Superstition entitles people to "special rights"?

Tiassa

Tiassa

Let us not launch the boat ...
Valued Senior Member
There is a certain irony afoot, and while this most recent manifestation might seem somewhat amusing, it's nothing new.

For years, now, we've heard Christians and conservatives lament that groups they don't like—homosexuals, women, &c.—receive "special rights" whenever the government attempts to address perceived inequality. Yet once again, it is the Christians who demand—and receive—special rights.

Lacking faith in God and Christ, some Christians in West Virginia are so afraid of the Devil that they do not want their driver's license photographs stored in a digital file. The solution? Give them what they want. Exclude them from the digital file. In other words, spend additional taxpayer money to treat them differently and make special additional efforts to accommodate their needs.

A handful of people who believe digitized photos on state driver's licenses could be the beginning of the biblical "mark of the beast" will receive special licenses from the Division of Motor Vehicles today.

Phil Hudok, a Randolph County teacher who previously refused to enforce school rules requiring students to wear bar-coded identification badges because it violated his religious beliefs, will be one of the first.

"We're a Christian, nondenominational scripture-believing group," Hudok said.

Hudok, pastor Butch Paugh and 12 others met with DMV Commissioner Joseph Cicchirillo in 2006 about the perceived problem. At the time, state officials were getting ready to comply with the federal Real ID Act of 2005, which would have forced states to share information about licensed drivers with other states.

Under the plan Cicchirillo established, Hudok and other followers of Paugh will be allowed to have their license photos taken at the Capitol DMV office and then removed from the computer system. DMV will maintain a hard copy of the pictures at the main office.

"What these people objected to was the digital image," Cicchirillo said.

The federal act also requires personal information, such as birth dates and driving records, in the system. "All the other information stays there," the commissioner said.

He said there has been no outpouring of people objecting to the digital photos.

"Right now, I have three or four people who have requested it for religious reasons," he said. "I think what they told me was it had to do with the mark of the beast."

(Searls)
Click to expand...

This is ridiculous. It's not like trying to force a Jew or Muslim to eat pork. It is theologically difficult to justify the assertion that a digital photograph is somehow the mark of the beast. Of course, as with other issues, Christ's instruction to render unto Caesar what is Caesar's doesn't seem to apply.

So just remember, people: being treated equally is a "special right". Receiving special consideration from the government on the basis of a dubious theological assertion is simply being given your due.

Ironic may be the wrong word. Repugnant seems more suitable. Stupid, as well.
______________________

Notes:

Searls, Tom. "DMV license photo won't be required for religious group". Charleston Gazette. August 8, 2008. http://sundaygazettemail.com/News/200808071407
 
So where do they draw the line?
If i thought paying income tax makes the devil stronger, would I still have to pay them?
 
I am a little unclear as to how a digital photograph of yourself for DMV purposes of record keeping correlates with the "mark of the beast."
 
(Insert title here)

MacGyver1968 said:

If i thought paying income tax makes the devil stronger, would I still have to pay them?
Click to expand...

Since ignoring the Bible itself is sort of a popular thing for Christians these days, you might actually be able to make that argument.

• • •​

Nonsense said:

I am a little unclear as to how a digital photograph of yourself for DMV purposes of record keeping correlates with the "mark of the beast."
Click to expand...

But this is America, so nobody ever needs to explain those sorts of things.

Seriously, though ... I obviously have no idea how to connect the dots on that argument, but in West Virginia, apparently, you don't actually need to. Just say it's "Christian", and if there are enough ignorant paranoiacs around, you'll probably get your way.
 
Nonsense said:
I am a little unclear as to how a digital photograph of yourself for DMV purposes of record keeping correlates with the "mark of the beast."
Click to expand...

I'm going to venture a guess that a old-fashioned "fire and brimstone" fundamental preacher gave a sermon on Revelation, telling his flock that the end times are near, (which they always seem to be) and this was proof of it. So all the hillbillies got all fired up, and went to the DMV. But that's just a guess.

People fear what they don't understand...and anything they don't understand MUST come from the devil. (at least some think this) People have been looking for the signs of the end days, and see them where they want to.
 
Last edited:
I still need to figure out how this multi quote thing works so for now I will use an improvised method.

@Tiassa
I know that you mean in jest what you said about not having to explain anything in America, but I believe that our society is too careful to make sure not to contradict the beliefs of others. They are practically catered. And where has this whole law about separating church and state gone? Wouldn't this be a perfect situation to use it? This central database of info about the inhabitants of the US would be a great addition and necessity. I mean you know how many criminals are not caught because of simply moving to a different state? Maybe we could learn a thing or two from casino security and their interconnected database of card counters :D

@MacGyver1968
Well according to the Mayan calender, the universe will runs its course in 2012 :D
 
Last edited:
see how under my name there are three buttons
click the one which says +quote and it turns red. Click on all the posts you want to quote then click the post reply button ABOVE where it says quick reply
 
Asguard said:
see how under my name there are three buttons
click the one which says +quote and it turns red. Click on all the posts you want to quote then click the post reply button ABOVE where it says quick reply
Click to expand...

But how do I quote people who, who are quoting another quote within their message?
 
You know what I am sure there has got to be a FAQ somewhere here.
 
you cant, it wont let you quote quotes (really irritating when its a quote from another site)

The only way to do it would be to quote the origional post or copy it and place it back where it belongs manually
 
Welcome to the board, Nonsense. If you don't mind me asking. What are your religious beliefs?
 
MacGyver1968 said:
Welcome to the board, Nonsense. If you don't mind me asking. What are your religious beliefs?
Click to expand...

That's a very broad question :p but I will share with you my general thoughts on religion.

For me religion is more of a thought process. A set of beliefs that we live by and try and satisfy. I mean if you ask me more specific questions I could lend more specific answers but I will say one thing that you may agree or disagree with.

I personally do not care what religion or belief system someone follows. As long as they are "good" and do "good" in the world for others and themselves, I am content. I am sure you have been a witness to this, but the general populous usually concentrates on the slight differences between for example the 3 main monotheistic religions. Which one came first? Who believes in the "real" god? Which one is the right one? and so on... But what many fail to realize is that all 3 have one major thing in common. They all preach the golden rule. It is so fundamental that just by typing "the Golden Rule" into Wikiepdia returns a thorough explanation of it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethic_of_reciprocity

Religion has unfortunately taken a wrong turn and has become more of a "crutch" and opiate for society as Freud and Marx explained respectively. Pretty much I feel that if we would take this small step of concentrating on just this one "golden rule" the world would be a better place.
 
Asguard said:
ahh but what is "good"?:p

oh and freud was an idiot:p
Click to expand...

Hah, now the definition of what is good is a whole other topic, Ashguard. I recommend you start one :D

And whether Freud was or was not an idiot still does not take credence away from the fact that humans use religion for personal benefit and comfort. How many times have you heard someone say, "It's out of my hands, only God can do it." All I say in return is, "God helps those who help themselves."
 
then there is the other side of religion, how its used for political power. Not to mention the bigotry inherent in most religions
 
Degrees of jest

Nonsense said:

I know that you mean in jest what you said about not having to explain anything in America, but I believe that our society is too careful to make sure not to contradict the beliefs of others. They are practically catered. And where has this whole law about separating church and state gone? Wouldn't this be a perfect situation to use it? This central database of info about the inhabitants of the US would be a great addition and necessity. I mean you know how many criminals are not caught because of simply moving to a different state? Maybe we could learn a thing or two from casino security and their interconnected database of card counters
Click to expand...

I'm only jesting to a certain degree. There are certain concepts that do, in fact, receive something like a free pass, and Christianity is one of them. For instance, there is a corpus Christi, of sorts, a body social that represents "Christianity". They are a unified body, and to offend one part is, to a degree, to offend all. Yet, of course, we cannot attribute to this body any sort of monolithic belief.

But by and large, the specifics aren't important in a case like this. Just as you and I might wonder how a digital photograph correlates with the Mark of the Beast, we should not expect anyone involved with this West Virginia group to actually connect the dots. Rather, it is simply sufficient to shout about the Devil and Christ, and the state will give over.

In the end, it's not a tremendous offense by any measure, but I am, I confess, getting tired of the constant flip-flop. On the one hand, it is too much to ask that someone else have the "special right" of, say, marrying the person they love. To the other, though, it is a violation of someone's rights to be expected to participate in the same program as anyone else, at least according to a theological argument that, as you and I suspect, doesn't actually exist within the applicable label.

In other words, if the Christians, who choose their faith, were to be held to answer to the same degree as blacks, women, or homosexuals—who are born as such—they would utterly fail to provide any reasonable justification for their position.

We have another topic going on about whether journalists should be punished for lying to the public; I don't know if it's so unreasonable to wonder if one claims something according to a certain religious outlook, one ought to be able to demonstrate it.

Don't take me wrongly on that, please. People are free to assert whatever they want. But if this wasn't "scripture-believing" Christianity, would the complaint be granted much merit? Thus, as they claim to be "a Christian, nondenominational scripture-believing group", it doesn't seem too great a burden that they should be able to provide the Christian, nondenominational, scriptural basis for the belief they're asserting.

I don't think they can. So they ought to call it what it is: their own paranoia. And that should be treated as any of our own paranoias would be treated: it should be brushed aside, and the greater questions of the Constitution and civil liberties addressed.

Or something like that. Anyway, I should at least note that I tend to do all my quoting manually.
 
I think this is actually a fantastic precedent. My religion requires me not to have a photo on my license as well, also to smoke pot every day, and take mushrooms and acid sometimes.
 
i have been hesitent to argue one way or the other in this because im not sure if this is actually nutty christans or inteligent people using christanity as an out for something they have a political reason for objecting to.

After all tiassa we are talking about the country were random breath tests are "police harrasment". i can quite easerly see americans in general complaining about there photo being in a centeral database period
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top