Texas wants my thumbprint for a driver's license

[other one]

fespite the beast's tricks, you will know for a fact that you were accepting the mark of th ebeast.

I agree wouldhe.... the Spirit will let us know.

If we are listening.....

[jackie d]

We just moved from Mississippi (where a thumbprint is not required for a driver's license) to Texas. I recently went to "swap" my Mississippi license for a Texas license, and was told I would have to give a digital scan of both my left and right thumbs. I looked at the little scanner box and the name on the side was "DigiMarc". This reminded me too much of "the mark" spoken of in Revelation. I refused and am currently still using my Mississippi license. It is Texas law that I get a Texas license within 30 days of moving to Texas. I assume I will get a ticket if I have Texas plates on my truck but still have a Mississippi drivers license. So what do I do? I have already bought land in Texas and have a job. I am still paying Mississippi income tax right now and Texas has no state income tax. I considered claiming Mississippi as my state of residence (using relative's address) and claiming that I am working in Texas, but I don't know how honest that would be. Does anyone know if there is a loophole around this fingerprint requirement, based on religious beliefs? I considered talking to a lawyer, but most lawyers would think I was nuts if I even mentioned this. I guess all states will eventually require fingerprints when the national ID card goes into effect(http://www.nonationalid.com/). But this threw me for a loop. I guess i should have checked this out before moving to Texas. We are actually considering moving back to a state which does not require fingerprinting. I would greatly appreciate any advice.

I don't know if fingerprinting is the actual mark. But it is getting closer. I think the mark will be a chip or barcode, but you never really know what John saw in his vision. Perhaps he saw a photograph & thumbscan and described it best he could?? Either way, I think that giving up your prints is a BAD thing.

pray on it and do what God tells you to do...however the laws of the land are quite clear and we are instructed by God through His word to obey the laws..

[buckthesystem]

Other one to save room I've only copied part of your post here, the part that I want to reply to:

"So my only problem is that some of you are telling the original poster to give up driving privileges over this and that is spiritually not necessary".

I really don't want to come across as the villain here, so I'll point out that I am not advising anyone to "give up driving", but I am advocating that everyone should protest this absurd idea of surrendering your fingerprints to the state of Texas to get a driving licence. America is supposed to be a democracy, isn't it?

Failing that, I would go as far as to make up a set of false fingerprints so that the DMV doesn't get my real fingerprints - purely on principle. (Now before anyone starts reacting and accusing me of encouraging people to break the law, I did say "I would" not "you should").

There must be ways round this, I can't believe that everything is so "set in concrete".

Again, other one, I am not trying to "get at you" but I just can't resist picking up on your words "driving privileges". I believe that driving a motor vehicle is not a privilege but a right! It is the "basic right of freedom of movement". We have to put it in a modern context, and as it is no longer practical to walk everywhere or ride a horse or a donkey, we have to say "freedom of movement by what ever is the usual means". If you accept that it is a "privilege" you have to accept that somebody granted that privilege, and if so who granted it?

[Guest LadyC]

buck... you really honestly believe that driving is a right rather than a priviledge?

so, if that's true, than nobody should ever have their license revoked for multiple DUIs. in fact, nobody should ever have their license revoked for any reason, because it's their right to drive, no matter what they've done. there shouldn't be any age requirements for obtaining a license either. nor should their be a written examination or a test of driving skills.

i honestly don't believe i've ever heard of anyone thinking that driving was a right. freedom of movement? people can still get around without driving. there are other methods of transportation. there are buses and taxis and neighbors with good hearts... there are bicycles and scooters and mo-peds (no license required for mo-peds).

no matter how one slices it, we are to obey the laws of the land so long as they don't require us to deny God. "surrendering" your prints does not in any way deny God. it is a means of identification just as your mugshot on your license is. i'm curious... do you believe that the muslim woman who refuses to uncover her face to get her photo taken has a right to defy authority and drive anyway? (you'll recall that actually was a huge media circus a few years ago.)

who grants us the priviledge of driving? it's a priviledge WE EARN... it's a priviledge we earn when we prove ourselves competant and trustworthy behind the wheel of a very dangerous piece of machinery. it is a priviledge we earn by learning what the rules are and proving that we understand them. it is a priviledge we RETAIN by obeying the laws, and not abusing our priveledges. if you think that it is a right and not a priviledge, then who do you believe has any authority to revoke a person's license when they plow their car into a bus stop killing four people on the sidewalk? if your child was killed by a drunk driver, would you say that person still had a right to drive? or would you feel that they'd forfieted that "right"? oh wait, you wouldn't have any right to say they don't deserve to be driving, because you don 't believe it is a priveledge.

if you don't live your life wearing a pair of gloves, then you're willingly surrendering your prints to anyone who wants them for ANY purpose, about a million times a day. yet you would go so far as to commit fraud by creating a fake set of prints for a license because it's the government who wants them as a means of identifying you? wow. first, that would be a really neat trick, not sure how you'd fake your thumbprint in front of a DMV employee. second, fraud is a serious crime, and i'm not sure, but this one could possibly be on the federal level since it's an attempt to defraud a government office.

it seems as though you would rather hide your true identity. i have to wonder why? i'm having trouble digesting that anyone could base this solely on thinking it's brainwashing people for the coming mark. surely you're not afraid you'll be brainwashed that easily that you won't recognize the difference, despite scripture being pretty clear that the mark won't be something we accept unaware. i suppose i'm just having difficulty understanding why anyone who doesn't have something to hide would want to prevent the possibility of being identified. those are typically the actions of a fugitive, of someone who has committed (or intends to commit) some terrible crime for which they don't want to pay the consequences.

i'm assuming that you're a law abiding citizen whose worst crime may be going a few miles over the speed limit or failing to come to a full stop at a stop sign.... so i just don't understand your line of reasoning here.

[ted]

t.

[cjrose]

We just moved from Mississippi (where a thumbprint is not required for a driver's license) to Texas. I recently went to "swap" my Mississippi license for a Texas license, and was told I would have to give a digital scan of both my left and right thumbs. I looked at the little scanner box and the name on the side was "DigiMarc". This reminded me too much of "the mark" spoken of in Revelation. I refused and am currently still using my Mississippi license. It is Texas law that I get a Texas license within 30 days of moving to Texas. I assume I will get a ticket if I have Texas plates on my truck but still have a Mississippi drivers license. So what do I do? I have already bought land in Texas and have a job. I am still paying Mississippi income tax right now and Texas has no state income tax. I considered claiming Mississippi as my state of residence (using relative's address) and claiming that I am working in Texas, but I don't know how honest that would be. Does anyone know if there is a loophole around this fingerprint requirement, based on religious beliefs? I considered talking to a lawyer, but most lawyers would think I was nuts if I even mentioned this. I guess all states will eventually require fingerprints when the national ID card goes into effect(http://www.nonationalid.com/). But this threw me for a loop. I guess i should have checked this out before moving to Texas. We are actually considering moving back to a state which does not require fingerprinting. I would greatly appreciate any advice.

I don't know if fingerprinting is the actual mark. But it is getting closer. I think the mark will be a chip or barcode, but you never really know what John saw in his vision. Perhaps he saw a photograph & thumbscan and described it best he could?? Either way, I think that giving up your prints is a BAD thing.

It's an ink spot, you wipe it clean when done, not like a permanant mark. If you want to drive, it's a must and really no big deal. Now if they want to give you a tattoo on your forearm or forehead or plant a chip under your skin, I'd say, run far far away! They fingerprint for records in case you commit a crime. Seriously, don't sweat it.

[buckthesystem]

buck... you really honestly believe that driving is a right rather than a priviledge?

so, if that's true, than nobody should ever have their license revoked for multiple DUIs. in fact, nobody should ever have their license revoked for any reason, because it's their right to drive, no matter what they've done. there shouldn't be any age requirements for obtaining a license either. nor should their be a written examination or a test of driving skills.

i honestly don't believe i've ever heard of anyone thinking that driving was a right. freedom of movement? people can still get around without driving. there are other methods of transportation. there are buses and taxis and neighbors with good hearts... there are bicycles and scooters and mo-peds (no license required for mo-peds).

no matter how one slices it, we are to obey the laws of the land so long as they don't require us to deny God. "surrendering" your prints does not in any way deny God. it is a means of identification just as your mugshot on your license is. i'm curious... do you believe that the muslim woman who refuses to uncover her face to get her photo taken has a right to defy authority and drive anyway? (you'll recall that actually was a huge media circus a few years ago.)

who grants us the priviledge of driving? it's a priviledge WE EARN... it's a priviledge we earn when we prove ourselves competant and trustworthy behind the wheel of a very dangerous piece of machinery. it is a priviledge we earn by learning what the rules are and proving that we understand them. it is a priviledge we RETAIN by obeying the laws, and not abusing our priveledges. if you think that it is a right and not a priviledge, then who do you believe has any authority to revoke a person's license when they plow their car into a bus stop killing four people on the sidewalk? if your child was killed by a drunk driver, would you say that person still had a right to drive? or would you feel that they'd forfieted that "right"? oh wait, you wouldn't have any right to say they don't deserve to be driving, because you don 't believe it is a priveledge.

if you don't live your life wearing a pair of gloves, then you're willingly surrendering your prints to anyone who wants them for ANY purpose, about a million times a day. yet you would go so far as to commit fraud by creating a fake set of prints for a license because it's the government who wants them as a means of identifying you? wow. first, that would be a really neat trick, not sure how you'd fake your thumbprint in front of a DMV employee. second, fraud is a serious crime, and i'm not sure, but this one could possibly be on the federal level since it's an attempt to defraud a government office.

it seems as though you would rather hide your true identity. i have to wonder why? i'm having trouble digesting that anyone could base this solely on thinking it's brainwashing people for the coming mark. surely you're not afraid you'll be brainwashed that easily that you won't recognize the difference, despite scripture being pretty clear that the mark won't be something we accept unaware. i suppose i'm just having difficulty understanding why anyone who doesn't have something to hide would want to prevent the possibility of being identified. those are typically the actions of a fugitive, of someone who has committed (or intends to commit) some terrible crime for which they don't want to pay the consequences.

i'm assuming that you're a law abiding citizen whose worst crime may be going a few miles over the speed limit or failing to come to a full stop at a stop sign.... so i just don't understand your line of reasoning here.

Ladyc you're either getting the wrong end of the stick" or grossly exaggerating what I said, or you simply lack understanding.

Yes, I most certainly did say that "driving is a right not a privilege". The Magna Carta (which is the root document for the US constitution) guarantees the right of "freedom of movement without molestation". It doesn't say "the privilege of movement magnanimously granted by the state".

This is obviously different to somebody becoming a "disqualified driver" because they have committed DUI (drunk driving or what ever you want to call it). However, this, in no way, makes "driving a privilege". It obviously allows for that right to be temporarily taken away if someone is going to be a danger to someone else on the road. I don't know whether or not you have "random stopping", but I have to say that it was really stupid of us to let that one "slip through" into legislation. There should always be a good reason for someone to be "pulled over" while driving. However, just as driving is a right that does not mean that that right is absolute and you have carte blanche to go around running people over at bus stops or driving while drunk. Surely, the fact that I don't think that is obvious.

I see this issue - which, incredibly, a great number of people seem to have bought into - that "driving is a privilege" to be another piece of social engineering that we have been subjected to. When I was a teenager and first driving and then for about the next 20 years or so everybody knew and believed that driving was a basic right, then all of a sudden in line with the world's "new thinking" it was a "privilege" granted by the government. Sort of like "there are no road 'accidents' any more - they are 'crashes'". Another one, a belief commonly held unfortunately is "a DL is for id" - no! A DL is a certificate of competence to drive a motor vehicle.

I asked "who grants that privilege" and you said "it is a privilege that you earn" - that is not an answer to the question, obviously you have to "earn" a privilege, but the contention was that it is not a privilege.

As for "other methods of transportation". Get real. In cities sure. There are no buses and taxis where I live.

And for "your mugshot on your licence". That is a very sensitive issue with me because up until 1998 we had plain paper DLs with no "security features" at all and all of a sudden a "dig-photo' licence" was dishonestly, literally-snuck-in to being, and I was the one who did the main paperwork for the campaign to first get rid of it and secondly to hold those who were responsible, accountable. I sure don't "take it as read" that there should be a "mugshot" on your DL.

Now: "if you don't live your life wearing a pair of gloves, then you're willingly surrendering your prints to anyone who wants them for ANY purpose, about a million times a day". Please, you've got to be kidding? Surely it is my right not to have to wear gloves and that does not, in any way, mean that I am willingly surrendering my prints to anyone who wants them for any purpose. Do you believe this? Do you believe that if someone, illegally I might add, follows you round lifting your fingerprints off everything you touch and transferring to anything at all to be used for "any purpose", you wouldn't even object?

Then you're saying "because it is the law it must be ok". Don't we all know that "the law is an ass" and "law makers" often lie about their motive for the law? And "law enforcers" are often corrupt and incompetent?

As for "how to fake fingerprints". Just "Google" it, you will have recipes for how to do it in "no time".

In your penultimate paragraph you are basically saying "if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear". How can you say that "with a straight face"? I certainly do have something to hide - it is called privacy. Now I must say that your attitude presumes a reversal of the onus of proof. If the state wants my identity it is up to them to prove that they need it, it is not up to me to prove why I don't want to give it to them.

As for "law abiding citizen" - I really don't like that expression and I don't really consider myself to be a "law abiding citizen" because that conjures up in my mind images of an obsequious little drone. I am not a hardened criminal and I don't go around stealing, swearing, committing fraud, beating people up or killing, but I know that "man's law is an ass" and for that reason I'm not going to abide by it. I don't wear my seatbelt, I don't register my dog - so I guess that makes me most definitely not a law abiding citizen.

[billie]

Whether "freedom of movement" was ever meant to be interpreted as driving is quite debateable.

[other one]

Other one to save room I've only copied part of your post here, the part that I want to reply to:

"So my only problem is that some of you are telling the original poster to give up driving privileges over this and that is spiritually not necessary".

I really don't want to come across as the villain here, so I'll point out that I am not advising anyone to "give up driving", but I am advocating that everyone should protest this absurd idea of surrendering your fingerprints to the state of Texas to get a driving licence. America is supposed to be a democracy, isn't it?

Failing that, I would go as far as to make up a set of false fingerprints so that the DMV doesn't get my real fingerprints - purely on principle. (Now before anyone starts reacting and accusing me of encouraging people to break the law, I did say "I would" not "you should").

There must be ways round this, I can't believe that everything is so "set in concrete".

Again, other one, I am not trying to "get at you" but I just can't resist picking up on your words "driving privileges". I believe that driving a motor vehicle is not a privilege but a right! It is the "basic right of freedom of movement". We have to put it in a modern context, and as it is no longer practical to walk everywhere or ride a horse or a donkey, we have to say "freedom of movement by what ever is the usual means". If you accept that it is a "privilege" you have to accept that somebody granted that privilege, and if so who granted it?

I can only speak for the State of Oklahoma, but here it is by statute a privilige...... and that privilige will be removed from you if you don't abide by the traffic laws..... (and pay for your gasoline btw). For the past couple of years you have to prove your citizenship and record your finger or thumb prints and take a picture with your glasses off by a camera that not only records your face, but turns your face picture into a digitized data file that can be checked to prove that you are the person you say you are... Personally I like that.....

[kittyjo]

Seems to me that this is a matter of misplaced faith: Faith in the fear of conspiracy vs, faith in the victorious power of our Lord, our refuge.

Fingerprinting drivers has been done in California and many states for years, it has helped to solve crimes, to preserve justice and vindicate the falsely accused.

In order to work in the gaming industry in Nevada Sherrif or Gaming Cards are required, using photo and fingerprints to I.D., it is a percaution against hiring thieves and to help prevent new hires from theft or violence.

I have no fear in any of this, because the Lord is my strength; my refuge; He protects, preserves and provides for me.... For you too!