6 ms·

"Harrington informed APRS in July 2017 that having his fingerprints captured was contrary to his 'sincerely held religious belief.'" Good on him, but I thought

"Harrington informed APRS in July 2017 that having his fingerprints captured was contrary to his 'sincerely held religious belief.'" Good on him, but I thought they actually checked up on the whole "religious beliefs" thing? Is this an actual Christian belief? Edit: "Plaintiff, a devout Christian, informed AST that the Book of Revelation prohibits the “mark of the devil” which she believed included fingerprinting and that she would not get into Heaven if fingerprinted. She asked AST for an accommodation, such as undergoing a different type of background check that did not require fingerprinting. AST purportedly informed her that no accommodations were available and terminated her employment for refusing to comply with CPSL’s fingerprinting requirement. Asserting that AST allowed at least one employee with “unreadable” fingerprints to participate in an alternative background check, plaintiff’s ensuing lawsuit alleged religious discrimination and unlawful retaliation." https://tbowleslaw.com/religious-objection-mandatory-fingerprinting/ https://tbowleslaw.com/religious-objection-mandatory-fingerp...

whiddershins 5y ago
Depending on the Christian denomination there may be explicit provision for personal conscience in interpreting certain things within the context of your faith.
_3u10 5y ago
That’s orthogonal to court, the standard is not whether others hold that belief but whether the belief is sincerely held. Given that he identifies as Christian and whatever he believes got a ruling in his favor I would say that it’s an “actual” belief.
- keithnz 5y ago
  It is a religion, with many denominations. Not quite sure what the criteria is for when something varies such that it wouldn't be considered Christian.
  - slapfrog 5y ago
    > It is a religion, with many denominations. The whole of it defies neat categorization. People who self-describe as Christians can't even universally agree which texts are authentic and holy and which are heretical frauds. The only thing they all universally share is the inclination to call themselves Christians (more than a few are eager to contest whether other self-described Christians are in fact Christians.) One particular example: I was raised to believe that the Book of Mormon is a heretical fraud, and consequently to believe that Mormons are not real Christians (despite claiming to be.)
    - bigwavedave 5y ago
      > People who self-describe as Christians can't even universally agree which texts are authentic and holy and which are heretical frauds. The only thing they all universally share is the inclination to call themselves Christians. Interesting perspective- when I was much younger, I was taught that a Christian is anybody who believes that Christ is the Savior and that he atoned for the sins of humanity. Is there an "official" definition?
  - jdavis703 5y ago
    There is no criteria. Anyone who calls themselves Christian is a Christian. The same goes for any other religion. All religions have differing internal beliefs, so there is no objective definition of a “true believer.”
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - selcuka 5y ago
      I believe it's not the same for any other religion. For example conversions to Judaism are overseen by a religious court.
      - elteto 5y ago
        An actual court in the US will probably not try to legislate whether a person is of the Jewish faith or not, _regardless_ of what some other religious "court" says. Probably (IANAL) if a person says that they observe the Jewish faith and that this is a deeply held belief, regardless of whether some religious organization recognizes him/her, that will be enough for the courts.
- lotsofpulp 5y ago
  How could a court possibly establish whether or not a belief is sincerely held? The whole thing is a farce.
  - gnopgnip 5y ago
    The same way the courts decide whether or not someone committed a crime or any other issue. The judge or jury ultimately decides the facts based on what is presented.
jdavis703 5y ago
It depends. I’m 99% certain the Amish would not approve of fingerprinting. But it’s certainly not a widespread belief among the most popular mainstream Christian sects. However some states allow for a religious exemption that is based on personal belief, so one doesn’t need their pastor or priest to agree.
- technothrasher 5y ago
  Hmm, I had no idea one way or the other about the Amish and fingerprints, but you made me curious. Seems it's not so, as in Illinois they worked with the state to avoid getting photographed for their state ID by getting one based on their fingerprints instead. https://will.illinois.edu/news/story/amish-can-apply-for-state-ids-in-2015 https://will.illinois.edu/news/story/amish-can-apply-for-sta...
  - dane-pgp 5y ago
    Ironically, the Amish position is based solely on their strong stance on Aniconism[0], but in the process of their objection they have revealed that the state ID system gives people the choice of having their forehead or their right hand recorded, which are precisely the areas where the "mark of the beast" is taken, according to the book of Revelation.[1] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aniconism#Among_Christians_today https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aniconism#Among_Christians_tod... [1] https://biblehub.com/revelation/13-16.htm https://biblehub.com/revelation/13-16.htm
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
keithnz 5y ago
yeah, I'm confused what belief is held such that you can't be fingerprinted. My initial searching for what that might be is mostly "Mark of the Beast". Which seems odd.
- slapfrog 5y ago
  The whole of Revelations is certainly odd, but that doesn't stop a whole lot of people from finding some interpretation of it they can believe in. That some people might interpret it to be a warning against biometrics doesn't strike me as particularly odd, relative to the oddness of other beliefs derived from [or justified using] this book.
- sigzero 5y ago
  Fingerprinting could not in any way be interpreted as the "mark of the beast" because there is no mark put on the person during fingerprinting. So that wouldn't stand any scrutiny. Religious or otherwise.
  - amateurICEguy 5y ago
    You have to be careful when you interpret a religious passage. For starters you don't (do you?) speak the original language, so you're at the mercy of the translator for the term "mark" But, going more meta, most religious traditions don't have a strict textual interpretation of their texts. Certainly the author could not have known fingerprinting techniques 2000 years ago. It is not unreasonable to interpret "mark" to be an identifier. Of course then the "fingerprint" mark would have to be compatible with the rest of Revelations.
    - Dylan16807 5y ago
      > Certainly the author could not have known fingerprinting techniques 2000 years ago. Citation needed. > It is not unreasonable to interpret "mark" to be an identifier. Adding an identifier, perhaps. But to interpret that passage to refer to taking pictures or imprints? That is unreasonable.
smogcutter 5y ago
Not a lawyer, but seems from the outside that they key thing is that another employee did get an alternate background check. So being told no accommodations are available is BS. Seems like a pretty straightforward argument from there to saying the employee is being discriminated against for a sincerely held religious belief. The belief itself being fringe hogwash is irrelevant. Plus the employee offering to accept an alternative form of verification seems to point to the belief (however dumb) being sincere.
- sodality2 5y ago
  Ah, must've skimmed past that part! yeah, that seems pretty clear-cut. Thanks!
  - smogcutter 5y ago
    On the other hand, afaik the mark of the beast is something placed/written on you by the antichrist. Whereas your fingerprints, are, like, part of your body. So even if you grant that the mark of the beast is a thing people believe in this doesn’t make much sense.
    - asdfasgasdgasdg 5y ago
      I suppose that means that a sincerely held religious belief need not actually be a tenet of the religion you follow, so long as you believe it, and believe it is related to your religion. Personally this seems like a gray area that is ripe for abuse. But I guess until such abuse becomes much more commonplace, we will not see a reform in the degree to which religious beliefs are favored by the courts. On the other hand, if such abuse becomes more prominent and causes more interference with how business gets done, then you could imagine a scenario where one-off beliefs are much less favored, and the state has to get involved in figuring out whether the belief is actually religious, or if it's just some random thing you believe that you attach religious significance to. (Distinguishing minority religious views from this will be extremely difficult.)
      - 5y ago
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
PostThisTooFast 5y ago
Let's face it: The company did the right thing for its clients getting rid of a dumb-ass, even if it cost them $65K. Unless, of course, it was all a ruse to simply avoid being fingerprinted (and one would think that the company would've sought evidence... such as church attendance... of being a "devout Christian"). In that case... not such a dṳmb-ȧṡs.
iammisc 5y ago
The government will not and can not look into the provenance of your belief. Whether or not this is an 'actual christian belief' is not something the federal or state government can comment on. If the man holds it sincerely then the state must take him at his word. Edit: why am I being down voted ...? This is the accepted legal standard
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

whiddershins 5y ago

Depending on the Christian denomination there may be explicit provision for personal conscience in interpreting certain things within the context of your faith.

_3u10 5y ago

That’s orthogonal to court, the standard is not whether others hold that belief but whether the belief is sincerely held. Given that he identifies as Christian and whatever he believes got a ruling in his favor I would say that it’s an “actual” belief.

keithnz 5y ago
It is a religion, with many denominations. Not quite sure what the criteria is for when something varies such that it wouldn't be considered Christian.
- slapfrog 5y ago
  > It is a religion, with many denominations. The whole of it defies neat categorization. People who self-describe as Christians can't even universally agree which texts are authentic and holy and which are heretical frauds. The only thing they all universally share is the inclination to call themselves Christians (more than a few are eager to contest whether other self-described Christians are in fact Christians.) One particular example: I was raised to believe that the Book of Mormon is a heretical fraud, and consequently to believe that Mormons are not real Christians (despite claiming to be.)
  - bigwavedave 5y ago
    > People who self-describe as Christians can't even universally agree which texts are authentic and holy and which are heretical frauds. The only thing they all universally share is the inclination to call themselves Christians. Interesting perspective- when I was much younger, I was taught that a Christian is anybody who believes that Christ is the Savior and that he atoned for the sins of humanity. Is there an "official" definition?
- jdavis703 5y ago
  There is no criteria. Anyone who calls themselves Christian is a Christian. The same goes for any other religion. All religions have differing internal beliefs, so there is no objective definition of a “true believer.”
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - selcuka 5y ago
    I believe it's not the same for any other religion. For example conversions to Judaism are overseen by a religious court.
    - elteto 5y ago
      An actual court in the US will probably not try to legislate whether a person is of the Jewish faith or not, _regardless_ of what some other religious "court" says. Probably (IANAL) if a person says that they observe the Jewish faith and that this is a deeply held belief, regardless of whether some religious organization recognizes him/her, that will be enough for the courts.
lotsofpulp 5y ago
How could a court possibly establish whether or not a belief is sincerely held? The whole thing is a farce.
- gnopgnip 5y ago
  The same way the courts decide whether or not someone committed a crime or any other issue. The judge or jury ultimately decides the facts based on what is presented.

jdavis703 5y ago

It depends. I’m 99% certain the Amish would not approve of fingerprinting. But it’s certainly not a widespread belief among the most popular mainstream Christian sects. However some states allow for a religious exemption that is based on personal belief, so one doesn’t need their pastor or priest to agree.

technothrasher 5y ago
Hmm, I had no idea one way or the other about the Amish and fingerprints, but you made me curious. Seems it's not so, as in Illinois they worked with the state to avoid getting photographed for their state ID by getting one based on their fingerprints instead. https://will.illinois.edu/news/story/amish-can-apply-for-state-ids-in-2015 https://will.illinois.edu/news/story/amish-can-apply-for-sta...
- dane-pgp 5y ago
  Ironically, the Amish position is based solely on their strong stance on Aniconism[0], but in the process of their objection they have revealed that the state ID system gives people the choice of having their forehead or their right hand recorded, which are precisely the areas where the "mark of the beast" is taken, according to the book of Revelation.[1] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aniconism#Among_Christians_today https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aniconism#Among_Christians_tod... [1] https://biblehub.com/revelation/13-16.htm https://biblehub.com/revelation/13-16.htm
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

keithnz 5y ago

yeah, I'm confused what belief is held such that you can't be fingerprinted. My initial searching for what that might be is mostly "Mark of the Beast". Which seems odd.

slapfrog 5y ago
The whole of Revelations is certainly odd, but that doesn't stop a whole lot of people from finding some interpretation of it they can believe in. That some people might interpret it to be a warning against biometrics doesn't strike me as particularly odd, relative to the oddness of other beliefs derived from [or justified using] this book.
sigzero 5y ago
Fingerprinting could not in any way be interpreted as the "mark of the beast" because there is no mark put on the person during fingerprinting. So that wouldn't stand any scrutiny. Religious or otherwise.
- amateurICEguy 5y ago
  You have to be careful when you interpret a religious passage. For starters you don't (do you?) speak the original language, so you're at the mercy of the translator for the term "mark" But, going more meta, most religious traditions don't have a strict textual interpretation of their texts. Certainly the author could not have known fingerprinting techniques 2000 years ago. It is not unreasonable to interpret "mark" to be an identifier. Of course then the "fingerprint" mark would have to be compatible with the rest of Revelations.
  - Dylan16807 5y ago
    > Certainly the author could not have known fingerprinting techniques 2000 years ago. Citation needed. > It is not unreasonable to interpret "mark" to be an identifier. Adding an identifier, perhaps. But to interpret that passage to refer to taking pictures or imprints? That is unreasonable.

smogcutter 5y ago

Not a lawyer, but seems from the outside that they key thing is that another employee did get an alternate background check. So being told no accommodations are available is BS. Seems like a pretty straightforward argument from there to saying the employee is being discriminated against for a sincerely held religious belief. The belief itself being fringe hogwash is irrelevant. Plus the employee offering to accept an alternative form of verification seems to point to the belief (however dumb) being sincere.

sodality2 5y ago
Ah, must've skimmed past that part! yeah, that seems pretty clear-cut. Thanks!
- smogcutter 5y ago
  On the other hand, afaik the mark of the beast is something placed/written on you by the antichrist. Whereas your fingerprints, are, like, part of your body. So even if you grant that the mark of the beast is a thing people believe in this doesn’t make much sense.
  - asdfasgasdgasdg 5y ago
    I suppose that means that a sincerely held religious belief need not actually be a tenet of the religion you follow, so long as you believe it, and believe it is related to your religion. Personally this seems like a gray area that is ripe for abuse. But I guess until such abuse becomes much more commonplace, we will not see a reform in the degree to which religious beliefs are favored by the courts. On the other hand, if such abuse becomes more prominent and causes more interference with how business gets done, then you could imagine a scenario where one-off beliefs are much less favored, and the state has to get involved in figuring out whether the belief is actually religious, or if it's just some random thing you believe that you attach religious significance to. (Distinguishing minority religious views from this will be extremely difficult.)
    - 5y ago

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

PostThisTooFast 5y ago

Let's face it: The company did the right thing for its clients getting rid of a dumb-ass, even if it cost them $65K. Unless, of course, it was all a ruse to simply avoid being fingerprinted (and one would think that the company would've sought evidence... such as church attendance... of being a "devout Christian"). In that case... not such a dṳmb-ȧṡs.

iammisc 5y ago

The government will not and can not look into the provenance of your belief. Whether or not this is an 'actual christian belief' is not something the federal or state government can comment on. If the man holds it sincerely then the state must take him at his word. Edit: why am I being down voted ...? This is the accepted legal standard

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]