A Polk County teacher is suing the state for requiring her to be fingerprinted for a background check, saying it violates her religious freedom. ... Pam McLaurin believes the book of Revelation literally and that getting a fingerprint would bear her the mark of the beast and she would be "be tormented in burning sulfur."
62 comments
"... getting a fingerprint would bear her the mark of the beast" Because getting a little wash-away ink on the tip of your finger is TOTALLY the same thing as getting an indelible identifying mark etched on your hand.
*Sigh* ... I wish the Fundies would actually read the Bible they so love to thump.
I'm sorry Pam, but in the real world we have things called laws. In order to work in our society, you need to follow these laws. You don't get special treatment just because you think your religion makes you better than everyone else.
By "tormented in burning sulfur" she means "arrested and charged". Pedophile? Former bank robber? Murderer? Or is she telling the truth (thus making here a complete moron)? Place your bets now.
In any case, I'm glad that she's not going to be teaching kids any time soon.
Also, I don't think this idiot realizes that freedom of religion =/= everyone else must conform to your religious ideals. Sorry, but a child's right to be safe from crooks and pedophiles trumps your religious rights any day of the week.
Edit: If I ever get arrested for something, I'm going to claim that being fingerprinted is against my religion.
I'd like to come after her with a pen and see if she runs away screaming about the mark of the beast.
If she doesn't, I think it's time to check up on any criminal records.
This is beyond ridiculous. Surely the Polk County education board has better things to spend money on (like children's education, as a wild guess) than defending such a stupid, stupid, STUPID law suit.
Interestingly the verse specifies "to receive a mark on his right hand or on his forehead"
Ya know, Pammy, you only wear that mark for a day or two. It does wash/wear off.
Imagine, all those pedophiles and seriel killers protecting their freedom from the mark of the beast.
If this bitch doesn't have 666 (or 616, depending on the translation) on her fingers, I don't see why she thinks she would have the mark of the beast.
I really think she is just trying to hide something and is trying to get out of it by using religion as a reason.
Sorry Charlie, that fingerprint you object to? It was present at your birth, and before, while you were still in the womb - ergo, it was placed there BY GOD.
Thanks for playing, and we have some lovley parting gifts for you.
Uh, Pam,.... Revelation says that the Mark of the Beast will be placed upon a person's forehead or right hand.
No mark at all is being placed on either part of your body. In fact, nothing is being marked anywhere on your body! You fingerprint is making a mark on a piece of paper, which is assume is not part of your body.
Utter fail, even by Fundie standards.
Yeah, Fine, No Job. NEXT!
Religion NEVER trumps the LAW. Never.
That is really face-palm worthy. One wonders if she really doesn’t know that she already has fingerprints or if she thinks that the ink used (do they still use ink?) will not come off again
Does anyone know how that case played out? All I could find was a mention of her in an article from 2012:
In 2010 a Texas school teacher had her certification suspended for refusing to be fingerprinted as part of a background check. Even though Pam McLaurin had been teaching for two decades, school officials stripped her of her license for not inking her hand, something she opposed for religious purposes by insisting she would “bear the mark of the beast.” Despite a legal battle that tried to reverse the school’s suspension of McLaurin, the Texas Education Agency argued that they never forced the teacher to submit fingerprints; rather, it was her decision to follow suit simply refusing meant she would forfeit her role with the school.
But she seems to have gotten assistance from the ACLU: PDF-file
If anyone knows how to get the information from the court, the relevant number from the ACLU document seems to be “cause no. d-1-gn-10-000319”. Unfortunately I have neither the time nor the necessary google-fu to find it.
Is she a teacher only for girls, perhaps? A woman can't have authority over men, according to the Bible she believes literally. Or is it just the Book of Revelation that matters?
Pammy, dearie, you already have a fingerprint; you've had it since before birth, actually. You're not getting a fingerprint; you're giving one, silly.
Aren't these done electronically; scanning the fingerprint into a computer? So she mightn't even have gotten paint on her finger-tip.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
