Total Posts:28|Showing Posts:1-28
Jump to topic:

Seperation of Church and State

Republican95
Posts: 111
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2009 3:03:39 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
The first amendment doesn't mandate that the church stay out of the state, but that the government stay out of the church.

It does say that the government cannot establish a religion, but that is an act by the government, not the church. It doesn't say anything about the church not influencing the government.

Also, how can you separate the church and the state?

The people who compromise the church also compromise the state, YOU CAN'T SEPARATE THEM!

You can't ask people to not take into account their religious beliefs at the voting booth! I mean its find, even encouraged, for our judges to have "multicultural experiences" when sitting on the bench and for them to take those into account when processing the law (at least that is what Obama thinks about the legal system), but it isn't okay for people to take into their religious beliefs? I mean come on!

The church plays a big role in our culture, our culture plays a big role in our government. It is impossible to ask for the two to pretend like they don't know each other!
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2009 3:21:34 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 7/20/2009 3:03:39 PM, Republican95 wrote:
The first amendment doesn't mandate that the church stay out of the state, but that the government stay out of the church.

It does say that the government cannot establish a religion, but that is an act by the government, not the church. It doesn't say anything about the church not influencing the government.

Uh, what?

"...Congress shall make no law respecting AN establishment of a religion..."

You're confusing the terms, here. It doesn't say "shall make no law respecting THE establishment of a religion." If it did, then what you're saying - that the government can't establish a state religion - would be true.

It says "AN", and that is the difference here. It means that Congress cannot make a law that favours the establishment of a religion - "establishment" here meaning the same thing as an organization. So, you could basically write it, "Congress shall make no law respecting a religious organization."

Also, how can you separate the church and the state?

The government is not allowed to favour any one religion over others through funding, legal establishments or support.

The people who compromise the church also compromise the state, YOU CAN'T SEPARATE THEM!

Seriously?

We all know that, but the difference is that people that hold public office shall not include their personal biases in regards to religion while making decisions.

hey can hold private beliefs, and no one will argue with that. But they should not bring those beliefs in while dealing with public matters.

You can't ask people to not take into account their religious beliefs at the voting booth! I mean its find, even encouraged, for our judges to have "multicultural experiences" when sitting on the bench and for them to take those into account when processing the law (at least that is what Obama thinks about the legal system), but it isn't okay for people to take into their religious beliefs? I mean come on!

You don't seem to understand this idea. People that vote are not public citizens - if they wish to have their religious beliefs influence how they vote, so be it.

Those that are public citizens, like judges, can have private beliefs but are not allowed to bring those personal biases in their rulings. Why some judges are encouraged to have "multicultural experiences" - they also include different religious beliefs, in case you didn't know - is so that they are able to understand every perspective that may possibly be brought forward to their court, so we don't end up with a judge ruling against a rabbi performing a circumcision just because that judge doesn't understand the practice.

The church plays a big role in our culture, our culture plays a big role in our government. It is impossible to ask for the two to pretend like they don't know each other!

No one is saying that they don't. What everyone is saying is that public figures and the government shall not put their personal religious biases nor favour one particular group over others, just because that is what they believe. The clause is designed to protect the minority from the majority.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2009 3:57:08 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
The people who compromise the church also compromise the state

Hey. Pastor. I propose a compromise.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
TombLikeBomb
Posts: 639
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2009 3:47:03 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 7/20/2009 3:21:34 PM, Volkov wrote:
We all know that, but the difference is that people that hold public office shall not include their personal biases in regards to religion while making decisions.

...which is not provided by the 1st Ammendment. The an-the distiction is irrelevant in this case.

hey can hold private beliefs, and no one will argue with that. But they should not bring those beliefs in while dealing with public matters.

Why not?

Those that are public citizens, like judges, can have private beliefs but are not allowed to bring those personal biases in their rulings. Why some judges are encouraged to have "multicultural experiences" - they also include different religious beliefs, in case you didn't know - is so that they are able to understand every perspective that may possibly be brought forward to their court, so we don't end up with a judge ruling against a rabbi performing a circumcision just because that judge doesn't understand the practice.

...or even an atheist, agnostic, or secularist ruling against a rabbi for similar reasons. If you want to make sure all religions are represented, a bad start would be to make sure none are.

The church plays a big role in our culture, our culture plays a big role in our government. It is impossible to ask for the two to pretend like they don't know each other!

No one is saying that they don't. What everyone is saying is that public figures and the government shall not put their personal religious biases nor favour one particular group over others, just because that is what they believe. The clause is designed to protect the minority from the majority.

But why only with regard to religious beliefs? Why not economic beliefs or cultural beliefs? Where are the protections for the nudist minority from the clothist majority which everywhere oppresses it? And if ALL beliefs were to be checked at the door, we'd have some rather brain-dead officials, no? A major flaw of your argumenation in general is your constant fluctuation. For example "favouring one particular group over others" is much stronger than an elected official allowing his religious beliefs to inform his decision-making. The thread-starter, you'll notice, was attacking not Separation of Church and State as YOU would have it, but the perhaps stronger definition many, perhaps most, certainly not "No one", give it.
From the time of the progressive era with the rise of public schooling through the post-WWII period, capital invaded the time workers had liberated from waged work and shaped it for purposes of social control. Perhaps the most obvious moment of this colonization was the re-incarceration in schools of the young (who were expelled from the factories by child labor laws) such that what might have been free time was structured to convert their life energies into labor power.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2009 4:08:08 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 7/28/2009 3:47:03 PM, TombLikeBomb wrote:

hey can hold private beliefs, and no one will argue with that. But they should not bring those beliefs in while dealing with public matters.

Why not?

Because bringing such beliefs into a matter that affects public policy - policy that affects people outside of what lawmakers may believe - would be contrary to making laws that are unbiased and fair.

No one is saying that they don't. What everyone is saying is that public figures and the government shall not put their personal religious biases nor favour one particular group over others, just because that is what they believe. The clause is designed to protect the minority from the majority.

But why only with regard to religious beliefs? Why not economic beliefs or cultural beliefs? Where are the protections for the nudist minority from the clothist majority which everywhere oppresses it?

In that specific case, nudists are allowed to practice their"belief" on public property, so long as it isn't in front of others that would disagree, specifically children. Nudists are afforded private - and public - spaces in which to practice their belief.

Unfortunately, what they belief does violate a law or two - specifically, indecent exposure and sexual harassment. You may or may not believe these are overblown laws, but they're laws nevertheless that a majority of people support. The key here is that the state and private institutions cater to their beliefs, and there is no laws barring them from doing such where it is agreed that it will not violate laws.

If it were true oppression, then there would be a ban instituted everywhere.

And if ALL beliefs were to be checked at the door, we'd have some rather brain-dead officials, no?

Did I say all beliefs were to be chucked at the door? No, I said that beliefs should not be taken into account when deciding a ruling that would then be set into law.

For instance, a Christian church may take a mosque to court because that church does not want Muslims in its area. The judge may be either one of those two religions, but the judge should not and can not infuse his beliefs into his ruling, as bias towards either side would affect the outcome.

The proper thing for the judge to do is focus on the legality of such claims based on other precedents, the documents pertaining to such situations, and etc.

A major flaw of your argumenation in general is your constant fluctuation. For example "favouring one particular group over others" is much stronger than an elected official allowing his religious beliefs to inform his decision-making.

Alright, fair enough. I'll clarify that law makers should not favour one group particular group over another, but belief is a deciding factor in decision making.
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2009 4:16:14 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Since marriage is an establishment of religion, government can make no regulations regarding it.
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2009 4:19:12 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 7/28/2009 4:16:14 PM, wjmelements wrote:
Since marriage is an establishment of religion, government can make no regulations regarding it.

Except there is "civil marriages," or rather marriages that go through the state. I believe most marriages, even if they go through a religious establishment, are still certified by the state.

Also, because it is equal for all religions to hold certified marriage ceremonies, it is still equal and therefore, there is no particular bias. This is thrown up in contention with polygamous marriages, though.
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2009 4:21:34 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 7/28/2009 4:19:12 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 7/28/2009 4:16:14 PM, wjmelements wrote:
Since marriage is an establishment of religion, government can make no regulations regarding it.

Except there is "civil marriages," or rather marriages that go through the state. I believe most marriages, even if they go through a religious establishment, are still certified by the state.

The government is still making laws regarding the religious establishment of marriage.

Also, because it is equal for all religions to hold certified marriage ceremonies, it is still equal and therefore, there is no particular bias. This is thrown up in contention with polygamous marriages, though.

Doesn't matter. They're recognizing marriage, a religious institution.
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2009 4:27:13 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 7/28/2009 4:21:34 PM, wjmelements wrote:
The government is still making laws regarding the religious establishment of marriage.

True, and that can be seen as a violation of the First Amendment.

Doesn't matter. They're recognizing marriage, a religious institution.

I don't know about this, but if they classified it as a state institution, then they could get around that - it just means that religious institutions are allowed to recognize it as well, and hold ceremonies to celebrate it. But, the certification itself comes from the state.
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2009 4:28:51 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 7/28/2009 4:27:13 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 7/28/2009 4:21:34 PM, wjmelements wrote:
The government is still making laws regarding the religious establishment of marriage.

True, and that can be seen as a violation of the First Amendment.

That was my point.

Doesn't matter. They're recognizing marriage, a religious institution.

I don't know about this, but if they classified it as a state institution, then they could get around that - it just means that religious institutions are allowed to recognize it as well, and hold ceremonies to celebrate it. But, the certification itself comes from the state.

And what is the purpose or benefit of that? Why is the government recognizing marriages?
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2009 4:31:24 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 7/28/2009 4:28:51 PM, wjmelements wrote:
And what is the purpose or benefit of that? Why is the government recognizing marriages?

Tax purposes, census purposes, etc.
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2009 4:33:29 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 7/28/2009 4:31:24 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 7/28/2009 4:28:51 PM, wjmelements wrote:
And what is the purpose or benefit of that? Why is the government recognizing marriages?

Tax purposes, census purposes, etc.

So, the government is recognizing marriage:
-to discriminate
AND
-to be Big Brother
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2009 4:38:12 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 7/28/2009 4:33:29 PM, wjmelements wrote:
So, the government is recognizing marriage:
-to discriminate
AND
-to be Big Brother

Pretty much. I don't mind that, do you?

Besides, I would think that distinguishing between married individuals and unmarried individuals is important, as income and how it comes in and goes out is different.

That is my opinion though.
TombLikeBomb
Posts: 639
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2009 5:25:33 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 7/28/2009 4:08:08 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 7/28/2009 3:47:03 PM, TombLikeBomb wrote:
hey can hold private beliefs, and no one will argue with that. But they should not bring those beliefs in while dealing with public matters.

Why not?

Because bringing such beliefs into a matter that affects public policy - policy that affects people outside of what lawmakers may believe - would be contrary to making laws that are unbiased and fair.

What law has ever been unbiased? Again, why single out religious beliefs in particular? Why not a Separation of Ideology and State? Can't you see where this would lead?

No one is saying that they don't. What everyone is saying is that public figures and the government shall not put their personal religious biases nor favour one particular group over others, just because that is what they believe. The clause is designed to protect the minority from the majority.

But why only with regard to religious beliefs? Why not economic beliefs or cultural beliefs? Where are the protections for the nudist minority from the clothist majority which everywhere oppresses it?

In that specific case, nudists are allowed to practice their"belief" on public property, so long as it isn't in front of others that would disagree, specifically children. Nudists are afforded private - and public - spaces in which to practice their belief.

I never said nudism was a belief. Nudism is a practice, and many religious denominations are distinguished only be their practices. And since when is the consent of onlookers a prerequisite for the freedom to express religious beliefs? Children, in fact, are far more comfortable with nudity than adults, but that's neither here nor there. And again, no law relegating Jewish headgear, for example, to predesignated areas would be tolerated under Separation of Church and State.

Unfortunately, what they belief does violate a law or two - specifically, indecent exposure and sexual harassment. You may or may not believe these are overblown laws, but they're laws nevertheless that a majority of people support. The key here is that the state and private institutions cater to their beliefs, and there is no laws barring them from doing such where it is agreed that it will not violate laws.

Why can't the same apply to religion, such as "There shall be no laws barring Jewish headgear in public where it is agreed that it will not violate laws" in the context of a law barring Jewish headgear in public. The law would not even have to mention the group, only describe the headgear, and be as free from discrimination as your anti-nudist laws. If the indescency laws themselves reflect the cultural biases of your sometimes-feared, sometimes-deferred-to "majority", what good are your protections against all-but-the-law?

If it were true oppression, then there would be a ban instituted everywhere.

Yes, it would also be true oppression in that case. Similarly, it would be true oppression whether Jewish practices were outright banned or only restricted.

And if ALL beliefs were to be checked at the door, we'd have some rather brain-dead officials, no?

Did I say all beliefs were to be chucked at the door? No, I said that beliefs should not be taken into account when deciding a ruling that would then be set into law.

Name one ruling that has ever been made without beliefs being taken into account. Can you even construct an imaginary one?

For instance, a Christian church may take a mosque to court because that church does not want Muslims in its area. The judge may be either one of those two religions, but the judge should not and can not infuse his beliefs into his ruling, as bias towards either side would affect the outcome.

Don't insult me. This is stuff they teach in kindergarten. First, why continue with the religious examples? I'm talking about EXTENDING the separation to non-religious beliefs. Of course bias effects the outcome. But you've only shown your judge to be unbiased in regards to Islam v. Christianity. You've shown no general lack of bias.

The proper thing for the judge to do is focus on the legality of such claims based on other precedents, the documents pertaining to such situations, and etc.

In other words, his beliefs regarding the meaning and scope of such precedents, his belief in the validity and importance of the each document, and the beliefs of the lawmakers responsible for the laws he's "objectively" deciding based on.

A major flaw of your argumenation in general is your constant fluctuation. For example "favouring one particular group over others" is much stronger than an elected official allowing his religious beliefs to inform his decision-making.

Alright, fair enough. I'll clarify that law makers should not favour one group particular group over another, but belief is a deciding factor in decision making.

That's not a clarification. Belief IS a deciding factor or SHOULD BE? And which beliefs? ALL beliefs or ALL BUT RELIGIOUS beliefs? And how can ANY decision not favor one group over another? Raise wealth taxes, it favors the poor; lower them, it favors the others.
From the time of the progressive era with the rise of public schooling through the post-WWII period, capital invaded the time workers had liberated from waged work and shaped it for purposes of social control. Perhaps the most obvious moment of this colonization was the re-incarceration in schools of the young (who were expelled from the factories by child labor laws) such that what might have been free time was structured to convert their life energies into labor power.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2009 5:52:06 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 7/28/2009 5:25:33 PM, TombLikeBomb wrote:
At 7/28/2009 4:08:08 PM, Volkov wrote:
What law has ever been unbiased? Again, why single out religious beliefs in particular? Why not a Separation of Ideology and State? Can't you see where this would lead?

I'm talking about in cases where a Christian church is favoured over a Muslim mosque, and etc.

I never said nudism was a belief. Nudism is a practice, and many religious denominations are distinguished only be their practices. And since when is the consent of onlookers a prerequisite for the freedom to express religious beliefs? Children, in fact, are far more comfortable with nudity than adults, but that's neither here nor there. And again, no law relegating Jewish headgear, for example, to predesignated areas would be tolerated under Separation of Church and State.

Tolerance of Jewish headgear is much, much different from laws regarding indecent exposure and nudity.

Why can't the same apply to religion, such as "There shall be no laws barring Jewish headgear in public where it is agreed that it will not violate laws" in the context of a law barring Jewish headgear in public. The law would not even have to mention the group, only describe the headgear, and be as free from discrimination as your anti-nudist laws.

Religious garment differs from nudity. Religious garments do not harm others; nudity can cause psychological and physical harm to others.

Certain religious garments, like the ceremonial knife Sikhs carry, can cause physical harm, and I believe that people should look into whether or not it would be legal to have such devices on your person, unless it is secured in such a way that it cannot be taken out of its sheath.

This kind of compromise is important when dealing with laws, even though is respects a religious belief. The difference is that the public officials deciding upon these compromises and laws do not put only their religious bias in their ruling, ie., a Christian saying that because the Sikh religion is not "God's truth," the ceremonial knife should not be allowed. The judges would include other factors such as the opponent's views, law precedents and constitutionality.

If the indescency laws themselves reflect the cultural biases of your sometimes-feared, sometimes-deferred-to "majority", what good are your protections against all-but-the-law?

I'm unsure what you mean, sorry.

Name one ruling that has ever been made without beliefs being taken into account. Can you even construct an imaginary one?

Again, you're either misunderstanding my opinion, or maybe I'm simply not clarifying it enough.

Obviously when dealing with rulings, people will infuse their beliefs, religious, political or cultural, into their decisions. But, it is important that those beliefs are not the only basis for decisions. A judge or lawmaker has a duty to look at all facts, and their opinion or belief cannot be the only reasoning for their judgment.

Don't insult me. This is stuff they teach in kindergarten. First, why continue with the religious examples? I'm talking about EXTENDING the separation to non-religious beliefs. Of course bias effects the outcome. But you've only shown your judge to be unbiased in regards to Islam v. Christianity. You've shown no general lack of bias.

As I said, maybe I don't clarify enough.

The judge cannot include only their personal bias towards his religion in his ruling - they must look at all facts and positions on the issue, and cannot defer their decisions based solely on their beliefs.

That's not a clarification. Belief IS a deciding factor or SHOULD BE? And which beliefs? ALL beliefs or ALL BUT RELIGIOUS beliefs? And how can ANY decision not favor one group over another? Raise wealth taxes, it favors the poor; lower them, it favors the others.

IS. All. Etc.

It is clearly my fault for not clarifying my position enough. Beliefs are clearly a factor when someone makes a decision - but, it should not be the only factor.
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2009 6:00:46 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 7/28/2009 4:38:12 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 7/28/2009 4:33:29 PM, wjmelements wrote:
So, the government is recognizing marriage:
-to discriminate
AND
-to be Big Brother

Pretty much. I don't mind that, do you?

I mind it very much.

Besides, I would think that distinguishing between married individuals and unmarried individuals is important, as income and how it comes in and goes out is different.

Only if you have a discriminatory tax system.
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2009 6:08:29 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 7/28/2009 6:00:46 PM, wjmelements wrote:
At 7/28/2009 4:38:12 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 7/28/2009 4:33:29 PM, wjmelements wrote:
So, the government is recognizing marriage:
-to discriminate
AND
-to be Big Brother

Pretty much. I don't mind that, do you?

I mind it very much.

Besides, I would think that distinguishing between married individuals and unmarried individuals is important, as income and how it comes in and goes out is different.

Only if you have a discriminatory tax system.

A tax system has to be discriminatory, at least in terms of income, relationship status, geographical status, health status (ie., mental health), etc.

Now, don't argue anything about progressive vs. flat tax, as I'm a little bit on the fence about such stuff - but, in terms of the other criteria I mentioned, do you not believe that a tax system based on such stuff would make sense, as all of those are mitigating factors in how tax is implemented and collected?
TombLikeBomb
Posts: 639
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2009 6:40:53 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 7/28/2009 5:52:06 PM, Volkov wrote:
Tolerance of Jewish headgear is much, much different from laws regarding indecent exposure and nudity.

How so? And please, no trivia.

Why can't the same apply to religion, such as "There shall be no laws barring Jewish headgear in public where it is agreed that it will not violate laws" in the context of a law barring Jewish headgear in public. The law would not even have to mention the group, only describe the headgear, and be as free from discrimination as your anti-nudist laws.

Religious garment differs from nudity. Religious garments do not harm others; nudity can cause psychological and physical harm to others.

Ha ha! Now who's being religious? Care to quote a psychological--or should I say "physical"--study. On the other hand, there is evidence that NOT being exposed to nudity can be psychologically harmful. For example, 80% of men believe they have below average-sized penises, which puts an extra 30% at risk for small penis complex.

Certain religious garments, like the ceremonial knife Sikhs carry, can cause physical harm, and I believe that people should look into whether or not it would be legal to have such devices on your person, unless it is secured in such a way that it cannot be taken out of its sheath.

If you're attempting to liken a penis (or even a vagina) to a deadly weapon, you're in trouble. Anyway, genitalia can be easily "taken out of its sheath" with or without indescency laws.

This kind of compromise is important when dealing with laws, even though is respects a religious belief. The difference is that the public officials deciding upon these compromises and laws do not put only their religious bias in their ruling, ie., a Christian saying that because the Sikh religion is not "God's truth," the ceremonial knife should not be allowed. The judges would include other factors such as the opponent's views, law precedents and constitutionality.

...which are all ultimately reflect the BIASES of others. And can't the dissemination of damnable religious beliefs be infinitely more harmful than a knife or a dick, if we only consider that there may be, as the Christians believe, a hell? Shouldn't children be protected from corrupting religions as vigilantely as the body parts they themselves possess? Is the atheism the true reasoning behind Separation of Church and State?

If the indescency laws themselves reflect the cultural biases of your sometimes-feared, sometimes-deferred-to "majority", what good are your protections against all-but-the-law?

I'm unsure what you mean, sorry.

You rationalized the suppression of nudity by pointing out that both religious and secular practices are liable to the law. But that begs the question: are all such practices afforded equal protection BY THE LAW? Obviously, in light of subsequent misinformed statements of yours, this is a moot point. What isn't a moot point is that your fear of nudity is indeed a bias, though you obviously think it's a good one, and it should no more be a consideration in law than a Christian's insistance that the teaching of evolution loses souls to the Devil.

Name one ruling that has ever been made without beliefs being taken into account. Can you even construct an imaginary one?

Obviously when dealing with rulings, people will infuse their beliefs, religious, political or cultural, into their decisions. But, it is important that those beliefs are not the only basis for decisions. A judge or lawmaker has a duty to look at all facts, and their opinion or belief cannot be the only reasoning for their judgment.

Which facts? The facts they believe to be true? Is it not conceivable that a person might look at all the facts and still think it would be good to institute Christian prayer in public school?

The judge cannot include only their personal bias towards his religion in his ruling - they must look at all facts and positions on the issue, and cannot defer their decisions based solely on their beliefs.

Again, a Christian can't consider all other positions on the issues and still decide it would be best to replace the teaching of evolution with Genesis studies in public schools?
From the time of the progressive era with the rise of public schooling through the post-WWII period, capital invaded the time workers had liberated from waged work and shaped it for purposes of social control. Perhaps the most obvious moment of this colonization was the re-incarceration in schools of the young (who were expelled from the factories by child labor laws) such that what might have been free time was structured to convert their life energies into labor power.
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2009 6:49:41 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 7/28/2009 6:08:29 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 7/28/2009 6:00:46 PM, wjmelements wrote:
At 7/28/2009 4:38:12 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 7/28/2009 4:33:29 PM, wjmelements wrote:
So, the government is recognizing marriage:
-to discriminate
AND
-to be Big Brother

Pretty much. I don't mind that, do you?

I mind it very much.

Besides, I would think that distinguishing between married individuals and unmarried individuals is important, as income and how it comes in and goes out is different.

Only if you have a discriminatory tax system.

A tax system has to be discriminatory, at least in terms of income, relationship status, geographical status, health status (ie., mental health), etc.

Are you kidding? Well, let's make the list go on: felonies, voting record, virginity, race, school attendence, age, sexual preferences, weight, and iPod song total.
Any others you'd like?
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2009 7:07:17 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 7/28/2009 6:40:53 PM, TombLikeBomb wrote:
How so? And please, no trivia.

Jewish headgear =/= nudity.

Ha ha! Now who's being religious? Care to quote a psychological--or should I say "physical"--study. On the other hand, there is evidence that NOT being exposed to nudity can be psychologically harmful. For example, 80% of men believe they have below average-sized penises, which puts an extra 30% at risk for small penis complex.

I'm not going to argue about the virtues of nudity.

If you're attempting to liken a penis (or even a vagina) to a deadly weapon, you're in trouble. Anyway, genitalia can be easily "taken out of its sheath" with or without indescency laws.

You're equivocating where you shouldn't be.

...which are all ultimately reflect the BIASES of others. And can't the dissemination of damnable religious beliefs be infinitely more harmful than a knife or a dick, if we only consider that there may be, as the Christians believe, a hell? Shouldn't children be protected from corrupting religions as vigilantely as the body parts they themselves possess? Is the atheism the true reasoning behind Separation of Church and State?

Atheism? No. But secularism.

As well, the entire point is to include the biases of others. That is how you create compromise and laws that try to fit all opinions known.

You rationalized the suppression of nudity by pointing out that both religious and secular practices are liable to the law. But that begs the question: are all such practices afforded equal protection BY THE LAW?

Yes.

Obviously, in light of subsequent misinformed statements of yours, this is a moot point. What isn't a moot point is that your fear of nudity is indeed a bias, though you obviously think it's a good one, and it should no more be a consideration in law than a Christian's insistance that the teaching of evolution loses souls to the Devil.

If it was found under law that my bias was unfounded and did indeed violate wholly the rights of others, then it would be proper if my bias was not considered a proper basis for law. Which is why there exists a compromise between those that are anti-nudist and those that are pro-nudist - both biases do infringe on the rights of others, so there is a compromise drawn up in law to satisfy both sides best as possible.

Which facts? The facts they believe to be true? Is it not conceivable that a person might look at all the facts and still think it would be good to institute Christian prayer in public school?

Always possible. But, if a judge did make such a decision, the party that lost would most likely appeal to a new judge or a panel of judges, which would then decide on that judge's decision based on their opinions, as well as other precedents, etc. If other judges found that the other judge's decisions was found not to be biased, but based on all facts and views available, then they would not overturn it.

Its called the justice system. It may not always be unbiased, but when working properly it will afford people the opportunity to have their contentions judged upon based on criteria that goes beyond a judge's particular biases, in order to ensure a fair decision is reached.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2009 7:08:45 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 7/28/2009 6:49:41 PM, wjmelements wrote:
Are you kidding? Well, let's make the list go on: felonies, voting record, virginity, race, school attendence, age, sexual preferences, weight, and iPod song total.
Any others you'd like?

You're exaggerating. It would of course be based on reasonable practices that don't violate someone's privacy or rights.
TombLikeBomb
Posts: 639
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2009 10:07:50 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 7/28/2009 7:07:17 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 7/28/2009 6:40:53 PM, TombLikeBomb wrote:
How so? And please, no trivia.

Jewish headgear =/= nudity.

But that's just a reiteration of your assertion, isn't it? In what sense RELEVANT TO ANY POINT YOU MAY HAVE is jewish headgear different from nudity?

Ha ha! Now who's being religious? Care to quote a psychological--or should I say "physical"--study. On the other hand, there is evidence that NOT being exposed to nudity can be psychologically harmful. For example, 80% of men believe they have below average-sized penises, which puts an extra 30% at risk for small penis complex.

I'm not going to argue about the virtues of nudity.

How could you? Your position is indefensible, and thus a perfect example of an irrational but perfectly non-religious bias.

If you're attempting to liken a penis (or even a vagina) to a deadly weapon, you're in trouble. Anyway, genitalia can be easily "taken out of its sheath" with or without indescency laws.

You're equivocating where you shouldn't be.

When should a person ever "equivocate"? Perhaps you mean "equating"? With these short, vague responses, you are the one closest to equivocating.

...which are all ultimately reflect the BIASES of others. And can't the dissemination of damnable religious beliefs be infinitely more harmful than a knife or a dick, if we only consider that there may be, as the Christians believe, a hell? Shouldn't children be protected from corrupting religions as vigilantely as the body parts they themselves possess? Is the atheism the true reasoning behind Separation of Church and State?

Atheism? No. But secularism.

Call it atheism, call it secularism. Either way, you're ignoring the possibility of hell. And yet you refuse to ignore the possibility of emotional scarring due to legalization of nudity, despite there being no more evidence in its favor.

As well, the entire point is to include the biases of others. That is how you create compromise and laws that try to fit all opinions known.

Thanks, Mr. Rogers. But what does "fit all opinions known" mean? Give me an example. Clearly it doesn't mean majority rule, as you refuse a Christian majority the right of constructing a church but not a synagogue on public land. But neither can it mean pleasing everyone, as we know that to be impossible.

You rationalized the suppression of nudity by pointing out that both religious and secular practices are liable to the law. But that begs the question: are all such practices afforded equal protection BY THE LAW?

Yes.

So nudity is protected by the law equally to wearing Jewish headgear?

Obviously, in light of subsequent misinformed statements of yours, this is a moot point. What isn't a moot point is that your fear of nudity is indeed a bias, though you obviously think it's a good one, and it should no more be a consideration in law than a Christian's insistance that the teaching of evolution loses souls to the Devil.

If it was found under law that my bias was unfounded and did indeed violate wholly the rights of others, then it would be proper if my bias was not considered a proper basis for law. Which is why there exists a compromise between those that are anti-nudist and those that are pro-nudist - both biases do infringe on the rights of others, so there is a compromise drawn up in law to satisfy both sides best as possible.

What blind faith in law! You admit that your bias might be found "under the law" to be not "a proper basis for law". But what about the bases for the law under which your bias is found to be "unfounded"!? How do we determine whether they themselves are proper? And you think the compromise is "best possible" why? Because legislators or voters always have the general welfare in mind? Why aren't you willing to generalize the principle of Separation of Church and State and allow for freedom from secular majorities as well as religious? Incidentally, neither the judges nor the legislators are charged with striking "comprimises". I doubt you'll find the word "compromise" or equivalent in the entire Constitution.

Which facts? The facts they believe to be true? Is it not conceivable that a person might look at all the facts and still think it would be good to institute Christian prayer in public school?

Always possible. But, if a judge did make such a decision, the party that lost would most likely appeal to a new judge or a panel of judges, which would then decide on that judge's decision based on their opinions, as well as other precedents, etc. If other judges found that the other judge's decisions was found not to be biased, but based on all facts and views available, then they would not overturn it.

Yes, and so can conservative judges overturn a lower court decision to forbid Chistian prayer in schools. It should be assumed I'm talking about the final panel. And anyway, who mentioned judges? Where you're having this much trouble following, the last thing I want to do is stray from the issue of the laws the judges are beholden to.

Its called the justice system. It may not always be unbiased, but when working properly it will afford people the opportunity to have their contentions judged upon based on criteria that goes beyond a judge's particular biases, in order to ensure a fair decision is reached.

"I pledge allegience to the flag..." Again, do you really think you're telling me anything they didn't drum into my brain in primary school? The "criteria that goes beyond a judge's particular biases" are nothing more than the laws. If sufficiently high-level laws are oppressive, there's nothing the judges can do. Religious outcasts, the Framers were obviously keen on precluding religious oppression, but slavery tops a long list of forms of oppression they didn't mind, including many that haven't gotten the requisite supermajorities (or civil war) necessary to abolish. If you're just going to assume everything in law is perfect as it is, you might as well get a lobotamy.
From the time of the progressive era with the rise of public schooling through the post-WWII period, capital invaded the time workers had liberated from waged work and shaped it for purposes of social control. Perhaps the most obvious moment of this colonization was the re-incarceration in schools of the young (who were expelled from the factories by child labor laws) such that what might have been free time was structured to convert their life energies into labor power.
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2009 6:04:56 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 7/28/2009 7:08:45 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 7/28/2009 6:49:41 PM, wjmelements wrote:
Are you kidding? Well, let's make the list go on: felonies, voting record, virginity, race, school attendence, age, sexual preferences, weight, and iPod song total.
Any others you'd like?

You're exaggerating. It would of course be based on reasonable practices that don't violate someone's privacy or rights.

But the government collecting information such as marrital information, personal income, and place of residence is not a violation of privacy?
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2009 9:31:42 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 7/31/2009 6:04:56 PM, wjmelements wrote:
But the government collecting information such as marrital information, personal income, and place of residence is not a violation of privacy?

No, because all that information is public and should be known to the government for various reasons, including tax, voting, shipping and judicial purposes, among just some.

Like for instance, the government knowing that there is two people with the last name Smith in the same household that are married and but have different income would get specific tax statements or rebates, voting privileges (since the two Smiths are separate people in the same household, not just one person trying to get an extra vote), and if the police needed to raid the house because Mr. Smith was threatening to kill Mrs. Smith, they will know where they live.

There is a reason why information is given to the government - it is needed to services that the public is entitled to from the government. If the government didn't have the information, then the government couldn't do their job.
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2009 7:53:57 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 7/31/2009 9:31:42 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 7/31/2009 6:04:56 PM, wjmelements wrote:
But the government collecting information such as marrital information, personal income, and place of residence is not a violation of privacy?

No, because all that information is public

No... It's only public because the government makes it so.

and should be known to the government for various reasons, including tax, voting, shipping and judicial purposes, among just some.

Voting? Really? So now my vote is weighed based on my income and marital information? And government doesn't have to know exactly where we live in order to count my vote.
Shipping? Really? So now government can interfere with my shipping because of my marital status and personal income?
Judicial purposes? Really? Like what? Courts need not useless information and should limit their obtaining of information to information pertaining to the case in order to limit privacy infraction.

Like for instance, the government knowing that there is two people with the last name Smith in the same household that are married and but have different income would get specific tax statements or rebates,

So the government is using this information to discriminate.

voting privileges (since the two Smiths are separate people in the same household, not just one person trying to get an extra vote),

The government doesn't have to know that these people are married to distinguish between them. They also don't have to know income or geographical information to do so.

and if the police needed to raid the house because Mr. Smith was threatening to kill Mrs. Smith,

They don't have to know marital information or income information for that.
The police are capable of finding the house based off of the call from Mrs. Smith telling them about the situation.

they will know where they live.

Big Brother.

There is a reason why information is given to the government -

Big Brother.

it is needed to [sic] services that the public is entitled to from the government. If the government didn't have the information, then the government couldn't do their job.

So, the government must know about every penny that I find on the ground and every sex change I have. The government must know when I get married, with whom, and where we live, which room of the house we sleep in, and how often we have sex. The government must also know my profession, my date of birth, my insurance provider, whom I buy my Dr. Peppers from, my weight, and my blood type.

When ones justifies government stalking on practical grounds, one becomes impractical.
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2009 8:25:19 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/1/2009 7:53:57 PM, wjmelements wrote:
Voting? Really? So now my vote is weighed based on my income and marital information? And government doesn't have to know exactly where we live in order to count my vote.

No, your vote is weighed on the fact that you get one. Knowing that two people from the same home are either married, or related, but otherwise not the same individual, helps the government differentiate between these people and allocate votes to every eligible member, without believing that there is something suspicious going on then two Smiths from the same home arrive.

Shipping? Really? So now government can interfere with my shipping because of my marital status and personal income?

Knowing address = you can get important documents.

Judicial purposes? Really? Like what? Courts need not useless information and should limit their obtaining of information to information pertaining to the case in order to limit privacy infraction.

I never said courts should step outside of those bounds, but in order for them to step in when they need to, the information must be readily available, so time is not wasted.

So the government is using this information to discriminate.

As I said, the government should discriminate when looking at taxes. This enables them to collect fairly based on their guidelines - for instance, if there was a hypothetical child tax credit in the US (there might be, I don't know), the family can receive their tax credit from the government, but only if they provide the information to the government.

The government doesn't have to know that these people are married to distinguish between them. They also don't have to know income or geographical information to do so.

Geographical information, you do, because how you set up polls, where you send people to vote, and all that sort of stuff is dependent upon knowing the population of a given area, as well as the people eligible to vote in the same area. You can't just open up a stall, and invite every Tom, Dick and Harry in within a 10-block radius to vote, you know.

They don't have to know marital information or income information for that.
The police are capable of finding the house based off of the call from Mrs. Smith telling them about the situation.

Income status? No, but I never mentioned income status. You keep blending in all this information, as if the police will look at the income status of individuals to determine whether or not they'll go help them. That doesn't happen.

Marital status? Yes, they should know that, because not only is that pertinent to the case to be built, the officers know who is attacking Mrs. Smith, and have information before hand on the individual (ie., maybe he owns a gun - yes, I'm talking about gun registration).

Big Brother.

Seeing as how the government has to defend at least property rights in a given area, the government would have to know which property belongs to who, what the address of the property is, etc. Otherwise, they can't help solve disputes pertaining to property.

So, the government must know about every penny that I find on the ground and every sex change I have.

The former, no. The latter, yes, or at least your medical provider should - medical facts are hard to talk about when you have gangrene.

The government must know when I get married, with whom, and where we live, which room of the house we sleep in, and how often we have sex.

When you get married: yes, as that is an important factor in taxes and general demographics.
Where you live: yes, because that is an important factor in taxes, property disputes, document distribution, etc.
The other two: no, because neither one matters to the government, because neither is important to taxes, property dispute, demographics, documentation, etc.

The government must also know my profession, my date of birth, my insurance provider, whom I buy my Dr. Peppers from, my weight, and my blood type.

Profession: maybe, because some professions are tax-free or deductible, or are given benefits from the government (ie., police and firefighters).
DOB: Yes, because that is an important differentiating factor from John Smith born on July 2nd, 1980, and John Smith, born on August 12th, 1979.
Insurance provider: maybe, because insurance is tax-deductible in some cases, as well as dealing with property or damage disputes.
Dr. Pepper: No, only Pepsi Corp. cares about that.
Weight, blood type: Maybe, or at least your medical provider should, as those are important factors in medical procedures. You can't berate your doctor for being Big Brother because he asked what blood type you are for a transplant.

When ones justifies government stalking on practical grounds, one becomes impractical.

I like to think of it as being very practical. The government is designed to serve us - knowing information pertinent to those services, like judicial or medical services (at least the latter applies to me) is essential for such services to work.
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2009 8:41:56 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/1/2009 8:25:19 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 8/1/2009 7:53:57 PM, wjmelements wrote:
Voting? Really? So now my vote is weighed based on my income and marital information? And government doesn't have to know exactly where we live in order to count my vote.

No, your vote is weighed on the fact that you get one. Knowing that two people from the same home are either married, or related, but otherwise not the same individual, helps the government differentiate between these people and allocate votes to every eligible member, without believing that there is something suspicious going on then two Smiths from the same home arrive.

Therefore, it is not necessary.

Shipping? Really? So now government can interfere with my shipping because of my marital status and personal income?

Knowing address = you can get important documents.

I don't see what you're saying, but the government isn't in charge of shipping.

Judicial purposes? Really? Like what? Courts need not useless information and should limit their obtaining of information to information pertaining to the case in order to limit privacy infraction.

I never said courts should step outside of those bounds, but in order for them to step in when they need to, the information must be readily available, so time is not wasted.

Information is usually readily available in a Court room. Things like marital status, address, and approximate personal income can be found out rather easily. In fact, they can be found out easier than digging through some bureaucracy's drawer.

So the government is using this information to discriminate.

As I said, the government should discriminate when looking at taxes. This enables them to collect fairly based on their guidelines - for instance, if there was a hypothetical child tax credit in the US (there might be, I don't know), the family can receive their tax credit from the government, but only if they provide the information to the government.

Again, discrimination. You're describing a tax code that discriminates. For example, government would want to know if people are married in order to give them benefits over non-married people... which is unjustified because marriage is a religious institution.

The government doesn't have to know that these people are married to distinguish between them. They also don't have to know income or geographical information to do so.

Geographical information, you do, because how you set up polls, where you send people to vote, and all that sort of stuff is dependent upon knowing the population of a given area, as well as the people eligible to vote in the same area. You can't just open up a stall, and invite every Tom, Dick and Harry in within a 10-block radius to vote, you know.

I don't see why not. Government should have a pretty good idea where people live from simply looking at existing development. You don't have to have an exact population count to run a polling booth.

They don't have to know marital information or income information for that.
The police are capable of finding the house based off of the call from Mrs. Smith telling them about the situation.

Income status? No, but I never mentioned income status. You keep blending in all this information, as if the police will look at the income status of individuals to determine whether or not they'll go help them. That doesn't happen.

Marital status? Yes, they should know that, because not only is that pertinent to the case to be built, the officers know who is attacking Mrs. Smith, and have information before hand on the individual (ie., maybe he owns a gun - yes, I'm talking about gun registration).

What do you think goes on in police phone calls? Just this:
"Hey, I'm being attacked."
"Okay, bye."
It would be more like:
"911, what is your emerency?"
"My husband is threatening to shoot me."
"Stay calm. What is your name?"
"Mrs. Smith"
"And what is your address?"
"234 W. Alzheimers Alley"
"Alright, we're sending a squad."
*hang up*

This is actually quicker than going through a drawer. or even looking it up on a database.

Big Brother.

Seeing as how the government has to defend at least property rights in a given area, the government would have to know which property belongs to who, what the address of the property is, etc. Otherwise, they can't help solve disputes pertaining to property.

Give an example where this would be entirely necessary.

So, the government must know about every penny that I find on the ground and every sex change I have.

The former, no. The latter, yes, or at least your medical provider should - medical facts are hard to talk about when you have gangrene.

Well, as of now, my medical provider isn't the government.

The government must know when I get married, with whom, and where we live, which room of the house we sleep in, and how often we have sex.

When you get married: yes, as that is an important factor in taxes and general demographics.

Really? They must have the exact date? I see no justification for that.
Demographics can be ran by a private group, and government shouldn't need to know such information.

Where you live: yes, because that is an important factor in taxes, property disputes, document distribution, etc.

Taxes: Only if your taxes are discriminatory based on location.
PD: They need not have this information beforehand.
DD: I still don't understand what you mean by "documents".

The other two: no, because neither one matters to the government, because neither is important to taxes, property dispute, demographics, documentation, etc.

Good job.

The government must also know my profession, my date of birth, my insurance provider, whom I buy my Dr. Peppers from, my weight, and my blood type.

Profession: maybe, because some professions are tax-free or deductible, or are given benefits from the government (ie., police and firefighters).

Discrimination.

DOB: Yes, because that is an important differentiating factor from John Smith born on July 2nd, 1980, and John Smith, born on August 12th, 1979.

Socialist Security Number is the real way to distinguish the two. DOB isn't necessary unless youwant age demographics, which can be collected privately.

Insurance provider: maybe, because insurance is tax-deductible in some cases, as well as dealing with property or damage disputes.

Discrimination.
Insurance claims only go through the government if the insurance company is fraudulent.

Dr. Pepper: No, only Pepsi Corp. cares about that.

Good job.

Weight, blood type: Maybe, or at least your medical provider should, as those are important factors in medical procedures. You can't berate your doctor for being Big Brother because he asked what blood type you are for a transplant.

But, as of now, my medical provider is not the government.

When ones justifies government stalking on practical grounds, one becomes impractical.

I like to think of it as being very practical. The government is designed to serve us - knowing information pertinent to those services, like judicial or medical services (at least the latter applies to me) is essential for such services to work.

I wouldn't say essential, but the government need not keep a permanent record. A temporary one is necessary for judicial purposes, but when I'm 85, the fact that I was married fifty years ago need not be in the permanent registrar.
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2009 4:07:47 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 8/2/2009 8:41:56 AM, wjmelements wrote:
Therefore, it is not necessary.

It is necessary if you want to have the ability to vote in your area, or in general.

I don't see what you're saying, but the government isn't in charge of shipping.

Did you think USPS was a private company?

Information is usually readily available in a Court room. Things like marital status, address, and approximate personal income can be found out rather easily. In fact, they can be found out easier than digging through some bureaucracy's drawer.

The information is readily available in the courtroom because the court already has the information, provided by the government. This stuff doesn't magically appear on their sheets, and to waste time by having to verify the address given by defendants or plaintiffs directly to clerks, judges and lawyers only adds more time on to an already slow judicial process.

Information already available = efficiency.

Again, discrimination. You're describing a tax code that discriminates. For example, government would want to know if people are married in order to give them benefits over non-married people... which is unjustified because marriage is a religious institution.

I believe taxes should discriminate, you don't believe they should. But, that doesn't matter at the moment; the point is that the tax system does discriminate, and because it does, the information must be provided for the taxes to be filed properly.

I don't see why not. Government should have a pretty good idea where people live from simply looking at existing development. You don't have to have an exact population count to run a polling booth.

I'll give you an example of how that doesn't work.

In a given poll in my riding, there is maybe 100-150 homes, and about five hundred people. In one house alone, there was up to eight people eligible to vote.

Do you know how much of a nightmare it would be if someone based polls on the amount of development in one area? That 100-150 homes would need to expand to maybe 300, which would probably add at least another 300-500 people in one poll alone, etc.

You might not have enough booths available, might not have enough volunteers, not enough voting slips - it goes on and on. They do these exact counts so they can allocate their resources properly. Five hundred vote eligible people means 500 slips to hand out, means a proper count on turnout and a proper count with no extra votes slipping by because someone decided to jump from poll-to-poll due to the fact that there are no voting lists with names to check, etc.

All this information is needed to provide a proper, effective and legitimate vote.

This is actually quicker than going through a drawer. or even looking it up on a database.

You don't know much about dispatching, I'm guessing.

Address based on phone numbers are automatically provided, along with the residents and occupancy information in basic detail, for example, 911 databases will show that Mrs. Smith lives with Mr. John Smith, and their two children, Bob and Billy Smith.

How does all this information show up? Because it is already provided by the government and fed directly into computer databases.

The caller telling the 911 dispatcher information would be proper back when we didn't have all these computer databases.

Give an example where this would be entirely necessary.

I wouldn't know where to find an example, as I don't think these cases are published online often. But, if I ever do find one, I'll show it to you.

Regardless though, I believe the government having information on where property lines are, who the owners of the property are and etc. would be important when settling any disputes. You can't give them guns and sort it out that way.

Well, as of now, my medical provider isn't the government.

Mine is.

Really? They must have the exact date? I see no justification for that.
Demographics can be ran by a private group, and government shouldn't need to know such information.

The government does need to know such information, as it is important when filing tax returns or with other important documents.

And yes, it is important to discriminate tax returns between two people. You can't give John Smith 09/08/78 the tax return, or social security number, or whatever important document, of John Smith 07/01/80.

DD: I still don't understand what you mean by "documents".

Documents... think licenses, tax statements, court documents, social security numbers, government notices (ie., "you seem to be living on top of a nuclear waste site"), stuff like that.

I wouldn't say essential, but the government need not keep a permanent record. A temporary one is necessary for judicial purposes, but when I'm 85, the fact that I was married fifty years ago need not be in the permanent registrar.

Unless something from that former marriage were to come up, and you had no documents pertaining to it, no information, etc. The government having the information can then act and say, "here, we have it, and we can settle this issue now." It isn't as if the older information is necessarily looked at all the time - it sits idle until needed, if it ever is.