What's New Here?

Showing posts with label Tattoos. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Tattoos. Show all posts

Allergy Tattoos: Should Kids Wear Warning Labels to School?

Temporary tattoos are not traditionally considered must-have back-to-school shopping items — but that could change. This year, some students with severe allergies are returning to class with their medical issues stamped on their skin for their own protection.

More on Shine: Ladylike Tattoos: Are They a Thing?

“Right now there's a huge awareness, whether because of going back to school or because of the recent incident in California,” SafetyTat founder and mother of three Michele Welsh told Yahoo! Shine. Welsh was referring to the recent tragic death of a 13-year-old girl with a peanut allergy at a Sacramento summer camp. “Unfortunately it sometimes takes something like that for people to say, 'Wow, it really can happen.'"

More on Yahoo!: Girl Dies After Allergic Reaction to Camp Treat

Welsh created her 5-year-old company—offering products that include temporary tattoos and long-lasting, write-on skin stickers—after using a ballpoint pen to nervously scrawl her cell phone number on her kids’ arms at a crowded amusement park, in case they got separated, and realizing it was maybe not the best way to go about it.

The moment made her think of other dangers lurking for kids, and how having an actual warning label on the body could be useful to other parents, too—like her sister-in-law, who is mom to a boy with a fatal peanut allergy. "He had spent so much time in the hospital as a toddler, that his mom had begun limiting his time outside the home because she was so fearful," Welsh said. When she created the tattoos and he wore one to a school trip, the response was immediate, alerting a food server who double checked the ingredient of his salad dressing only to discover it contained peanut oil. "His mom told me, 'It's almost like I'm there with him, reminding people,'" she added.


Peanut Free Zone
is another company making temporary allergy-alert tattoos. Also, AllerMates makes wristbands, stickers and dog tags that alert caregivers to allergies.

On SafetyTat's Facebook page, a Florida mom noted, “Made sure my daughter had her safety tat on as she is with 110 camp kids headed to Sea World today!!”

Another wrote, “We recently used them for the first time during our trip to New York. Our son is a toddler and has a severe peanut allergy, so having my number on him and an alert for his allergy on him is important to me."

But not everyone is a fan of the tattoo. A recent Slate article on the phenomenon of children wearing warning labels raised the issue of bullying, questioning whether the added attention would make them targets of childhood cruelty. It was a concern echoed by American College of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology spokesperson, allergist Kevin McGrath. "A lot of kids do get bullied at school about their food allergies, so there is some concern about whether this might give more ammunition to kids," McGrath told Yahoo! Shine. Still, he said the tattoos "may just be another thing to make parents feel more confident when sending their children off to a party or picnic or class trip." He also recommends medical-alert bracelets and having a "game plan," such as an EpiPen, in case something does happen.

The Slate article also mused that, for the tattoos to be truly successful, the current designs would need a cooler makeover.
“The solution, we think, is to make allergy tattoos look more like real tattoos,” wrote L.V. Anderson. “The SafetyTat design…is easy-to-read and pragmatic, sure, but I don’t know any 7-year-olds who would clamor to plaster their bodies with it. If kids are going to voluntarily wear them, allergy tattoos should be bigger and far less tasteful than SafetyTat’s offerings. How about … a very arty strawberry dripping with blood for your neck? Or a cartoon of Mr. Peanut throttling somebody? The vulgar possibilities are endless.”

Welsh had heard that criticism. Joking aside, she told Yahoo! Shine, "These are mainly for younger children who can't communicate for themselves. But we do need to build some aesthetic back in there, and, for the older kids, something hipper would be great." As for the bullying concern, she noted, "If I had to choose fatal exposure over being harassed by kids, I would choose safety as my No. 1 concern."



Vision Without Glasses

Allergy Tattoos: Should Kids Wear Warning Labels to School?

Temporary tattoos are not traditionally considered must-have back-to-school shopping items — but that could change. This year, some students with severe allergies are returning to class with their medical issues stamped on their skin for their own protection.

More on Shine: Ladylike Tattoos: Are They a Thing?

“Right now there's a huge awareness, whether because of going back to school or because of the recent incident in California,” SafetyTat founder and mother of three Michele Welsh told Yahoo! Shine. Welsh was referring to the recent tragic death of a 13-year-old girl with a peanut allergy at a Sacramento summer camp. “Unfortunately it sometimes takes something like that for people to say, 'Wow, it really can happen.'"

More on Yahoo!: Girl Dies After Allergic Reaction to Camp Treat

Welsh created her 5-year-old company—offering products that include temporary tattoos and long-lasting, write-on skin stickers—after using a ballpoint pen to nervously scrawl her cell phone number on her kids’ arms at a crowded amusement park, in case they got separated, and realizing it was maybe not the best way to go about it.

The moment made her think of other dangers lurking for kids, and how having an actual warning label on the body could be useful to other parents, too—like her sister-in-law, who is mom to a boy with a fatal peanut allergy. "He had spent so much time in the hospital as a toddler, that his mom had begun limiting his time outside the home because she was so fearful," Welsh said. When she created the tattoos and he wore one to a school trip, the response was immediate, alerting a food server who double checked the ingredient of his salad dressing only to discover it contained peanut oil. "His mom told me, 'It's almost like I'm there with him, reminding people,'" she added.


Peanut Free Zone
is another company making temporary allergy-alert tattoos. Also, AllerMates makes wristbands, stickers and dog tags that alert caregivers to allergies.

On SafetyTat's Facebook page, a Florida mom noted, “Made sure my daughter had her safety tat on as she is with 110 camp kids headed to Sea World today!!”

Another wrote, “We recently used them for the first time during our trip to New York. Our son is a toddler and has a severe peanut allergy, so having my number on him and an alert for his allergy on him is important to me."

But not everyone is a fan of the tattoo. A recent Slate article on the phenomenon of children wearing warning labels raised the issue of bullying, questioning whether the added attention would make them targets of childhood cruelty. It was a concern echoed by American College of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology spokesperson, allergist Kevin McGrath. "A lot of kids do get bullied at school about their food allergies, so there is some concern about whether this might give more ammunition to kids," McGrath told Yahoo! Shine. Still, he said the tattoos "may just be another thing to make parents feel more confident when sending their children off to a party or picnic or class trip." He also recommends medical-alert bracelets and having a "game plan," such as an EpiPen, in case something does happen.

The Slate article also mused that, for the tattoos to be truly successful, the current designs would need a cooler makeover.
“The solution, we think, is to make allergy tattoos look more like real tattoos,” wrote L.V. Anderson. “The SafetyTat design…is easy-to-read and pragmatic, sure, but I don’t know any 7-year-olds who would clamor to plaster their bodies with it. If kids are going to voluntarily wear them, allergy tattoos should be bigger and far less tasteful than SafetyTat’s offerings. How about … a very arty strawberry dripping with blood for your neck? Or a cartoon of Mr. Peanut throttling somebody? The vulgar possibilities are endless.”

Welsh had heard that criticism. Joking aside, she told Yahoo! Shine, "These are mainly for younger children who can't communicate for themselves. But we do need to build some aesthetic back in there, and, for the older kids, something hipper would be great." As for the bullying concern, she noted, "If I had to choose fatal exposure over being harassed by kids, I would choose safety as my No. 1 concern."



Vision Without Glasses

People with WTF face tattoos (26 Pics)

People with WTF face tattoos (26 Pics)

11 Things The Bible Bans, But You Do Anyway

11 Things The Bible Bans, But You Do Anyway  (written by Sam Greenspan)

Yesterday, I found myself in a discussion about the anti-abortion people. The reason: It's just incomprehensible to us that people get so zealous about that issue that they'll go as far as to murder doctors who perform abortions and bomb abortion clinics.

The conversation then took its natural turn to selective, self-serving interpretations of the Bible... finding a few verses that you can use to justify a position that lets you impose your morality on someone, and riding those verses hard and fast for the rest of your life.

So I thought it'd be a good time to find a bunch of stuff that the Bible bans... stuff that's a lot LESS convenient. Don't worry, though... just because I'm pointing it out, that doesn't mean you now have to follow it. It's a lot easier to keep discriminating against gay people for no particular reason than to stop eating bacon, after all.

Here are 11 things that are technically banned by the Bible. (All quotes are translations from the New American Standard Bible, but, because I'm actually trying to maintain serious journalistic integrity here, I cross-referenced several other translations to make sure I wasn't missing the point.)













  • Round haircuts. See you in Hell, Beatles... and/or kids with bowl cuts, surfer cuts or (my favorite) butt cuts. Leviticus 19:27 reads "You shall not round off the side-growth of your heads nor harm the edges of your beard."














  • Football. At least, the pure version of football, where you play with a pigskin. The modern synthetic footballs are ugly and slippery anyways. Leviticus 11:8, which is discussing pigs, reads "You shall not eat of their flesh nor touch their carcasses; they are unclean to you."

    And you're doubly breaking that if you wake up, eat some sausage then go throw around the football. Or go to the county fair and enter a greased pig catching contest.














  • Fortune telling. Before you call a 900 number (do people still call 900 numbers, by the way?), read your horoscope or crack open a fortune cookie, realize you're in huge trouble if you do.

    Leviticus 19:31 reads "Do not turn to mediums or spiritists; do not seek them out to be defiled by them. I am the Lord your God." The penalty for that? Check Leviticus 20:6: "As for the person who turns to mediums and to spiritists, to play the harlot after them, I will also set My face against that person and will cut him off from among his people."

    Seems like a lifetime of exile is a pretty harsh penalty for talking to Zoltar.














  • Pulling out. The Bible doesn't get too much into birth control... it's clearly pro-populating but, back when it was written, no one really anticipated the condom or the sponge, so those don't get specific bans.

    But... pulling out does. One of the most famous sexual-oriented Bible verses... the one that's used as anti-masturbation rhetoric... is actually anti-pulling out.

    It's Genesis 38:9-10: "Onan knew that the offspring would not be his; so when he went in to his brother's wife, he wasted his seed on the ground in order not to give offspring to his brother. But what he did was displeasing in the sight of the Lord; so He took his life also."

    Yep -- pull out and get smote. That's harsh.

    Tattoos. No tattoos. Leviticus 19:28 reads, "You shall not make any cuts in your body for the dead nor make any tattoo marks on yourselves: I am the Lord."

    Not even a little butterfly on your ankle. Or Thug Life across your abdomen. Or even, fittingly enough, a cross














  • Polyester, or any other fabric blends. The Bible doesn't want you to wear polyester. Not just because it looks cheap. It's sinfully unnatural.

    Leviticus 19:19 reads, "You are to keep My statutes. You shall not breed together two kinds of your cattle; you shall not sow your field with two kinds of seed, nor wear a garment upon you of two kinds of material mixed together."

    Check the tag on your shirt right now. Didn't realize you were mid-sin at this exact second, did you? (Unless you checked the tag by rolling off your neighbor's wife while you two were having anal sex in the middle of robbing a blind guy. Then your Lycra-spandex blend is really the least of your problems.)











  • Divorce. The Bible is very clear on this one: No divorcing. You can't do it. Because when you marry someone, according to Mark 10:8, you "are no longer two, but one flesh." And, Mark 10:9 reads, "What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate."

    Mark gets even more hardcore about it a few verses later, in Mark 10:11-12, "And He said to them, 'Whoever divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her; and if she herself divorces her husband and marries another man, she is committing adultery.'"








  • Letting people without testicles into church. Whether you've been castrated or lost one or two balls to cancer isn't important. The Bible doesn't get that specific. It just says you can't pray.

    Deuteronomy 23:1 reads (this is the God's Word translation, which spells it out better), "A man whose testicles are crushed or whose penis is cut off may never join the assembly of the Lord."

    Oh, and the next verse says that if you're a bastard, the child of a bastard... or even have a great-great-great-great-great-great-great-grandchild of a bastard, you can't come to church or synagogue either.
    Deuteronomy 23:2 reads, "No one of illegitimate birth shall enter the assembly of the Lord; none of his descendants, even to the tenth generation, shall enter the assembly of the Lord."





  • Wearing gold. 1 Timothy 2:9 doesn't like your gold necklace at all. Or your pearl necklace. Or any clothes you're wearing that you didn't get from Forever 21, Old Navy or H&M.

    "Likewise, I want women to adorn themselves with proper clothing, modestly and discreetly, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly garments."

    Lobster, shrimp and clam chowder: All banned.





  • Shellfish. Leviticus 11:10 reads, "But whatever is in the seas and in the rivers that does not have fins and scales among all the teeming life of the water, and among all the living creatures that are in the water, they are detestable things to you." And shellfish is right in that wheelhouse.

    Leviticus 11 bans a TON of animals from being eaten (it's THE basis for Kosher law); beyond shellfish and pig, it also says you can't eat camel, rock badger, rabbit, eagle, vulture, buzzard, falcon, raven, crow, ostrich, owl, seagull, hawk, pelican, stork, heron, bat, winged insects that walk on four legs unless they have joints to jump with like grasshoppers (?), bear, mole, mouse, lizard, gecko, crocodile, chameleon and snail.

    Sorry if that totally ruins your plans to go to a rock badger eat-off this weekend.










  • Your wife defending your life in a fight by grabbing your attacker's genitals. No joke. Deuteronomy actually devotes two verses to this exact scenario: Deuteronomy 25:11-12.

    "If two men, a man and his countryman, are struggling together, and the wife of one comes near to deliver her husband from the hand of the one who is striking him, and puts out her hand and seizes his genitals, then you shall cut off her hand; you shall not show pity."

    That's impossible to misinterpret. Ladies, if your husband is getting mugged, make sure to kick the mugger in the pills. Do not do the grip and squeeze (no matter what "Miss Congeniality" might advise). Or your hand needs to be cut off.





  • As a final note, I know that nine of these 11 cite the Old Testament, which Christianity doesn't necessarily adhere to as law.

    To which I say: If you're going to ignore the section of Leviticus that bans about tattoos, pork, shellfish, round haircuts, polyester and football, how can you possibly turn around and quote Leviticus 18:22 ("You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination.") as irrefutable law?

    But that's me trying to introduce logic to religious fanaticism (or, at least, trying to counter some mix of ignorance, bigotry and narcissism with logic). And I should probably know better.



    Source: http://www.11points.com/Books/11_Things_The_Bible_Bans,_But_You_Do_Anyway


    Vision Without Glasses

    11 Things The Bible Bans, But You Do Anyway

    11 Things The Bible Bans, But You Do Anyway  (written by Sam Greenspan)

    Yesterday, I found myself in a discussion about the anti-abortion people. The reason: It's just incomprehensible to us that people get so zealous about that issue that they'll go as far as to murder doctors who perform abortions and bomb abortion clinics.

    The conversation then took its natural turn to selective, self-serving interpretations of the Bible... finding a few verses that you can use to justify a position that lets you impose your morality on someone, and riding those verses hard and fast for the rest of your life.

    So I thought it'd be a good time to find a bunch of stuff that the Bible bans... stuff that's a lot LESS convenient. Don't worry, though... just because I'm pointing it out, that doesn't mean you now have to follow it. It's a lot easier to keep discriminating against gay people for no particular reason than to stop eating bacon, after all.

    Here are 11 things that are technically banned by the Bible. (All quotes are translations from the New American Standard Bible, but, because I'm actually trying to maintain serious journalistic integrity here, I cross-referenced several other translations to make sure I wasn't missing the point.)













  • Round haircuts. See you in Hell, Beatles... and/or kids with bowl cuts, surfer cuts or (my favorite) butt cuts. Leviticus 19:27 reads "You shall not round off the side-growth of your heads nor harm the edges of your beard."














  • Football. At least, the pure version of football, where you play with a pigskin. The modern synthetic footballs are ugly and slippery anyways. Leviticus 11:8, which is discussing pigs, reads "You shall not eat of their flesh nor touch their carcasses; they are unclean to you."

    And you're doubly breaking that if you wake up, eat some sausage then go throw around the football. Or go to the county fair and enter a greased pig catching contest.














  • Fortune telling. Before you call a 900 number (do people still call 900 numbers, by the way?), read your horoscope or crack open a fortune cookie, realize you're in huge trouble if you do.

    Leviticus 19:31 reads "Do not turn to mediums or spiritists; do not seek them out to be defiled by them. I am the Lord your God." The penalty for that? Check Leviticus 20:6: "As for the person who turns to mediums and to spiritists, to play the harlot after them, I will also set My face against that person and will cut him off from among his people."

    Seems like a lifetime of exile is a pretty harsh penalty for talking to Zoltar.














  • Pulling out. The Bible doesn't get too much into birth control... it's clearly pro-populating but, back when it was written, no one really anticipated the condom or the sponge, so those don't get specific bans.

    But... pulling out does. One of the most famous sexual-oriented Bible verses... the one that's used as anti-masturbation rhetoric... is actually anti-pulling out.

    It's Genesis 38:9-10: "Onan knew that the offspring would not be his; so when he went in to his brother's wife, he wasted his seed on the ground in order not to give offspring to his brother. But what he did was displeasing in the sight of the Lord; so He took his life also."

    Yep -- pull out and get smote. That's harsh.

    Tattoos. No tattoos. Leviticus 19:28 reads, "You shall not make any cuts in your body for the dead nor make any tattoo marks on yourselves: I am the Lord."

    Not even a little butterfly on your ankle. Or Thug Life across your abdomen. Or even, fittingly enough, a cross














  • Polyester, or any other fabric blends. The Bible doesn't want you to wear polyester. Not just because it looks cheap. It's sinfully unnatural.

    Leviticus 19:19 reads, "You are to keep My statutes. You shall not breed together two kinds of your cattle; you shall not sow your field with two kinds of seed, nor wear a garment upon you of two kinds of material mixed together."

    Check the tag on your shirt right now. Didn't realize you were mid-sin at this exact second, did you? (Unless you checked the tag by rolling off your neighbor's wife while you two were having anal sex in the middle of robbing a blind guy. Then your Lycra-spandex blend is really the least of your problems.)











  • Divorce. The Bible is very clear on this one: No divorcing. You can't do it. Because when you marry someone, according to Mark 10:8, you "are no longer two, but one flesh." And, Mark 10:9 reads, "What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate."

    Mark gets even more hardcore about it a few verses later, in Mark 10:11-12, "And He said to them, 'Whoever divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her; and if she herself divorces her husband and marries another man, she is committing adultery.'"








  • Letting people without testicles into church. Whether you've been castrated or lost one or two balls to cancer isn't important. The Bible doesn't get that specific. It just says you can't pray.

    Deuteronomy 23:1 reads (this is the God's Word translation, which spells it out better), "A man whose testicles are crushed or whose penis is cut off may never join the assembly of the Lord."

    Oh, and the next verse says that if you're a bastard, the child of a bastard... or even have a great-great-great-great-great-great-great-grandchild of a bastard, you can't come to church or synagogue either.
    Deuteronomy 23:2 reads, "No one of illegitimate birth shall enter the assembly of the Lord; none of his descendants, even to the tenth generation, shall enter the assembly of the Lord."





  • Wearing gold. 1 Timothy 2:9 doesn't like your gold necklace at all. Or your pearl necklace. Or any clothes you're wearing that you didn't get from Forever 21, Old Navy or H&M.

    "Likewise, I want women to adorn themselves with proper clothing, modestly and discreetly, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly garments."

    Lobster, shrimp and clam chowder: All banned.





  • Shellfish. Leviticus 11:10 reads, "But whatever is in the seas and in the rivers that does not have fins and scales among all the teeming life of the water, and among all the living creatures that are in the water, they are detestable things to you." And shellfish is right in that wheelhouse.

    Leviticus 11 bans a TON of animals from being eaten (it's THE basis for Kosher law); beyond shellfish and pig, it also says you can't eat camel, rock badger, rabbit, eagle, vulture, buzzard, falcon, raven, crow, ostrich, owl, seagull, hawk, pelican, stork, heron, bat, winged insects that walk on four legs unless they have joints to jump with like grasshoppers (?), bear, mole, mouse, lizard, gecko, crocodile, chameleon and snail.

    Sorry if that totally ruins your plans to go to a rock badger eat-off this weekend.










  • Your wife defending your life in a fight by grabbing your attacker's genitals. No joke. Deuteronomy actually devotes two verses to this exact scenario: Deuteronomy 25:11-12.

    "If two men, a man and his countryman, are struggling together, and the wife of one comes near to deliver her husband from the hand of the one who is striking him, and puts out her hand and seizes his genitals, then you shall cut off her hand; you shall not show pity."

    That's impossible to misinterpret. Ladies, if your husband is getting mugged, make sure to kick the mugger in the pills. Do not do the grip and squeeze (no matter what "Miss Congeniality" might advise). Or your hand needs to be cut off.





  • As a final note, I know that nine of these 11 cite the Old Testament, which Christianity doesn't necessarily adhere to as law.

    To which I say: If you're going to ignore the section of Leviticus that bans about tattoos, pork, shellfish, round haircuts, polyester and football, how can you possibly turn around and quote Leviticus 18:22 ("You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination.") as irrefutable law?

    But that's me trying to introduce logic to religious fanaticism (or, at least, trying to counter some mix of ignorance, bigotry and narcissism with logic). And I should probably know better.



    Source: http://www.11points.com/Books/11_Things_The_Bible_Bans,_But_You_Do_Anyway


    Vision Without Glasses

    Woman Sues State - Kaye Believes Biometric License Data Is Start of Biblical ‘Mark of the Beast’

    Kaye Beach, a resident of Norman, Oklahoma, no longer has a valid driver’s license. The choice to give it up, she maintains, was a forced sacrifice she made to protect and maintain religious views.

    See, Beach is convinced that the photo and information (biometric) that is collected for state licenses is the beginning of the “mark of the beast,” a sign of the Antichrist that is mentioned in the Bible’s Book of Revelation (it is commonly referred to as “666″).

    While at first she ignored her concerns surrounding the information that was being collected, she eventually doubled down and, in 2011, she was unable to get a license after refusing to take a photo, give a finger print and take other steps to solidify the renewal.

    For the past two years, she has been engaged in legal action, claiming that the process and the mandated data collection violate her religious rights.


    Kaye Beach (Photo Credit: KFOR-TV)

    “My license came up for renewal in 2011 and I literally sat there and said, ‘I can’t do it,’” Beach told KFOR-TV. “The bottom line for me as a Christian was that I believe that the Bible clearly warns us against being enrolled in a global system of identification and financial control that ties to our bodies.”

    At the center of the debate is biometric photography, which eHow describes as an identification card or passport that is “embedded with electronic chips that store information about the passport holder, including their digitally mapped face.” Clearly, this storage of information is seen as immensely troubling to Beach and her supporters.

    KFOR-TV has more about her story:


    Beach believes that the information that is being collected will eventually lead to a situation in which identity theft runs rampant. Additionally — and on a more personal note — she also contends that licenses and identity cards will inevitably turn into electronic chips or tattoos. These elements, of course, would contain personal information that is now reserved for and held within identification cards

    Constitutionally, she believes that her religious views have been impeded upon and that the the government is violating her right not to undergo unreasonable search and seizure. A group called the Constitutional Alliance, a non-profit organization, is supporting her legal battle. She is also represented by the Rutherford Institute, a civil rights legal firm that provides representation free-of-charge.
    In 2011, the latter organization wrote the following in announcing the case (the complaint can be read here and a recent motion for a summary judgment can be viewed here):
    The Rutherford Institute has come to the defense of an Oklahoma woman who has been denied accommodation of her sincerely held religious objection to having a high-resolution biometric photograph used on her driver’s license. In filing suit against the Oklahoma Department of Public Safety (DPS), Rutherford Institute attorneys contend that the state’s demand for a biometric photograph as a condition of being licensed to drive violates Kaye Beach’s rights under the Oklahoma Religious Freedom Act and the provisions of the Oklahoma Constitution forbidding unreasonable searches and seizures.
    John W. Whitehead, founder and president of Rutherford Institute, spoke out at the time, noting that, in the end, it doesn’t matter if the license requirements are truly the “mark of the beast” or just an act taken by “Big Brother.” Either way, he maintained that the outcome is exactly the same — “ultimate control by the government.”
    “As Kaye Beach’s case makes clear, failing to have a biometric card can render you a non-person for all intents and purposes, with your ability to work, travel, buy, sell, access health care, and so on jeopardized,” he continued.
    The case certainly raises questions about whether biometric imagery should be mandated — and whether there should be religious exemptions for those who oppose it. However some would argue that in an era of terror, these images, which offer authorities important information, are a national security necessity (we’ve covered these issues in the past).

    Featured Image Credit: KFOR-TV 
    Source of article:  http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/07/17/woman-believes-biometric-license-data-is-start-of-biblical-mark-of-the-beast-and-shes-suing-over-it/

    Vision Without Glasses

    Woman Sues State - Kaye Believes Biometric License Data Is Start of Biblical ‘Mark of the Beast’

    Kaye Beach, a resident of Norman, Oklahoma, no longer has a valid driver’s license. The choice to give it up, she maintains, was a forced sacrifice she made to protect and maintain religious views.

    See, Beach is convinced that the photo and information (biometric) that is collected for state licenses is the beginning of the “mark of the beast,” a sign of the Antichrist that is mentioned in the Bible’s Book of Revelation (it is commonly referred to as “666″).

    While at first she ignored her concerns surrounding the information that was being collected, she eventually doubled down and, in 2011, she was unable to get a license after refusing to take a photo, give a finger print and take other steps to solidify the renewal.

    For the past two years, she has been engaged in legal action, claiming that the process and the mandated data collection violate her religious rights.


    Kaye Beach (Photo Credit: KFOR-TV)

    “My license came up for renewal in 2011 and I literally sat there and said, ‘I can’t do it,’” Beach told KFOR-TV. “The bottom line for me as a Christian was that I believe that the Bible clearly warns us against being enrolled in a global system of identification and financial control that ties to our bodies.”

    At the center of the debate is biometric photography, which eHow describes as an identification card or passport that is “embedded with electronic chips that store information about the passport holder, including their digitally mapped face.” Clearly, this storage of information is seen as immensely troubling to Beach and her supporters.

    KFOR-TV has more about her story:


    Beach believes that the information that is being collected will eventually lead to a situation in which identity theft runs rampant. Additionally — and on a more personal note — she also contends that licenses and identity cards will inevitably turn into electronic chips or tattoos. These elements, of course, would contain personal information that is now reserved for and held within identification cards

    Constitutionally, she believes that her religious views have been impeded upon and that the the government is violating her right not to undergo unreasonable search and seizure. A group called the Constitutional Alliance, a non-profit organization, is supporting her legal battle. She is also represented by the Rutherford Institute, a civil rights legal firm that provides representation free-of-charge.
    In 2011, the latter organization wrote the following in announcing the case (the complaint can be read here and a recent motion for a summary judgment can be viewed here):
    The Rutherford Institute has come to the defense of an Oklahoma woman who has been denied accommodation of her sincerely held religious objection to having a high-resolution biometric photograph used on her driver’s license. In filing suit against the Oklahoma Department of Public Safety (DPS), Rutherford Institute attorneys contend that the state’s demand for a biometric photograph as a condition of being licensed to drive violates Kaye Beach’s rights under the Oklahoma Religious Freedom Act and the provisions of the Oklahoma Constitution forbidding unreasonable searches and seizures.
    John W. Whitehead, founder and president of Rutherford Institute, spoke out at the time, noting that, in the end, it doesn’t matter if the license requirements are truly the “mark of the beast” or just an act taken by “Big Brother.” Either way, he maintained that the outcome is exactly the same — “ultimate control by the government.”
    “As Kaye Beach’s case makes clear, failing to have a biometric card can render you a non-person for all intents and purposes, with your ability to work, travel, buy, sell, access health care, and so on jeopardized,” he continued.
    The case certainly raises questions about whether biometric imagery should be mandated — and whether there should be religious exemptions for those who oppose it. However some would argue that in an era of terror, these images, which offer authorities important information, are a national security necessity (we’ve covered these issues in the past).

    Featured Image Credit: KFOR-TV 
    Source of article:  http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/07/17/woman-believes-biometric-license-data-is-start-of-biblical-mark-of-the-beast-and-shes-suing-over-it/

    Vision Without Glasses

    “Electronic Tattoo” to Track Your Medical Information; a prelude to ‘Mark of the Beast’ ?

    It sounds like something out of George Orwell’s book 1984, yet scientists have touted it as a major advancement in the field of medicine. Have you heard of the ‘electronic tattoo’ fully equipped with the ability to track patients’ vital signs and report the findings to researchers? The technology is known as an epidermal electronic system (EES), and was developed by an international team of researchers from the United States, China and Singapore.

    When it comes to microchips, implants, or electronic tattoos—it all sounds a little too futuristic, like these “advances” may be paving the way for government tracking of citizens, or worse. But some industries are promoting these high-tech ideas as major advancements in their field. The medical field is just one place these ideas are gaining a foothold.

    According to the International Business Times, hospitals and doctors’ offices may one day soon outfit their patients with temporary electronic tattoos. These little skin-patches are said to carry a wealth of information in a tiny space and can reportedly help reduce medical errors while improving care.

    “Our goal was to develop an electronic technology that could integrate with the skin in a way that is mechanically and physiologically invisible to the user,” says John Rogers with the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. So, invisible electronic tattoos are good?

    “It’s a technology that blurs the distinction between electronics and biology,” says Rogers in characterizing the patches that allow researchers to track vital signs and more.

    The devices are small and “nearly weightless”. They are thinner than a human hair and attach to the body using water rather than an adhesive. In that regard, they are very much like temporary tattoos. But unlike the bubblegum tattoos, these have electronic components.

    Researchers believe they will one day be used in hospitals worldwide. And given the fact that even our animals are implanted with a microchip, the researchers may be right. It isn’t as difficult it seems to convince the people what’s ‘right’ for them.

    Rather than hooking someone up to a wide range of wires and adhesives, the small patches will give medical professionals all of the vital information they need. In addition, the researchers are working on variations that are voice activated, allowing wearers to operate a voice-activated video game with more than 90-percent accuracy.

    This aspect could lead you to wonder, if they are able to be voice operated by the wearer, couldn’t they be voice-operated by another controller?

    Vision Without Glasses

    “Electronic Tattoo” to Track Your Medical Information; a prelude to ‘Mark of the Beast’ ?

    It sounds like something out of George Orwell’s book 1984, yet scientists have touted it as a major advancement in the field of medicine. Have you heard of the ‘electronic tattoo’ fully equipped with the ability to track patients’ vital signs and report the findings to researchers? The technology is known as an epidermal electronic system (EES), and was developed by an international team of researchers from the United States, China and Singapore.

    When it comes to microchips, implants, or electronic tattoos—it all sounds a little too futuristic, like these “advances” may be paving the way for government tracking of citizens, or worse. But some industries are promoting these high-tech ideas as major advancements in their field. The medical field is just one place these ideas are gaining a foothold.

    According to the International Business Times, hospitals and doctors’ offices may one day soon outfit their patients with temporary electronic tattoos. These little skin-patches are said to carry a wealth of information in a tiny space and can reportedly help reduce medical errors while improving care.

    “Our goal was to develop an electronic technology that could integrate with the skin in a way that is mechanically and physiologically invisible to the user,” says John Rogers with the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. So, invisible electronic tattoos are good?

    “It’s a technology that blurs the distinction between electronics and biology,” says Rogers in characterizing the patches that allow researchers to track vital signs and more.

    The devices are small and “nearly weightless”. They are thinner than a human hair and attach to the body using water rather than an adhesive. In that regard, they are very much like temporary tattoos. But unlike the bubblegum tattoos, these have electronic components.

    Researchers believe they will one day be used in hospitals worldwide. And given the fact that even our animals are implanted with a microchip, the researchers may be right. It isn’t as difficult it seems to convince the people what’s ‘right’ for them.

    Rather than hooking someone up to a wide range of wires and adhesives, the small patches will give medical professionals all of the vital information they need. In addition, the researchers are working on variations that are voice activated, allowing wearers to operate a voice-activated video game with more than 90-percent accuracy.

    This aspect could lead you to wonder, if they are able to be voice operated by the wearer, couldn’t they be voice-operated by another controller?

    Vision Without Glasses

    Get this gadget at Twitter for blogger
    © 2013 . WP Theme-junkie converted by BloggerTheme9
    Blogger templates. Proudly Powered by Blogger.
    back to top