(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
