News Should religious beliefs determine military duties?

[IcedEcliptic]

No.
No such debate has taken place in this thread, except within YOUR brain.

What HAS been debated is a totally different issue:

Whether the birther's position necessarily implies a Big Conspiracy or not.

That is something totally different, since (I think) it is perfectly rational to hold the position:

a) The birther position does NOT imply a Big Conspiracy, involving a large number of complicit individuals

b) The birther argument is invalid/extremely spurious, nonetheless, and can be regarded as dismissable.


That is MY position.

Some further points:

c) To take a contrasting example:
There are those who hold that Neil Armstrong never was on the Moon.
This position NECESSARILY implies that many thousands of individuals, spread all across the world were complicit in the Huge Conspiracy.

d) For that reason alone, it is rationally invalidated.

e) In the Obama case, however, it wouldn't take more than the actions of Mama&Papa Obama to pull off the trick, i.e, a very tiny conspiracy[/size]

f) The world is full of tiny, trivial conspiracies, and, in contrast to the Huge Conspiracies, they do, on occasion, succeed in their extremely modest aims (for example, intriguing against a colleague in order to get the promotion you want)

g) Just because the world is full of tiny,trivial conspiracies, though, doesn't mean that Mama&Papa Obama engaged in any such activity. Very credible (and I would say, probable) narratives can be constructed to the contrary.

h) Just because it is SIMPLER to dismiss the birther position by regarding it as a conspiracy theory in par with that you need to postulate for the moon landing deniers, doesn't mean you have made a valid argument by doing so.


In short:

Some nonsense is less disprovable&improbable than other, the birther position is one of them.

This may be a tangent, but do the actual birthers believe that this is a large conspiracy, or the act of mom and dad?

 

[turbo]

In that case, it remains a mildly interesting speculation why the birth record has gone missing in the aftermath.

If you believe the director of Hawaii's Department of Health, the original birth certificate is NOT missing. She says that the original is in the archived records, and vouches for its authenticity, though she is forbidden by law from releasing it except under some very specific circumstances.

If I were required to produce my original birth certificate, I could not do that. I have a negative photostatic copy of the original that my parents saved and gave to me as an adult. When I was required to produce a birth certificate, I had to go to the town clerk in my birthplace and pay to have a certified copy typed up and notarized. It looks very much like the birth certificate that the Obama campaign released. It's printed on heavy paper with check-like security features, signed and then embossed with a seal. It's good enough to have gotten my passport and other ID. Guess I'll just never get to be president, though, if the birthers come after me.

 

[arildno]

If you believe the director of Hawaii's Department of Health, the original birth certificate is NOT missing. She says that the original is in the archived records, and vouches for its authenticity, though she is forbidden by law from releasing it except under some very specific circumstances.

But that is still the birth certificate requested by Mrs. Obama, right?

That is NOT the witnessed birth record that the hospital usually makes (and which was not made in Obama's case), if I understood Evo correctly.

 

[arildno]

This may be a tangent, but do the actual birthers believe that this is a large conspiracy, or the act of mom and dad?

I have no idea, I haven't bothered to read birther arguments.

 

[IcedEcliptic]

But that is still the birth certificate requested by Mrs. Obama, right?

That is NOT the witnessed birth record that the hospital usually makes (and which was not made in Obama's case), if I understood Evo correctly.

Those are two different things I believe, but like you I am no lawyer.

 

[zomgwtf]

But that is still the birth certificate requested by Mrs. Obama, right?

That is NOT the witnessed birth record that the hospital usually makes (and which was not made in Obama's case), if I understood Evo correctly.

So this isn't a discussion about the validity of birther arguments? My english skills must be severly lacking.

Anyway any discussion of the birthers 'movement' I guess you could call it will definitely just feed fire. Especially in regard to validity of the arguments or validity of conspiracy theories that may be surrounding the whole movements fundametal ideas.

This is all TANGENTAL to the point of the thread. (as Iced had already indicated a few posts back)

 

[arildno]

So this isn't a discussion about the validity of birther arguments? My english skills must be severly lacking.

Yes, evidently so.

Anyway any discussion of the birthers 'movement' I guess you could call it will definitely just feed fire.

Even if that were the case, the immorality of which would consist in...?

This is all TANGENTAL to the point of the thread. (as Iced had already indicated a few posts back)

Only differentiable curves have unique tangents; points have many lines going through them.

 

[Evo]

But that is still the birth certificate requested by Mrs. Obama, right?

That is NOT the witnessed birth record that the hospital usually makes (and which was not made in Obama's case), if I understood Evo correctly.

For my girls, I had a copy of the witnessed birth record given to me by the hospital, signed by the doctor. The hospital forwarded a copy to the clerk's office that issues the birth certificate. I received a copy of the birth certificate in the mail about 2 weeks later.

For home births or unwitnessed births, the mother can just go to the health department and swear out a birth certificate. Requirements vary some from state to state.

 

[arildno]

For my girls, I had a copy of the witnessed birth record given to me by the hospital, signed by the doctor. The hospital forwarded a copy to the clerk's office that issues the birth certificate. I received a copy of the birth certificate in the mail about 2 weeks later.

For home births or unwitnessed births, the mother can just go to the health department and swear out a birth certificate. Requirements vary some from state to state.

So that, in the case of your youngest one, you COULD HAVE birthed her a dusty day at Winnipeg, and just sneaked over the border claiming her to have been American-born?

IF she hade been home-born, that is..

 

[turbo]

But that is still the birth certificate requested by Mrs. Obama, right?

That is NOT the witnessed birth record that the hospital usually makes (and which was not made in Obama's case), if I understood Evo correctly.

There is NO indication that the birth certificate on file with the Department of Health is not a witnessed certificate of live birth. None. That's the kind of unsubstantiated speculation upon which the birthers base their unsubstantiated claims. Normally, when somebody makes outlandish claims, the burden of proof falls on them, but birthers are not exactly rational creatures.

 

[arildno]

There is NO indication that the birth certificate on file with the Department of Health is not a witnessed certificate of live birth. None. That's the kind of unsubstantiated speculation upon which the birthers base their unsubstantiated claims. Normally, when somebody makes outlandish claims, the burden of proof falls on them, but birthers are not exactly rational creatures.

1. Well, there isn't preserved a witnessed birth record, is there?

2. Did birth certificates in the 60s differ in form, whether the birth record came from the hospital directly to make the basis for the certificate, or that the mother came to the office personally to request a birth certificate?

3. How long are hospitals required to store birth records, if at all?

 

[turbo]

1. Well, there isn't preserved a witnessed birth record, is there?

2. Did birth certificates in the 60s differ in form, whether the birth record came from the hospital directly to make the basis for the certificate, or that the mother came to the office personally to request a birth certificate?

3. How long are hospitals required to store birth records, if at all?

1) You are making an unsubstantiated statement. The doctor who heads up the Department of Health and the director of the Bureau of Vital Statistics have both seen the original, and pronounced it genuine. The doctor happens to be a Republican. If she thought that there was some irregularity (not having been a witnessed live-birth certificate) she could have found a way to release relevant information without triggering the non-disclosure laws she operates under.
http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/20100219/NEWS01/2190362/Hawaii-gets-persistent-requests-for-Obama-birth-certificate

State Health Director Dr. Chiyome Fukino — a Republican — tried to put the issue of Obama's Honolulu birth to rest back in 2008 by declaring that she and Hawai'i's registrar of vital statistics had personally seen Obama's birth certificate.

"This has gotten ridiculous," Fukino told The Advertiser at the time. "There are plenty of other, important things to focus on, like the economy, taxes, energy. ... We need to get some work done."

2) You are asking the wrong person. All states have their rules for record-keeping.

3) Here, hospitals are not required to maintain birth records and provide public access to them. Such records go to the civil authorities. Like I said, I could not take possession of my own birth certificate. It is in the archives of the civil authorities, in a climate-controlled vault-room. Originals are never released, in order to maintain the integrity of the public record and (nowadays) prevent identity theft and fraud. My own access to my own birth certificate was limited to a notarized transcript typed on security paper.

 

[Evo]

1) You are making an unsubstantiated statement. The doctor who heads up the Department of Health and the director of the Bureau of Vital Statistics have both seen the original, and pronounced it genuine.

No one is denying it's valid, but it did come out during the election that it was not signed by a doctor. It doesn't have to be if the mother herself applies for it.

When I asked for a copy of my birth certificate, I was sent a photo copy of the original. It depends on the city. That disappeared during my move ( all opf my filing cabinets "disappeared".

I just called a month ago to ask how to get a copy, and the lady had to go into the archives and she found the paper original. They aren't even scanned into a computer.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Of course, evidence that Obama was not born here would be a foreign birth certificate, or a customs record showing that his mother entered the country with a new child. That no one can produce either doesn't seem to bother the birthers at all! However, the head of the birthers movement provided a Kenyan birth certificate for Obama, that was conclusively shown to be a fake.

Clearly these people are all irrational. They are grasping straws based on nothing more than wishful thinking.

 

[arildno]

1) You are making an unsubstantiated statement. The doctor who heads up the Department of Health and the director of the Bureau of Vital Statistics have both seen the original, and pronounced it genuine. The doctor happens to be a Republican. If she thought that there was some irregularity (not having been a witnessed live-birth certificate) she could have found a way to release relevant information without triggering the non-disclosure laws she operates under.
http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/20100219/NEWS01/2190362/Hawaii-gets-persistent-requests-for-Obama-birth-certificate .

The question has not been made whether the birth certificate is real or not.

It concerns the contention that
a) There was no witnessed birth record sent from the hospital to the registrar's office
b) As is ordinarily done with unwitnessed births/home-borns, the certificate was made after a personal visit of Mrs. Obama at the registrar's office.

b)-cases would spawn no less genuine, or valid, birth certificates, but by means of a slightly different method than the ordinary process.


That A) the birth certificate is fake, or non-existent necessarily implies a much larger conspiracy behind it, than B) the contention that Mrs. Obama lied at the registrar's office that her son had been born at the hospital.

The second contention does not necessitate more deception than from Papa&Mama Obama, and would rhus be a tiny, trivial conspiracy.

And again, it is no reason to believe in such a conspiracy either, even though it is a tiny one.

 

[arildno]

Of course, evidence that Obama was not born here would be a foreign birth certificate, or a customs record showing that his mother entered the country with a new child.

WERE newly-borns regularly registered at the borders in the 60s?

If the mother was a US citizen (an officer's wife(?), no less!), wouldn't they just have been waved past the gates?

I don't know anything about the practices of border officials, but are they, in general, very diligent, or is there a lot of pointless paperwork they just don't ever find the time for doing?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

WERE newly-borns regularly registered at the borders in the 60s?

If the mother was a US citizen (an officer's wife(?), no less!), wouldn't they just have been waved past the gates?

Only if the child was already a citizen. You can't enter the country without a passport or proof of residency.

 

[arildno]

Only if the child was already a citizen. You can't enter the country without a passport or proof of residency.

Well, if birthers had been rational, they would have made inquiries of ACTUAL practices at the time, and see if those were markedly different/sloppier than the ideal rules we call "the body of law".



That there might be such gaps between theory/practices is in itself no irrational idea (it is frequently true), but it needs to be substantiated in the particular type of relevant cases, in order to gain argumentative weight.

 

[cronxeh]

Funny thing is, I have a whole chart from my birth. The pre-labor assessment of my mother, the date and time stamped entry of my birth and measurements of length and weight, the reflex assessments by doctor, and a nursing record of my feeding, sleeping, etc. All that from 1984 Russia

which does support the supposition that Obama was born in Kenya

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Well, if birthers had been rational, they would have made inquiries of ACTUAL practices at the time, and see if those were markedly different/sloppier than the ideal rules we call "the body of law".

I have no doubt that they have exhausted every rational and irrational avenue by now.

The REALLY silly thing is that were there anything to this, the Republicans in Congress would be the loudest voices of all. The power play of taking down the Dem nominee for President would have been one of the most impressive in US history. There were plenty of very powerful Republican US Senators that had the means to know if there was a legitimate issue. That alone is a dead giveaway that this is nothing but smoke and mirrors.

Not to mention that the most powerful Democrats in Washington at the time, the Clintons, had every reason to take Obama down! He did defeat Hillary, after all.

 

[arildno]

I have no doubt that they have exhausted every rational and irrational avenue by now.

The REALLY silly thing is that were there anything to this, the Republicans in Congress would be the loudest voices of all. That alone is a dead giveaway that this is nothing but smoke and mirrors.

As I've said many times, I don't have any belief in the birther position.

My contention has just been that that position does not necessitate a belief in a Big Conspiracy.

Lazy border guards waving through US "white trash" with a n***er baby are hardly to regard as conspirators, but might well have existed in the early, rather racist 60s.

 

[turbo]

Out of curiosity, I dug through the strong-box in our safe. My original hospital-issued birth certificate was signed by our family doctor and the RN who was the nurse supervisor at the hospital. The negative photostatic copy of the civil record is signed only by a municipal official and the "MD" box is checked to note that the attending doctor signed the hospital record. My wife's birth certificate was issued at the much larger hospital where she was born, and it was not signed by a birth witness, but by the hospital administrator. Her negative photostatic copy of the civil record does not indicate that a witness signed the hospital's certificate, which is entirely accurate.

One reason why original civil records might be closely-guarded is their fragility. I have thought about how these negative photostats might have been produced, and the most logical situation is that the originals were made on very thin translucent paper like onionskin, and duplication was done by overlaying the original on a piece of photo-paper in a glass photo-frame, flashing the combo with intense light and developing the contact print just like normal photography. Certainly, there were no photocopiers 58 years ago.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Lazy border guards waving through US "white trash" with a n***er baby are hardly to regard as conspirators, but might well have existed in the early, rather racist 60s.

I don't even see that as reasonable. Even long before 911, us customs was serious business; even for a citizen reentering the country. In fact, when Tsu and I went to Europe, we noted that the most severe customs review was in our own country! Travel in Europe was nothing by comparison.

I understand that you aren't pushing the birthers agenda.

 

[arildno]

Out of curiosity, I dug through the strong-box in our safe. My original hospital-issued birth recordwas signed by our family doctor and the RN who was the nurse supervisor at the hospital. The negative photostatic copy of the civil certificate is signed only by a municipal official and the "MD" box is checked to note that the attending doctor signed the hospital record. My wife's birth record was issued at the much larger hospital where she was born, and it was not signed by a birth witness, but by the hospital administrator. Her negative photostatic copy of the civil certificate does not indicate that a witness signed the hospital's certificate, which is entirely accurate.

Changed to how have I used the terms, in accordance with Evo's description.

Very relevant, indeed, Turbo-1, that the civil birth certificate DOES note whether the birth was witnessed by medical personell or not.

 

[arildno]

I don't even see that as reasonable. Even long before 911, us customs was serious business; even for a citizen reentering the country. In fact, when Tsu and I went to Europe, we noted that the most severe customs review was in our own country! Travel in Europe was nothing by comparison.

.

Well, you know a lot more about that than me! (never been in the US, actually)

As I've said, IF the birthers were rational, they would need to make a probable scenario for how that baby entered the country.

It could, for example be, that army officers (wasn't Obama's Dad that?) had specially privileged positions, compared to civilians, being waved through the ordinary customs as a routine, in contrast to the civilian population.

Or, that if entry was gained at the military airports/bases, the rules were laxer there than at analogous civilian points of entry.

But again, such "possible scenarios" would have to be substantiated, in order to gain weight.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Something else that is rather funny. When this first came up I did a fairly intensive review of the laws regarding citizenship for newborns. It was only a short period of time, just two or three years, IIRC, that citizenship was denied a baby having one parent that is a US citizen. It just happened to include the year 1961. So, even if the claim that he was born in Kenya, had been true, one would reasonably expect that the exclusion could be waived based on precedent. It has almost always been true that one US citizen as a parent is sufficient for the baby to automatically be granted citizenship.

 

[arildno]

Something else that is rather funny. When this first came up I did a fairly intensive review of the laws regarding citizenship for newborns. It was only a short period of time, just two or three years, IIRC, that citizenship was denied a baby having one parent that is a US citizen. It just happened to include the year 1961. So, even if the claim had been true that he was born in Kenya, one would reasonably expect that the exclusion could be waived based on precedent. It has almost always been true that one US citizen as a parent is sufficient for the baby to automatically be granted citizenship.

I didn't know that!

Fascinating..

 

[turbo]

Changed to how have I used the terms, in accordance with Evo's description.

Very relevant, indeed, Turbo-1, that the civil birth certificate DOES note whether the birth was witnessed by medical personell or not.

Relevant to people who were born in Maine in the early 1950's. There may be no relevance to Obama's situation, since such distinctions may or may not have been made in Hawaii. Also, the hospital in Honolulu was MUCH larger than any here in rural Maine, and the birth certificates may have been routinely signed and certified by administrative staff at the hospital, much like my wife's was.

There was a report from an older lady in Hawaii a couple of years back, who remembered Obama's birth, though it made little sense at the time. The attending Obstetrician was a close friend of her father's, and he was at supper with them that evening when her father casually asked if anything of interest happened that day. The doctor said something to the effect that "Stanley gave birth today. That's something to write home about." Stanley was Obama's mother's given name. I'd say that account is a pretty good indication that there was a doctor present at his birth.

 

[turbo]

Found it, though I had the details a bit fuzzy. The woman was a college student at the time, having dinner with the obstetrician and the father of her college friend, and she asked the doctor if anything interesting had happened recently. He told her that a woman named Stanley had given birth. She actually did write home about it to her father, Stanley back in New York. She ended up bumping into the Obama name again. Obama's father was the first black student at the U of H, and ten years later when she was teaching at Punahou School, where Obama was enrolled and Obama's father (now a Kenyan official) was coming to speak.

 

[Evo]

There was a report from an older lady in Hawaii a couple of years back, who remembered Obama's birth, though it made little sense at the time. The attending Obstetrician was a close friend of her father's, and he was at supper with them that evening when her father casually asked if anything of interest happened that day. The doctor said something to the effect that "Stanley gave birth today. That's something to write home about." Stanley was Obama's mother's given name. I'd say that account is a pretty good indication that there was a doctor present at his birth.

To me that sounds completely bogus. Why would a routine birth be something of importance to bring up? And why on Earth would she remember something so trivial that had nothing to do with her about someone she didn't know? Bogus.