[Phaneuf3]

Originally Posted by photon

No, the actual sponsor of the bill (the person working for the government) specifically says that part of the reason for the bill was because he "shared concerns that the devices could someday be used as the "mark of the beast" described in the Book of Revelation."

There's no stretch there, he's clearly saying the motivation for the bill is to protect against the Antichrist.

Another delegate says the same thing. ' "As a Christian, I believe there is a time that Christ will come back to receive his people home, and that's just the basis of what the Bible shows, and that there will be an antichrist that arises during that time, and those that remain, to buy or sell anything, they will have to take on this mark," Carrico said. "I don't know that it's a microchip." '

So unless other people can have their concerns about Ragnarok and every other religion's end of the world mythology ensconced into law, this clearly supports one religion over another.

They could have simply done this on the basis of civil liberties and privacy or whatever and there'd never have been a peep.



How is it a jump when the sponsor of the bill himself says that that is part of the reason he submitted it?

I agree that it was stupid of him to include remarks referencing something that was mentioned in the bible. However, to quote the Post article that this blog entry draws on:

the bill's sponsor, said that privacy issues are the chief concern behind his attempt to criminalize the involuntary implantation of microchips.

Plus if you look at exactly what he's saying when talking about the bible:

"My understanding -- I'm not a theologian -- but there's a prophecy in the Bible that says you'll have to receive a mark, or you can neither buy nor sell things in end times," Cole said. "Some people think these computer chips might be that mark."

Taken at face value, all he's really referencing here is not wanting to require a computer chip implanted inside you to engage in regular day to day business. It's a legitimate concern and something that has been discussed as a possible application to such technology and not just some sky-wizard fairy tale prophecy.

From my understanding of the 'news' story, some of what's been claimed is a stretch; not a massive stretch in some cases, but a stretch none the less. It seems like a good law to pass but mentioning the bible at all opens a whole can of worms. If he wanted a literary comparison maybe something out of Logan's Run or 1984 or Brave New World would have been less controversial (but arguably less accurate).