Bigotry is self-justifying - excluded individuals rarely contribute.Benjamin Gatti (talk) 12:47, 14 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

All-Pro Dads participated in the radio show, I believe they wave this canard as part of their service. I should point out that neo-bastarphobia is part of an social trend toward parental-equality in divorce cases. Many find gathering and reciting cherry-picked data in support of paternal involvment is helpful in overcoming a traditional preference for mothers in custody cases - not that it's justified of course. Benjamin Gatti (talk) 13:02, 14 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Re-Emergence of Bigotry towards Bastards[edit]

There is a dubious trend toward identifying Bastards as the principle cause of a broad range of societal maladies ranging from serial killers to poverty and war (a rare distinction briefly held by jews shortly before 1944) even by elected stat officials. For example,on December 10, 2007 Judge Regan, using his official title, appeared on WFAE where he agreed that "No good comes from [Bastards]." and affirmed the relevance of the Omaha gunman as a good example of what was meant by "No Good thing." [[1]](5:55,6:20). A number of websites claiming to promote legitimacy appear dedicated to reciting cherry-picked statistics and lists of sensational sociopaths as a kind of canonical description of the sub-species varietal Bastard hominus[[2]] [[3]] [[4]].

Continuing Discrimination in the US Justice System[edit]

Every day in the US, defense attorneys will parade young defendants in front of a judge and ask for some kind of clemency noting "this is a kid from a good family..." That such pejorative corollaries are an everyday part of a modern "justice" system suggests that non-Bastardy continues to be weighed by the courts as a mitigating factor at least.

Interesting theory. The inverse could also be hypothesized however, that young people who come from negative backgrounds are granted clemency based on their lack of opportunities. This is all interesting theorizing, however Wikipedia is not a place for original research. If you want to discuss this further please move it to a blog or forum. Also, in the future, please sign your comments with four tildes. [[5]] CelticLabyrinth (talk) 10:28, 8 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]