Teacher Claims Fingerprinting Is ‘Mark of the Beast’

[Modelworks]

*sigh*
Yes, I'm sure the Bible was talking about fingerprint technology that would come a few thousand years after that passage was written. It most certainly had absolutely nothing to do with some aspect of life which was culturally relevant during the time the document was created.


Are these people trying to be as stupid as they possibly can? "See God? You gave me this brain, and I'm trying to keep it perfectly pristine and unused!"

I truly wish I could time travel. I would destroy the book of revelations to keep it from ever being included in the bible. To me it is the one book that should never have been included, it alone is responsible for more problems than any other book and has done no good at being included.

Written by an exiled man who wrote down visions. Might as well make a new version and toss in Nostradamus or Edgar Cayce.

 

[piasabird]

One might say only criminals need to be finger-printed. Innocent until proven guilty. In some states like Illinois, you have to submit fingerprints just to get a gun license, just to buy a gun.

 

[ericlp]

Someone stupid as her should just be fired. Since obviously if she is that stupid she shouldn't be teaching in the first place.

 

[ericlp]

I truly wish I could time travel. I would destroy the book of revelations to keep it from ever being included

Hell, I would have gone one step further and burned up the bible... But you and I know it would have been pointless as there are godzillion other religions with their own version that would just stepped in to take it's place.

If god (as people see him/her/it) today did not exist it would be necessary for man to invent (him/her/it).

 

[shira]

Mark of the beast... fingerprint ID?.... logically it don't fit, I don't think.
I like to read these stories, actually. They ought to give abundant insight into the mind set of some folks. I wonder who filled her head with such 'belief'? I wonder why she accepted it? I don't wonder why she'd seek to avoid what she believes to be the Mark of the Beast... I would too. It is in the rationalization of stuff and how that permeates into other thinking until what little reality exists is subjected to the whims of such encumbered folks..

Of course, whether or not her belief makes sense to anyone else is irrelevant. Religious beliefs are almost by definition devoid of any rational basis. What matters is that what this woman believes is a legitimate product of her religion.

 

[LunarRay]

Of course, whether or not her belief makes sense to anyone else is irrelevant. Religious beliefs are almost by definition devoid of any rational basis. What matters is that what this woman believes is a legitimate product of her religion.

Well, I'd say that her argument to avoid the 'Fingerprinting/Mark of the Beast' won't or don't meet the test.
The State has a compelling need to fingerprint in this case. I think that trumps her assertion and especially since no 'mark' is delivered or if ink is used the 'mark' is removable. Saying it goes into a data bank is interesting but I'm not sure how to link that data bank and the Mark bit...

I don't think a court should hear the case but that aside... I think it is what she can prove to be her fundamental right (if it is a fundamental right) against the State's right. Using the highest scrutiny test, Strict Scrutiny, we easily can see the elements present. There is obviously a Compelling State Interest and it is Narrowly Tailored to achieve that goal or interest, and finally, it seems to be the least restrictive means. At least in my opinion. I'm not too sure Rational Basis might not be the test if it is a 'liberty' issue and think Intermediate Scrutiny is not too low... Maybe.. :\

Her willingness to undergo a background check I don't feel is relevant... I don't think it is a 1st Amendment issue either.

 

[Red Dawn]

HOW does it ferret out an abuser? Are they going to search through a database for a prior conviction? Shouldn't a background check do that? Has fingerprint evidence EVER been used in a sexual abuse trial?

I don't know off hand. Also it's not just sexual abuse that the kids need to be protected from but physical abuse.