Comments on: Fingerprints are the Mark of the Beast, Says Kindergarten Teacher

By: Doubting Thomas

Doubting Thomas — Sun, 15 Nov 2009 02:58:05 +0000

I don’t think the 5th Amendment really applies here because fingerprinting is a condition of employment and they are not actually looking for a criminal conviction. Though I’m sure if a background check did show a warrant (though having worked in law enforcement I know that this is checked via other means and not fingerpints) law enforcement would be knocking on her door.

I do believe that there’s something more to the story and there’s a real reason she doesn’t want to get fingerprinted. Sorry, but just because someone’s a Christian doesn’t mean that they won’t lie. And I do believe that she’s never actually read the bible, or has and didn’t understand it. But that tends to be par for the course for most Christians.

By: Doubting Thomas

Doubting Thomas — Sun, 15 Nov 2009 02:58:05 +0000

By: Fingerprints, Mark Of The Beast! | Miscellanea Agnostica

Fingerprints, Mark Of The Beast! | Miscellanea Agnostica — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 00:41:18 +0000

[...] tip: The Friendly Atheist. Feel Free to [...]

By: martymankins

martymankins — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 20:05:15 +0000

Leave it to Jeff to detail the exactness in following scripture. Kudos

I scratched by right hand mowing the lawn this last week. Does that count as a mark? lol

By: Polly

Polly — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 19:36:16 +0000

Isn’t there an Amendment that stops people from giving self-incriminatory evidence. Doesn’t forcing someone to give their fingerprints or DNA go against this?

That was my first thought. Don’t we apply the 5th to DNA sampling, already? Can anyone speak knowledgeably about the legality of this requirement?

My wife had to submit to fingerprinting when she went to work as a pre-school teacher at a private pre-school. A minor inconvenience. Not once did she entertain the notion that she was swearing allegiance to Satan and his minions by doing so; and she does believe in a literal Devil and Hell – but not in pushing her beliefs on children.

By: muggle

muggle — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 19:02:48 +0000

It doesn’t hurt to presume she’s not a lunatic and do a little more digging.

Well, actually it could… especially since she’s exhibiting some signs of mental instability.

Truly, does anyone want her around a little kid near and dear to them?

I still say this is a camoflauge for something else. What’s she hiding that she’s so afraid of getting fingerprinted? I’m absolutely not buying the devil is it. Especially with gawd to protect her immortal soul.

By: Jeff

Jeff — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 16:51:04 +0000

Someone should point out to this female bible literalist the following passage (bold emphasis mine).

And the third angel followed them, saying with a loud voice, If any man worship the beast and his image, and receive his MARK in his forehead, or in his hand, Rev. 14:9

Obviously, the scripture is just referring to men (not women). Women can have all the marks they want.

By: postsimian

postsimian — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 16:08:18 +0000

Haha, I love it! She calls the background check process “the mark of the beast,” thereby confirming why we have background checks in the first place. Way to go, system!

By: keddaw

keddaw — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 15:58:02 +0000

Isn’t there an Amendment that stops people from giving self-incriminatory evidence. Doesn’t forcing someone to give their fingerprints or DNA go against this?

By: GDad

GDad — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 15:26:31 +0000

If we play by the rules of Revelation, it seems that the answer is quite simple. The passage being cited says, “He causes all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and slave, to receive a mark on their right hand and on their foreheads…”

Use the left hand.