(June 24, 2015 at 9:22 pm)das_atheist Wrote:

(June 24, 2015 at 9:18 pm)mh.brewer Wrote: You will have to ask the government. My personal opinion would be no, neither of these cases would satisfy the burden of proof. It would take additional documentation (oh shit, I'm starting to think like them).

The question is, would there be a case where a religious record would tip the scales in favor of getting a passport? My guess is yes, otherwise they wouldn't ask for it.

The yes answer may be correct. I hope that the religious documentation would be one of the last pieces of evidence in a long line of evidence that they consider.

(June 24, 2015 at 9:25 pm)rexbeccarox Wrote:

(June 24, 2015 at 9:09 pm)das_atheist Wrote: Lets say that a nonreligious family only has early school records of their child, and that's not enough to get a passport.

Lets say that a religious family has the same early school records as the nonreligious family, but also has religious records. Should that child be given a passport while the other child is denied a passport?

If the child doesn't have a birth certificate, there are plenty of combinations the government will accept, including religious ones.  For children whose parents are unbelievers, what would you suggest replace the religious records?  Are you saying that shouldn't be an option for anyone at all?  

I guess I really don't understand what the problem is, here (save for the family Bible thing... wut???).  As someone who is going through some gnarly immigration stuff (trying to get my Australian boyfriend to the US), it's actually rather nice to see more options instead of less for people trying to obtain a passport.

My point is that religious records shouldn't tip the scales. It encourages undocumented families to go to church with their children. It gives the church power over people since they can delete your records if you leave the faith. I'm sure some Islamic mosks would be doing that since apostasy carries the death penalty.

---

(June 24, 2015 at 9:26 pm)mh.brewer Wrote:

(June 24, 2015 at 9:22 pm)das_atheist Wrote: The question is, would there be a case where a religious record would tip the scales in favor of getting a passport? My guess is yes, otherwise they wouldn't ask for it.

The yes answer may be correct. I hope that the religious documentation would be one of the last pieces of evidence in a long line of evidence that they consider.

So the atheist who cant produce that last piece of evidence is out of luck.

If religious records encourage undocumented people to go to church, I guess that means they're also encouraged to go to the hospital to give birth and to send their kids to school. What is the difference?

It's not like they're asking for all of those forms of evidence; it's not like you have to prove you went to church as a kid in order to obtain a passport. It only helps because churches keep records. Again, what types of records could a family of unbelievers have to replace the religious ones?

I really don't understand the problem here. Why is it bad to have the option of providing records that could have been kept when someone was a child? They're not encouraging religion, they're just recognizing that churches keep records.

(June 24, 2015 at 9:35 pm)das_atheist Wrote:

(June 24, 2015 at 9:25 pm)rexbeccarox Wrote: If the child doesn't have a birth certificate, there are plenty of combinations the government will accept, including religious ones.  For children whose parents are unbelievers, what would you suggest replace the religious records?  Are you saying that shouldn't be an option for anyone at all?  

I guess I really don't understand what the problem is, here (save for the family Bible thing... wut???).  As someone who is going through some gnarly immigration stuff (trying to get my Australian boyfriend to the US), it's actually rather nice to see more options instead of less for people trying to obtain a passport.

My point is that religious records shouldn't tip the scales. It encourages undocumented families to go to church with their children. It gives the church power over people since they can delete your records if you leave the faith. I'm sure some Islamic mosks would be doing that since apostasy carries the death penalty.

---

(June 24, 2015 at 9:26 pm)mh.brewer Wrote: The yes answer may be correct. I hope that the religious documentation would be one of the last pieces of evidence in a long line of evidence that they consider.

So the atheist who cant produce that last piece of evidence is out of luck.

Again, I'm not the government so I can't say, I don't think the government it saying that either. I think you are giving the theists to much credit and the atheist not enough. Doubt that the deluded would have more documentation, even accurate documentation.

(June 24, 2015 at 9:48 pm)rexbeccarox Wrote: If religious records encourage undocumented people to go to church, I guess that means they're also encouraged to go to the hospital to give birth and to send their kids to school.  What is the difference?

The difference is the government shouldn't encourage people to go to church, but it should encourage people to go to hospitals and schools. If an undocumented immigrant goes to a hospital and has their child, or puts their child into das kindergarten, we give the child papers. That is definitely an incentive for them to put their kids in school and to have safe births at the hospital. In the same respect they are encouraged to go to church for the proof of residency.

(June 24, 2015 at 9:48 pm)rexbeccarox Wrote: It's not like they're asking for all of those forms of evidence; it's not like you have to prove you went to church as a kid in order to obtain a passport.  It only helps because churches keep records.  Again, what types of records could a family of unbelievers have to replace the religious ones?  

It's not required, but it's an option that religious people have and nonreligious people don't have.

(June 24, 2015 at 9:48 pm)rexbeccarox Wrote: I really don't understand the problem here.  Why is it bad to have the option of providing records that could have been kept when someone was a child?  They're not encouraging religion, they're just recognizing that churches keep records.

The problem with the church records are that they are not controlled by the state. If we are going to trust records from churches, then we have to have the state control the records. The church wont let that happen and it isn't happening now

(June 24, 2015 at 10:58 pm)das_atheist Wrote:

(June 24, 2015 at 9:48 pm)rexbeccarox Wrote: If religious records encourage undocumented people to go to church, I guess that means they're also encouraged to go to the hospital to give birth and to send their kids to school.  What is the difference?

The difference is the government shouldn't encourage people to go to church, but it should encourage people to go to hospitals and schools. If an undocumented immigrant goes to a hospital and has their child, or puts their child into das kindergarten, we give the child papers. That is definitely an incentive for them to put their kids in school and to have safe births at the hospital. In the same respect they are encouraged to go to church for the proof of residency.

They are? I don't know anything about that.

Quote:

(June 24, 2015 at 9:48 pm)rexbeccarox Wrote: It's not like they're asking for all of those forms of evidence; it's not like you have to prove you went to church as a kid in order to obtain a passport.  It only helps because churches keep records.  Again, what types of records could a family of unbelievers have to replace the religious ones?  

It's not required, but it's an option that religious people have and nonreligious people don't have.

So, because non-religious people don't have the religious records, the option to provide them should be taken away from religious people? I'm going to ask again: what forms of records could a family of unbelievers have that should be accepted by the government in lieu of them?

Quote:

(June 24, 2015 at 9:48 pm)rexbeccarox Wrote: I really don't understand the problem here.  Why is it bad to have the option of providing records that could have been kept when someone was a child?  They're not encouraging religion, they're just recognizing that churches keep records.

The problem with the church records are that they are not controlled by the state. If we are going to trust records from churches, then we have to have the state control the records. The church wont let that happen and it isn't happening now

That, I can kind of see, but I still think it's silly to take away an option to present any kind of childhood evidence to help one make the case that they have the right to a passport. Let me put it another way: if there were parallel records an atheist family could present to obtain a passport, would you still have a problem with it?

(June 24, 2015 at 11:05 pm)rexbeccarox Wrote: So, because non-religious people don't have the religious records, the option to provide them should be taken away from religious people?  I'm going to ask again: what forms of records could a family of unbelievers have that should be accepted by the government in lieu of them?

Religious records are not controlled by the state so they cannot be trusted. The options of delayed birth certificate, hospital records, and early school records are more than enough for both believers and nonbelievers. 

(June 24, 2015 at 11:05 pm)rexbeccarox Wrote: That, I can kind of see, but I still think it's silly to take away an option to present any kind of childhood evidence to help one make the case that they have the right to a passport.  Let me put it another way: if there were parallel records an atheist family could present to obtain a passport, would you still have a problem with it?

The only evidence the state should accept for proof of citizenship should be state controlled records. I don't think atheist should have an easier way to fake their citizenship either.

(June 24, 2015 at 11:18 pm)das_atheist Wrote:

(June 24, 2015 at 11:05 pm)rexbeccarox Wrote: So, because non-religious people don't have the religious records, the option to provide them should be taken away from religious people?  I'm going to ask again: what forms of records could a family of unbelievers have that should be accepted by the government in lieu of them?

Religious records are not controlled by the state so they cannot be trusted. The options of delayed birth certificate, hospital records, and early school records are more than enough for both believers and nonbelievers. 

(June 24, 2015 at 11:05 pm)rexbeccarox Wrote: That, I can kind of see, but I still think it's silly to take away an option to present any kind of childhood evidence to help one make the case that they have the right to a passport.  Let me put it another way: if there were parallel records an atheist family could present to obtain a passport, would you still have a problem with it?

The only evidence the state should accept for proof of citizenship should be state controlled records. I don't think atheist should have an easier way to fake their citizenship either.

... but hospital and school records aren't necessarily controlled by the state, either. And why do you assume "faked" citizenship?

(June 24, 2015 at 11:44 pm)rexbeccarox Wrote:

(June 24, 2015 at 11:18 pm)das_atheist Wrote: Religious records are not controlled by the state so they cannot be trusted. The options of delayed birth certificate, hospital records, and early school records are more than enough for both believers and nonbelievers. 

The only evidence the state should accept for proof of citizenship should be state controlled records. I don't think atheist should have an easier way to fake their citizenship either.

... but hospital and school records aren't necessarily controlled by the state, either.  And why do you assume "faked" citizenship?

The state has complete control of school records and has lots of control over hospital records.

http://library.ahima.org/xpedio/groups/p...ok1_049252
http://s1.sos.mo.gov/CMSImages/LocalReco...School.pdf

The state has no control over religious records. Their records will be easier to fake and impossible to audit unless we create rules for how the church keeps their records.

Your first link is about records retention and the laws governing that... I don't understand what that has to do with what's in your records, and your second link is about public schools... in Missouri... also about retention.

I'm not sure what retention has to do with it. Can you explain?