5 ms·

"I feel it's an invasion of my religious beliefs," she told InfoWars. "I feel it's the implementation of the Mark of the Beast. It's also an invasion of my priv

by iamdave 14y ago

"I feel it's an invasion of my religious beliefs," she told InfoWars. "I feel it's the implementation of the Mark of the Beast. It's also an invasion of my privacy and my other rights."* FTA. I get that it's popular to automatically dismiss something when you catch so much as a whiff of religious overtones, but the student did in fact also mention privacy as an issue of why she refused to wear the badge.

drivebyacct2 14y ago
My point was merely that complaining about the "Mark of the Beast" is a good way to get people to roll their eyes. I certainly think this policy is a horrible precedent but ultimately I think a secular redress involving something that could actually be upheld would be a better focal point. This, "my religious belief is as good as anyone elses" is a can of worms, a dangerous discussion and will derail from the immediate problems with these policies. They turn places of education into centers of control and survelliance. There is so vastly much wrong with treating humans like this, let alone students, that I cringe that criticisms will be dismissed because of the particulars of an individual's religion. (Aka, I agree with you, my fear is that this being a religious issue rather than a privacy issue will be over all detrimental to actually fixing these policies. Hope that explains things more.)
- iamdave 14y ago
  Point is valid and taken, however the comment made here[1] actually makes the counter-point I was preparing to after reading your response. Essentially, sure-the lean towards religion is slowly moving back in the other direction towards pragmatic and progressive thinking; does not mean we shouldn't give it consideration when we (I, not sure about yourself but definitely the case in the expelled Texan student) live in a country that has a founding document that explicitly cites religion as a guaranteed freedom. === [1] http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4820028 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4820028
  - TheAmazingIdiot 14y ago
    Ok, let me get this straight. School makes RFID solution for tracking/library/food stuffs. Student objects based upon religious and privacy grounds. Judge granted her a reprieve based upon Freedom of Speech and Religion grounds. I do have a good deal of knowledge and understanding of different religions and beliefs. I know of none other that specifically mentions the "Mark of The Beast" and the full context mentioned in Revelations. So are they preparing a non-Christian tracking service?
    - jlgreco 14y ago
      I don't think that we can say these people are trying to create a non-Christian tracking service. I doubt they are acting with (that extreme a degree of) malice. That doesn't change the fact that the effect, regardless of intent, is approximately the same. I think a sensible way of handling religious exemptions, to prevent giving special privilege to those with more restrictive religions (or those with religions more open to loose interpretations, or simply those with religions), is to permit anybody of any religion or lack of religion to claim religious exemptions that anybody else could. If a Christian student is allowed to opt-out of the RFID system, then a Buddhist student or an atheist student should similarly be allowed to opt-out, even though they lack the "mark of the beast" stuff in their belief system.
      - TheAmazingIdiot 14y ago
        I would concur as well. I believe they were doing this RFID system for 2 reasons: the students, and the contract. However, the reprieve allows all Christians to exempt themselves from this program. My underlying worry is the Government will make further all-encompassing rules on the hopes that few are able to be exempt from them. This will be done by a religious test in front of a Judge. However, it is all the worse that this occurs at a secondary school. With the rule of in loco parentis, it really is a dictatorship and a prison. At least outside that compulsed system, there is more regular rule of law.
        jlgreco 14y ago
- protomyth 14y ago
  No politician or judge in Texas who likes their job will ever roll their eyes at this accusation.
  - jlgreco 14y ago
    If this general issue were limited in scope to Texas, then I wouldn't be concerned about anyone but judges in Texas. That she was able to effectively use a (honestly, kind of nutty) religious argument is great for her, but I don't think it does the rest of us much good. If this becomes a trend, I could definitely see it ultimately being marginalizing. This is fundamentally a privacy issue that could effect anybody, but if the only effective arguments against it are religious exemption then what we have created is a situation where you are only free to exempt yourself if you can effectively form an argument against it in your particular religion (if you even have one...). That is not a situation I am comfortable with.
    - jasonlotito 14y ago
      The religious angle is explicitly protected by the constitution. Privacy, not as much. You're rights to privacy relate to religion, privacy of your home to house soldiers, privacy against unlawful search and seizures, and the 5th amendments protection of incriminating yourself. > That is not a situation I am comfortable with. For better or worse, that's how the most powerful law in our land is framed. And, while you might not like it, it might have been the smartest thing our founding fathers did. After all, what's to stop people from establishing a religion founded on certain beliefs of privacy? Consider that while you can argue for privacy, arguments for tracking could be made. And while you might hate the "think of the children" argument, it's a very real issue for many. Personally, I'm happy with the situation, that the case can be challenged, and while religion might be apart of it, it's privacy that is at stake, and everyone knows it. You just have to ask yourself: does your belief in your right to privacy trump someone's acceptance of being tracked?
      - jlgreco 14y ago
        >For better or worse, that's how the most powerful law in our land is framed. And, while you might not like it You have misunderstood me almost entirely I fear. I am perfectly fine with religion providing exemptions, what concerns me is that privacy seems to have been effectively dismissed here, in favour of a religious exemption argument. That is fine for the people involved, but I do not think it sets any sort of useful precedent for the rest of us. Atheist, Buddhist, or other non-Christian students presumably still have to fight to opt-out of this system, but now Christian students (clearly the majority) are effectively exempt. > After all, what's to stop people from establishing a religion founded on certain beliefs of privacy? Well, a few things. First off, religions invented or employed to take advantage of religious exemptions tend to be poorly received. A few people have tried to wear spaghetti strainers in their DMV photos as "religious headgear", and generally I believe they eventually win the right to do so, but they have to go through lengthy and draining fights just to gain access to the same exemptions that more mainstream religions would receive automatically (when was the last time a Jewish person had to fight to defend the legitimacy of Judaism in order to wear headgear in an official government photo?) Secondly, even were the process of inventing religions to gain access to religious exemptions streamlined, this ignores the possibility that the individual already is religious, and religious in such a way that claiming an additional religious affiliation is out of the question for them. Thirdly (and very related to my second point, to the extent that it probably doesn't require individual mention), it ignores the possibility that the student is opposed to religion, and wishes to obtain the same consideration that Christians are being afforded, but has a moral opposition to lying about one's religious beliefs. Telling that student to lie, invent and "adopt" a religion, and then only then enjoy the same protection, is I think unreasonable. There is a very easy solution to my uneasiness however that still allows students to make the (very easy) religious exemption case: Allow everybody, no matter their "claimed" religion (whether genuinely held or not), to take advantage of exemptions that would or could be afforded to other religious students. If Christian students are permitted to exempt from anything, non-Christian students should also be permitted to exempt from the same thing, without having to find a non-Christian basis for doing so. Stated more clearly, nobody seeking religious exemption should be expected to claim affiliation with that, or any, religion. If that were the case, both in the letter of the law and in practice, then my uneasiness would be entirely calmed. EDIT: if "religious exemptions" were handed out with the same stated standards for conscientious objection from the US Selective Service, the result would be quite similar to what I earlier proposed and I would be entirely satisfied. The part I quite like: "Beliefs which qualify a registrant for CO status may be religious in nature, but don't have to be. Beliefs may be moral or ethical" -- http://www.sss.gov/FSconsobj.htm http://www.sss.gov/FSconsobj.htm The majority decision for Gillette v. United States 401 U.S. 437 (1971) is not one that I particularly like, however its broadening of eligibility beyond strictly religious beliefs is quite good, and I think very relevant.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
- lobotryas 14y ago
  >something that could actually be upheld Are you implying that the First Amendment (ie: religious freedom) is not something that can or has been upheld in court? I understand the concern you voice, however in doing so you come across as so intolerant of religion that you're unwilling to even consider working with religious people when your goals coincide. Moreover, you seem to think that only one legal strategy is correct and only one legal strategy can be exercised at a time in order to challenge a rule or a law. I sincerely hope you represent the minority of HN and that most users are much more tolerant and inclusive.
  - drivebyacct2 14y ago
    Please read my other posts before making assumptions, accusations and generalizations.
  - wnight 14y ago
    A religious defense only helps religious people. Worse though, it perpetuates the idea that certain classes of opinions are more worthy than others. Clearly secular solutions are more valuable because they help everyone. I'm very tolerant of religious people finding safety under my umbrella even though I find their belief odious.
    - kaybe 14y ago
      >A religious defense only helps religious people. Anyone can claim religious reasons, there is no religion police (yet). To me it reads like she objected for privacy reasons and the religious phrase given is just an argument they think might be accepted more easily. (I might be wrong, but it is a possible scenario.) - (Which is a sad thing in itself.)

by iamdave 14y ago

drivebyacct2 14y ago

My point was merely that complaining about the "Mark of the Beast" is a good way to get people to roll their eyes. I certainly think this policy is a horrible precedent but ultimately I think a secular redress involving something that could actually be upheld would be a better focal point. This, "my religious belief is as good as anyone elses" is a can of worms, a dangerous discussion and will derail from the immediate problems with these policies. They turn places of education into centers of control and survelliance. There is so vastly much wrong with treating humans like this, let alone students, that I cringe that criticisms will be dismissed because of the particulars of an individual's religion. (Aka, I agree with you, my fear is that this being a religious issue rather than a privacy issue will be over all detrimental to actually fixing these policies. Hope that explains things more.)

iamdave 14y ago
Point is valid and taken, however the comment made here[1] actually makes the counter-point I was preparing to after reading your response. Essentially, sure-the lean towards religion is slowly moving back in the other direction towards pragmatic and progressive thinking; does not mean we shouldn't give it consideration when we (I, not sure about yourself but definitely the case in the expelled Texan student) live in a country that has a founding document that explicitly cites religion as a guaranteed freedom. === [1] http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4820028 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4820028
- TheAmazingIdiot 14y ago
  Ok, let me get this straight. School makes RFID solution for tracking/library/food stuffs. Student objects based upon religious and privacy grounds. Judge granted her a reprieve based upon Freedom of Speech and Religion grounds. I do have a good deal of knowledge and understanding of different religions and beliefs. I know of none other that specifically mentions the "Mark of The Beast" and the full context mentioned in Revelations. So are they preparing a non-Christian tracking service?
  - jlgreco 14y ago
    I don't think that we can say these people are trying to create a non-Christian tracking service. I doubt they are acting with (that extreme a degree of) malice. That doesn't change the fact that the effect, regardless of intent, is approximately the same. I think a sensible way of handling religious exemptions, to prevent giving special privilege to those with more restrictive religions (or those with religions more open to loose interpretations, or simply those with religions), is to permit anybody of any religion or lack of religion to claim religious exemptions that anybody else could. If a Christian student is allowed to opt-out of the RFID system, then a Buddhist student or an atheist student should similarly be allowed to opt-out, even though they lack the "mark of the beast" stuff in their belief system.
    - TheAmazingIdiot 14y ago
      I would concur as well. I believe they were doing this RFID system for 2 reasons: the students, and the contract. However, the reprieve allows all Christians to exempt themselves from this program. My underlying worry is the Government will make further all-encompassing rules on the hopes that few are able to be exempt from them. This will be done by a religious test in front of a Judge. However, it is all the worse that this occurs at a secondary school. With the rule of in loco parentis, it really is a dictatorship and a prison. At least outside that compulsed system, there is more regular rule of law.
      - jlgreco 14y ago
protomyth 14y ago
No politician or judge in Texas who likes their job will ever roll their eyes at this accusation.
- jlgreco 14y ago
  If this general issue were limited in scope to Texas, then I wouldn't be concerned about anyone but judges in Texas. That she was able to effectively use a (honestly, kind of nutty) religious argument is great for her, but I don't think it does the rest of us much good. If this becomes a trend, I could definitely see it ultimately being marginalizing. This is fundamentally a privacy issue that could effect anybody, but if the only effective arguments against it are religious exemption then what we have created is a situation where you are only free to exempt yourself if you can effectively form an argument against it in your particular religion (if you even have one...). That is not a situation I am comfortable with.
  - jasonlotito 14y ago
    The religious angle is explicitly protected by the constitution. Privacy, not as much. You're rights to privacy relate to religion, privacy of your home to house soldiers, privacy against unlawful search and seizures, and the 5th amendments protection of incriminating yourself. > That is not a situation I am comfortable with. For better or worse, that's how the most powerful law in our land is framed. And, while you might not like it, it might have been the smartest thing our founding fathers did. After all, what's to stop people from establishing a religion founded on certain beliefs of privacy? Consider that while you can argue for privacy, arguments for tracking could be made. And while you might hate the "think of the children" argument, it's a very real issue for many. Personally, I'm happy with the situation, that the case can be challenged, and while religion might be apart of it, it's privacy that is at stake, and everyone knows it. You just have to ask yourself: does your belief in your right to privacy trump someone's acceptance of being tracked?
    - jlgreco 14y ago
      >For better or worse, that's how the most powerful law in our land is framed. And, while you might not like it You have misunderstood me almost entirely I fear. I am perfectly fine with religion providing exemptions, what concerns me is that privacy seems to have been effectively dismissed here, in favour of a religious exemption argument. That is fine for the people involved, but I do not think it sets any sort of useful precedent for the rest of us. Atheist, Buddhist, or other non-Christian students presumably still have to fight to opt-out of this system, but now Christian students (clearly the majority) are effectively exempt. > After all, what's to stop people from establishing a religion founded on certain beliefs of privacy? Well, a few things. First off, religions invented or employed to take advantage of religious exemptions tend to be poorly received. A few people have tried to wear spaghetti strainers in their DMV photos as "religious headgear", and generally I believe they eventually win the right to do so, but they have to go through lengthy and draining fights just to gain access to the same exemptions that more mainstream religions would receive automatically (when was the last time a Jewish person had to fight to defend the legitimacy of Judaism in order to wear headgear in an official government photo?) Secondly, even were the process of inventing religions to gain access to religious exemptions streamlined, this ignores the possibility that the individual already is religious, and religious in such a way that claiming an additional religious affiliation is out of the question for them. Thirdly (and very related to my second point, to the extent that it probably doesn't require individual mention), it ignores the possibility that the student is opposed to religion, and wishes to obtain the same consideration that Christians are being afforded, but has a moral opposition to lying about one's religious beliefs. Telling that student to lie, invent and "adopt" a religion, and then only then enjoy the same protection, is I think unreasonable. There is a very easy solution to my uneasiness however that still allows students to make the (very easy) religious exemption case: Allow everybody, no matter their "claimed" religion (whether genuinely held or not), to take advantage of exemptions that would or could be afforded to other religious students. If Christian students are permitted to exempt from anything, non-Christian students should also be permitted to exempt from the same thing, without having to find a non-Christian basis for doing so. Stated more clearly, nobody seeking religious exemption should be expected to claim affiliation with that, or any, religion. If that were the case, both in the letter of the law and in practice, then my uneasiness would be entirely calmed. EDIT: if "religious exemptions" were handed out with the same stated standards for conscientious objection from the US Selective Service, the result would be quite similar to what I earlier proposed and I would be entirely satisfied. The part I quite like: "Beliefs which qualify a registrant for CO status may be religious in nature, but don't have to be. Beliefs may be moral or ethical" -- http://www.sss.gov/FSconsobj.htm http://www.sss.gov/FSconsobj.htm The majority decision for Gillette v. United States 401 U.S. 437 (1971) is not one that I particularly like, however its broadening of eligibility beyond strictly religious beliefs is quite good, and I think very relevant.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
lobotryas 14y ago
>something that could actually be upheld Are you implying that the First Amendment (ie: religious freedom) is not something that can or has been upheld in court? I understand the concern you voice, however in doing so you come across as so intolerant of religion that you're unwilling to even consider working with religious people when your goals coincide. Moreover, you seem to think that only one legal strategy is correct and only one legal strategy can be exercised at a time in order to challenge a rule or a law. I sincerely hope you represent the minority of HN and that most users are much more tolerant and inclusive.
- drivebyacct2 14y ago
  Please read my other posts before making assumptions, accusations and generalizations.
- wnight 14y ago
  A religious defense only helps religious people. Worse though, it perpetuates the idea that certain classes of opinions are more worthy than others. Clearly secular solutions are more valuable because they help everyone. I'm very tolerant of religious people finding safety under my umbrella even though I find their belief odious.
  - kaybe 14y ago
    >A religious defense only helps religious people. Anyone can claim religious reasons, there is no religion police (yet). To me it reads like she objected for privacy reasons and the religious phrase given is just an argument they think might be accepted more easily. (I might be wrong, but it is a possible scenario.) - (Which is a sad thing in itself.)