32 replies to this topic

[Darth Biscuit]

A Texas high school student who claimed her student identification was the “Mark of the Beast” because it was implanted with a radio-frequency identification chip has lost her federal court bid Tuesday challenging her suspension for refusing to wear the card around her neck.

The "mark of the beast" stuff is silly... but I'm curious about your opinions on two things regarding this situation...

#1)

The institute, which said it would appeal to the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, blasted the decision.

“By declaring Andrea Hernandez’s objections to be a secular choice and not grounded in her religious beliefs, the district court is placing itself as an arbiter of what is and is not religious. This is simply not permissible under our constitutional scheme, and we plan to appeal this immediately,” the institute said in statement.

How does the court decide what is and what is not "religious"?


#2)

The motive behind the RFID tagging appears largely financial.

Like most state-financed schools, the district’s budget is tied to average daily attendance. If a student is not in his seat during morning roll call, the district doesn’t receive daily funding for that pupil because the school has no way of knowing for sure if the student is there.

But with the RFID tracking, students not at their desks but tracked on campus are counted as being in school that day, and the district receives its daily allotment for that student.

What do you think about putting these kinds of "trackers" on students?

[Proudiddy]

It is unconstitutional, but apparently that doesn't matter anymore.

[Darth Biscuit]

It is unconstitutional, but apparently that doesn't matter anymore.

Which part?

[Inimicus]

Link to source please?


From what you've posted so far I'm inclined to side with the school but need to read more.

e: never mind I found plenty on it.

[Inimicus]

Yeah I'm definitely with the school on this one

http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2013/01/08/texas_rfid_case_judge_upholds_northside_independent_schools_tracking_program.html

Tech blogs, civil rights groups, and even Anonymous joined the fray on the family’s side, calling the RFID badges an egregious invasion of privacy. But as I reported in November, the outrage overlooked a crucial fact: The district had offered Hernandez a compromise, allowing her to wear the ID card with the chip removed. She and her father refused, saying that would amount to showing support for a program that violates their religious convictions.


The judge disagreed. In a 25-page ruling, he wrote that the Hernandez’s refusal to wear the badge even without the tracking chip undermined her claims that the district was violating her religious freedom. “Plaintiff's objection to wearing the Smart ID badge without a chip is clearly a secular choice, rather than a religious concern,” Garcia wrote.

[Cat]

I heard this story a while back before the ruling. I'm pretty sure the school offered for her just to wear a badge or some sort of ID however she refused to do that as well.


edit: Ok yeah I just read the post above me.

[Darth Biscuit]

Link to source please?


From what you've posted so far I'm inclined to side with the school but need to read more.

e: never mind I found plenty on it.

Oops... sorry.

I meant to link the article and did not...

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2013/01/student-rfid-suspension/

[Happy Panther]

The courts have ruled that the constitution is limited for minors especially when it comes to schools and especially with regard to the 4th amendment. So I doubt this is unconstitutional. I don't particularly like it but as long as it is school grounds only I wouldn't care if my kid wore one.

As far as the question of religion, if we are going to protect religion then somebody will have to decide what is and isn't religion and it seems reasonable that that job would lie with the courts.

[Darth Biscuit]

As far as the question of religion, if we are going to protect religion then somebody will have to decide what is and isn't religion and it seems reasonable that that job would lie with the courts.

Definitely agree... but how do they decide what is and what isn't religious?

[Proudiddy]

Which part?

IMO, making her wear a "tracking device" because if the family feels it is infringing on their religious beliefs then it is unconstitutional to make her wear it.

I don't think it's the "Mark of the Beast," but it certainly should give people pause. Combine this with a story I saw on one of the Morning Shows (CBS I think) a few years ago where schools had given kids laptops but had remote control over the integrated cameras in them and this is where we are headed.

In that story about the laptops, the school was actually reprimanding kids for stuff they had going on at home as a result of it being caught on audio or video through the laptop.

[Inimicus]

IMO, making her wear a "tracking device" because if the family feels it is infringing on their religious beliefs then it is unconstitutional to make her wear it.

I don't think it's the "Mark of the Beast," but it certainly should give people pause. Combine this with a story I saw on one of the Morning Shows (CBS I think) a few years ago where schools had given kids laptops but had remote control over the integrated cameras in them and this is where we are headed.

In that story about the laptops, the school was actually reprimanding kids for stuff they had going on at home as a result of it being caught on audio or video through the laptop.

But she has a choice.

The badge is part of a pilot program at a magnet school. She has the ability to return to her home school where there are no badges or RFID tags.

[Happy Panther]

Definitely agree... but how do they decide what is and what isn't religious?

Here is the definition in federal law:

To be a bona fide religious belief entitled to protection under either the First Amendment or Title VII, a belief must be sincerely held, and within the believer's own scheme of things religious

So I think as long as the court can convince itself that the person isn't screwing or lying around then the religion test passes. Which is why witchcraft is a religion in the USA for example.

I think the girl would have won if the school hadn't offered the non chip badge.

[Inimicus]

Here is the definition in federal law:



So I think as long as the court can convince itself that the person isn't screwing or lying around then the religion test passes. Which is why witchcraft is a religion in the USA for example.

I think the girl would have won if the school hadn't offered the non chip badge.

Absolutely.

Well that combined with the fact that its a magnet school so she chose to attend that school as opposed to her assigned school.

[Cat]

Definitely agree... but how do they decide what is and what isn't religious?

I think it's been ruled by the courts that the Free Exercise Clause protects religious beliefs, not religious practices that run counter to laws.

This is why you can't marry 4 women simply because you're religion says to do it. Or why you don't have to pay taxes because some of the money is used for war that might be against your region or pay for health insurance that covers birth control etc. etc. etc.

I think there is more to it then what I'm saying but there is a lot of precedent on the subject.

[MadHatter]

I think it's been ruled by the courts that the Free Exercise Clause protects religious beliefs, not religious practices that run counter to laws.

This is why you can't marry 4 women simply because you're religion says to do it. Or why you don't have to pay taxes because some of the money is used for war that might be against your region or pay for health insurance that covers birth control etc. etc. etc.

I think there is more to it then what I'm saying but there is a lot of precedent on the subject.

I think you are spot on.