Virginia House Passes Bill To Ward Off Antichrist

[Phaneuf3]

Originally Posted by photon

He didn't just include remarks referencing, he said he shared concerns that the chips would someday be used as a mark of the beast.

I've seen a quote saying he has concerns that the chips could be someday used as a requirement to engage in commerce. He mentioned this also happened in a bible story. In my vast research of skimming an extremely biased blog entry and a fairly biased news article, I haven't seen him come out and say what some people are claiming though. I will admit, there's a possible subtext that someone, who was so inclined, could infer from his quotes and I definitely understand how you got there. How much you want to play up that subtext that he's trying to prevent the mark of the beats or legislate away the biblical apocalypse or pass laws against the anti-christ seems to depend on what your view of religion in general is.


Most of the quotes I've seen from Cole seem to be in regards to protecting personal choice and privacy. There was one mention of the bible in there from him (in which he in no way said he was trying to stop the end times or the anti-christ). Yes, there are loons getting up on their religious soapbox in regards to this. The bill's sponsor, from what I can tell, doesn't fall into that group although it wouldn't be the biggest shock in the world to find evidence that he does.

[Burninator]

Originally Posted by photon

It does seem like a good law, but the ends do not justify the means.

You say that now, but when the 6:1-2 rapture bus to heaven leaves you behind with your implanted microchips, boy will your face be red.

[Phaneuf3]

Originally Posted by yads

I don't see a big push from either of those entities to require anyone to get chips implanted. Should we also pass laws forbidding employers from requiring people to sign an employment agreement in blood? Or how about forbidding a company from demanding a payment of a debt be satisfied by giving up your first born? It's just a needless law at the moment.

It's not impossible and it's something on the horizon. Governments have a horrible record of keeping up with technology and it's related issues. Good on them for trying to think things through and lay down the rules now instead of 5 years after it's become an issue.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by photon

Sure it does, but there are laws to ensure that a coalition of interests serves (or at least doesn't harm) the interests of everyone, not just a specific group.

The microchip implantation lobby?

[Cheese]

Originally Posted by peter12

Sponsoring a bill is one thing. Passing a bill requires a coalition of interests.

Do you understand what that means?

Nope...and no need to be a condescending prick about it.

[photon]

Originally Posted by peter12

The microchip implantation lobby?

If you're going to be intentionally obtuse why try to discuss something at all?

[peter12]

Originally Posted by photon

If you're going to be intentionally obtuse why try to discuss something at all?

But seriously... even though the sponsor was a fundamentalist of sorts, he would have had to reach common ground with a majority of legislators to have his bill pass. Quite clearly, Virginia is not monolithic beehive of religious fervour and many of his coalition partners would have diverse, maybe even theologically opposing interests. Thus, to get the bill passed he would have had to reach out to them on a pragmatic level.

On a pragmatic level, it's a good idea, in a democracy, to protect individuals from a certain level of coercion. If the implanting of microchips was somehow required for insurance, commercial, or security purposes, I think many people regardless of religious or political stripe would think it was a bad idea.

At this stage, it's a weird, even unnecessary law, but it's overall legislative intent was not to serve one particular religious group's motives. That's not how democracy works.

[photon]

That all makes sense. And as I said if they'd introduced it based only on privacy and rights and that jazz, no issue at all.

The overall legislative intent, however, was, in the sponsor's own words, partially to serve one particular religious group's motives.

Or even if it never dawned on the sponsor until after it was drafted to think of the religious connection, it's still irresponsible for the sponsor to say that it was even if his goal was to simply garner support, as it gives the appearance of promoting one religion.

[Shazam]

What an anti-Christ may look like:

[Daradon]

It's actually not a bad law in concept at all. As long as you take the religious spin of it.

I could see this being a problem in the future (in some scenarios). I can see a lot of problems with a society that relies on technology too much and common sense too little.

There are already people putting things like this in their body. To serve as ID and as types of keypasses. Now if they want to do that to themselves, that's fine. But we need to make sure it doesn't start becoming a prerequesite for things like employment.