LadyRaven Posted August 31, 2006 Group: Royal Member Followers: 2 Topic Count: 13 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 1,981 Content Per Day: 0.30 Reputation: 3 Days Won: 0 Joined: 05/22/2006 Status: Offline Birthday: 04/20/1964 Share Posted August 31, 2006 I'm not "afraid" of tyranny, however, I will stand against it. I respect what the too-long arm of the law can do to me much more than what it can do for me. The best form of government is self government and I have the right to be treated as if I've done nothing wrong until, in fact, I have done something wrong...not IN CASE I've done something wrong. I have the right to liberty, and the right to privacy. The fact that any state or federal agency thinks that they can regulate that over and above preventing me from hurting you does not mean that it actually has the right to do so. It doesn't. Hi Raven! I agree with much of what you say, I as well am no fan of 'Big Government'... Can this be misused? Perhaps, there is potential for misuse, but at this time the benefits outweigh the 'what if' factor. Background checks are needed, I see it as prudent 'preventative medicine'. It is wise to do so these days... I do not expect any employer to trust on face value alone, to do so may result in dire concequences. Many employers also require a lie detector test, TRW, a taped interview, and/or a psychological test that rates honesty. I find that more intrusive than my fingerprint alone. as do I. In fact, unless I'm going for a position which requires some measure of security, such as security guard, driver for a armoured truck, that sort of thing, I forbid the use of some of my private materials. I've had discussions with prospective employers about this, and sometimes I've gotten hired without it all...with the chance to wait to surrender that information until after the interview and references and etc have been checked and I've been told that I'm gonna have the job if the background check is satisfactory. Just because you have an open job does not mean you are entitled to this information. The company I've worked for for two years requires a thorough background check...and when I went for the interview, I told the supervisor that I would give him my SSAN and my DL number and urine samples IF, after checking the rest of my information he was in the frame of mind to hire me. I told him that other than some parking tickets and a bankruptcy there was nothing on my records, I'm just a privacy nut. He took my app, minus the personal investigation page, called my references and whatnot, looked over my app and decided he wanted to hire me, so I came back in with the missing page and gave it to him. He said he didn't find it to be too annoying because we needed, as a company, to respect the privacy of parents and children and their personal information so this let him know that I was the type who would do just that. So he made a decision that barring any disqualifiying information he'd hire me. I went to get a PT job at KMart today and walked out due to the invasive questions. About my personal life. I'm sure I could have sat for an hour and answered the repetitive nonsense, but why? If they require sheep to do that job then they aren't getting me, I don't need to work for them. Those who work in the government; justice system; school systems (teachers); hospitals; care givers; bank employees; security guards and many more have their prints taken for ID and for background checks. In some instances even 'eye prints' are taken. In fact we all have our prints taken (hand and foot), when born at the hospital. As individuals, we have to decide that this information is important to us. If it is, we only give it out to those who have a need to know. The government does not have a need to know my credit history if I'm working in a kitchen, though it might if I was working in the US treasury. We should not be so willing to surrender this information just because of "security" when in most cases it's just "security theatre" and does no good at all. Perhaps that regulates me away from some jobs, but honestly, I don't want to be part of a system which thinks it needs to know everything about me when it does not. Lets face it we are all 'trackable'. Does anyone here use one of those discount point cards at the supermarket? Your name and every purchase you make is logged into a database, mostly to be used by store and manufaturer's marketing staff... But there is one instance where it was used as evidence in a crime: A woman suspected for the murder of her husband was found to be lying about her alibi of being out of town. Someone tipped off the police that she was seen in the supermarket... They ran the video tapes and visually ID'd her, but they had to be certain. So, they ran the register tapes and clocked her purchase to the date/time... The clincher was that she used her 'values card', so her name was on the purchase of duct tape, rope and large plastic bags... Ding, ding, ding! They caught their murderer. FBI Fingerprint Database DNA Database Fingerprint FAQ It's even worse than this. Certain brands of merchandise have ID tags which, if someone had the appropriate equicpment can determine what products you have on you right now (what brand is your backpack, your jeans, etc). CASPIAN I don't fault law enforcement from using what is available to them, however, we must remember the principle that you can do a good thing in the wrong way and that hard cases make for bad law. Just because something was used in a good way does not mean that it should be used at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LadyRaven Posted August 31, 2006 Group: Royal Member Followers: 2 Topic Count: 13 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 1,981 Content Per Day: 0.30 Reputation: 3 Days Won: 0 Joined: 05/22/2006 Status: Offline Birthday: 04/20/1964 Share Posted August 31, 2006 facial recognition technology is legal in america, and has been used for many years in casinos. (just a little FYI) Not only that but for some odd reason the security cameras cause polyester (especially black) and all red fabrics to become see through on the monitors. (Another FYI) I wold like to see some documentation for this, please. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LadyRaven Posted August 31, 2006 Group: Royal Member Followers: 2 Topic Count: 13 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 1,981 Content Per Day: 0.30 Reputation: 3 Days Won: 0 Joined: 05/22/2006 Status: Offline Birthday: 04/20/1964 Share Posted August 31, 2006 RollinTHUNDER wrote: "Biscuit, There is nothing to worry about here. The Bible makes it very clear. The mark of the beast will be one that is placed in either your right hand or forehead. They do not want to mark you with your own thumb print, but rather, they want to keep a record of your prints, probably put on a piece of paper. This is great for catching criminals, and for clearing your name if you are falsely accused. Unless you are a criminal, you have nothing to worry about". Hmm, "This is great for catching criminals, and for clearing your name if you are falsely accused. Unless you are a criminal, you have nothing to worry about". So you're bring up the old discredited ridiculous catchphrase of "nothing to hide, nothing to fear". Do you realise that this is reversing the onus of proof that has always been a cornerstone of democracy? I always though you had your fingerprints taken AFTER you had proved yourself to be a criminal, not BEFORE, or IN CASE YOU MIGHT be a criminal. As for "clearing your name if you are falsely accused" - yeah, right! Do you really believe that? buck, fingerprint analysis is routinely done to eliminate suspects. When I become a suspect I will give my prints so they can eliminate that suspicion. Not until. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buckthesystem Posted August 31, 2006 Group: Royal Member Followers: 3 Topic Count: 1,706 Topics Per Day: 0.26 Content Count: 3,386 Content Per Day: 0.51 Reputation: 3 Days Won: 0 Joined: 03/12/2006 Status: Offline Birthday: 12/10/1955 Share Posted August 31, 2006 kittyjo wrote: " I agree with much of what you say, I as well am no fan of 'Big Government'... Can this be misused? Perhaps, there is potential for misuse, but at this time the benefits outweigh the 'what if' factor. Background checks are needed, I see it as prudent 'preventative medicine'. It is wise to do so these days... I do not expect any employer to trust on face value alone, to do so may result in dire concequences. Many employers also require a lie detector test, TRW, a taped interview, and/or a psychological test that rates honesty. I find that more intrusive than my fingerprint alone. Those who work in the government; justice system; school systems (teachers); hospitals; care givers; bank employees; security guards and many more have their prints taken for ID and for background checks. In some instances even 'eye prints' are taken. In fact we all have our prints taken (hand and foot), when born at the hospital. Lets face it we are all 'trackable'. Does anyone here use one of those discount point cards at the supermarket? Your name and every purchase you make is logged into a database, mostly to be used by store and manufaturer's marketing staff... But there is one instance where it was used as evidence in a crime: A woman suspected for the murder of her husband was found to be lying about her alibi of being out of town. Someone tipped off the police that she was seen in the supermarket... They ran the video tapes and visually ID'd her, but they had to be certain. So, they ran the register tapes and clocked her purchase to the date/time... The clincher was that she used her 'values card', so her name was on the purchase of duct tape, rope and large plastic bags... Ding, ding, ding! They caught their murderer. FBI Fingerprint Database DNA Database Fingerprint FAQ You say you are not a fan of big government. I'll go further than this and say that I believe that all governments are so morally bankrupt and corrupt that citizens cannot trust them with anything at all. Public servants are the ones entrusted with your privacy in cases like this and they live on what is taken from the taxpayer, are paid far more than they could get at a "real" job (but unfortunately are usually incapable of getting a "real job" and that is why they are public servants), are totally unaccountable and have no incentive to "get things right". So when you say "can this be misused" the answer has got to be: Yes, it can! And it will be! You also say "the benefits outweigh the 'what if' factor". Well, what benefits? And who, exactly, stands to benefit? Why do you feel that "background checks are needed" all of a sudden for (what seems like most) jobs "these days"? I mean what is so special about "these days"? Honestly if I applied for a job and the employer wanted a lie detector test I would quickly drop the application. Not so much for the privacy aspect, because a "lie detector test" is such a ridiculous thing that "privacy" doesn't even come into it. But that would tell me that the employer is a really stupid person, one who is stupid enough to put faith in something that is so notoriously unreliable. I'm not sure what a TRW is?? But I would refuse a job where a taped interview was required or a psychological test that rated honesty because that would indicate that the employer didn't trust me from the start and assumed my guilt and dishonesty until I had proved that I was honest. I believe that if an employer - or anyone else - is going to accuse me of being dishonest, it is up to them to prove that I am dishonest, it is not up to me to prove my innocence. As in the onus of proof being on the accuser, which is - or rather was in this case - a cornerstone of democracy. It certainly looks like the American constitution has been "thrown out the window", doesn't it? And: "Those who work in the government; justice system; school systems (teachers); hospitals; care givers; bank employees; security guards and many more have their prints taken for ID and for background checks. In some instances even 'eye prints' are taken. In fact we all have our prints taken (hand and foot), when born at the hospital" That is a very good reason to stay right away from any of these jobs. Has anyone ever questioned this requirement? Has anyone ever asked how fingerprints would aid in id or aid in 'background checks'? Has anyone ever been given a satisfactory answer to either of the above questions? Has anyone ever been given any answer to the above questions? If so, what was the 'excuse'? As for babies prints being taken if they are born in US hospitals. That is a very good reason to stay right away from hospitals in the US and if you are having a baby, have it at home. I believe that the actual fingerprints of a baby are pretty useless to take as they haven't finished forming yet, but isn't taking their handprints and footprints treating them as potential criminals even before they have had their first meal? What is the "official reason" for this? Is it the same as this: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/4510521.stm I absolutely don't and will never, use any retail "discount cards" or "loyalty cards". In fact, the way things seem to be going now I find that there is even more reason than ever to use only cash for everything you can. And: "A woman suspected for the murder of her husband was found to be lying about her alibi of being out of town. Someone tipped off the police that she was seen in the supermarket... They ran the video tapes and visually ID'd her, but they had to be certain. So, they ran the register tapes and clocked her purchase to the date/time... The clincher was that she used her 'values card', so her name was on the purchase of duct tape, rope and large plastic bags... Ding, ding, ding! They caught their murderer". There are a few flaws with this. (1) How could anyone be sure that the person on the surveillence video tape in the supermarket was actually the woman in question? (2) How could anyone be sure that it was actually the woman suspect who made the purchase and used her 'values card'? I have often gone into a particular shop and used my daughter's 'loyalty card' so that she gets the points! Nothing is ever as it seems, we must never make the mistake of assuming that it is. When you quote the "FBI fingerprint database" are you saying that it is a good idea that the FBI has a copy of your fingerprints? If so, isn't that, again, reversing the burdan of proof of a crime and making you an automatic 'suspect'? And you seem to be advocating a DNA database too. Well, consider the fiasco that was Iceland's DNA database. They made the mistake of letting a private company handle it, who then onsold it to "the highest bidder" in 1998. When I first read about that, I wondered what was next. If governments felt they had the right to sell the genetic information of all their citizens, they might feel they had the right to sell their citizens' organs for transplant. Maybe that will be the next government idea for "revenue collecting". Considering the seeming public acceptance of things like mass fingerprinting of innocent people and wide acceptance of government's right to use face recognition technology, it doesn't seem that far fetched. Here's a link about Iceland, but I could find one that told the full story. http://www.actionbioscience.org/genomic/hlodan.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rollinTHUNDER Posted August 31, 2006 Group: Royal Member Followers: 6 Topic Count: 83 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 2,985 Content Per Day: 0.37 Reputation: 433 Days Won: 2 Joined: 04/23/2002 Status: Offline Share Posted August 31, 2006 Hmm, "This is great for catching criminals, and for clearing your name if you are falsely accused. Unless you are a criminal, you have nothing to worry about". So you're bring up the old discredited ridiculous catchphrase of "nothing to hide, nothing to fear". Do you realise that this is reversing the onus of proof that has always been a cornerstone of democracy? I always though you had your fingerprints taken AFTER you had proved yourself to be a criminal, not BEFORE, or IN CASE YOU MIGHT be a criminal. As for "clearing your name if you are falsely accused" - yeah, right! Do you really believe that? You take issue with whether fingerprinting is right or wrong, but that's not what this thread is about. The main issue here, is whether or not thumb printing is the mark of the beast. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LadyRaven Posted August 31, 2006 Group: Royal Member Followers: 2 Topic Count: 13 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 1,981 Content Per Day: 0.30 Reputation: 3 Days Won: 0 Joined: 05/22/2006 Status: Offline Birthday: 04/20/1964 Share Posted August 31, 2006 Hmm, "This is great for catching criminals, and for clearing your name if you are falsely accused. Unless you are a criminal, you have nothing to worry about". So you're bring up the old discredited ridiculous catchphrase of "nothing to hide, nothing to fear". Do you realise that this is reversing the onus of proof that has always been a cornerstone of democracy? I always though you had your fingerprints taken AFTER you had proved yourself to be a criminal, not BEFORE, or IN CASE YOU MIGHT be a criminal. As for "clearing your name if you are falsely accused" - yeah, right! Do you really believe that? You take issue with whether fingerprinting is right or wrong, but that's not what this thread is about. The main issue here, is whether or not thumb printing is the mark of the beast. Buiscut did not say that it was, could be or not, but said that at least it was a softening up and that he/she did not agree with it. However the beast's mark is not the only reason we should avoid invasive government intrusion, cause as the op said...its not a good thing. I believe that the tribulation already happened...and based on this knowledge, and the knowledge that often history reinvents itself...I see big problems in the future. People have been attempting to recreate an intrusive one world government almost from the time the Empire fell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest man Posted August 31, 2006 Share Posted August 31, 2006 Frankly, when people invade the country (which is what an illegal is doing when they come in without the proper permission) the country has the DUTY to protect the citizens and IMO the right to shoot the invaders on sight. I'm sure that's not really popular here, but if it were any other people group besides what is coming over (like say millions of Russians or Millions of Chineese or Millions of Islamists) they would not hesitate to do so if they saw groups rushing the borders. I know if people behaved like that on my property, I'd certainly shoot them. Advocating the killing of another human being is not very christianlike. Tell me...how many deaths do you suppose Christ was responsible for? To my knowledge, none...but then I could be wrong. To defend oneself or ones loved ones or one's nation is not contrary to scripture. Ehud of Gera in Judges killed the king of the enemies of his people, his act led to 80 yrs of peace. 1 Tim 5:8 teaches that if you can't take care of what is given to you to take care of, then you may as well be an infidel...this includes seeing to their safety and security. Luke 22:36 also provides the guidence for Christians to take up arms in useful self defense. While there are times when we are called upon to turn the other cheek, and sometimes we will be called upon to die, but the whole of scripture does not indicate that we are to be doormats or that we must suffer abuses at the hands of tyranny or foreign invaders. 1 Cor 7:21 also indcates that we are to pursue freedom whenever it is possible. if it is not possible, we aren't to worry about it, but if it is possible, yes by all means do so. Freedom allows people to worship God and spread the gospel without hindrance. It is not always wise to upset the applecart, just like the Christians had no hope of overthrowing the Romans, but just because they did not have the ability to do so does not mean that we in the modern age cannot pursue freedom and defend our homes and our states from hostile forces. If we were not to believe that we could defend ourselves then we need to all become anarchists, because anarcy means the absence of political authority...and the fundamental reason that government exists is the belief that self defense is right and correct. The whole idea that we can and should defend the right to life libertay and property is the foundation of the US constitution...and it came about because the founders believed that God not only allowed but sanctioned the idea of a state (government) to protect the individual from predators. You quote scripture out of context. You make ref. to Old Testament times...we do not live in OT times. But just so you know what God said back then... Gen. 9:6 Exo. 21:12 Lev. 24:17 Luke 22:36 is not God telling us to take up arms to defend ourselves. If it was, why would He say this.... Matt. 26:52 Rev. 13:10 We live in New Testament times and nowhere in the NT does God instruct us on the taking of another man's life. Nowhere does He say we are justified in killing. I never said we should not protect ourselves...you said illegal's should be shot on sight. To me, that line of thinking is wrong and has no place in the life a christian. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest LadyC Posted August 31, 2006 Share Posted August 31, 2006 a few things i'd like to touch on for buck. (buck, i'm not trying to single you out, it's just that you often post things for which you seem to lack a thorough understanding on.) That is a very good reason to stay right away from any of these jobs. Has anyone ever questioned this requirement? Has anyone ever asked how fingerprints would aid in id or aid in 'background checks'? Has anyone ever been given a satisfactory answer to either of the above questions? Has anyone ever been given any answer to the above questions? If so, what was the 'excuse'? the jobs kittyjo was referring to are common jobs here in nevada, but not necessarily common in other states. they're common here because our whole economy is dependant upon the gaming industry. fingerprints aid in background checks and identification because they are run through AFIS for jobs that fit into a specific category. those jobs are ones that are directly involved with gaming itself... working the "cage" (where the money is handled, and depending on the casino, that is often more cash than most banks keep on hand), working as a dealer (where again you're dealing with large sums of money, and those little resin chips aren't just pretty little pieces of plastic, they are currency", working with slot machines or working security in the casino... etc. etc. the fingerprints are run in order to obtain a sherriff's card which entitles you to work in the gaming industry. they have to verify you are not a felon or wanted criminal and that you have no documented history of substance abuse (which is a TREMENDOUS problem in this city). this is a matter of high security. the only other industry in nevada that requires a sherriff's card, to my knowledge, is prostitution... an industry in which you are also required to have medical examinations, aids tests, and so on, very frequently. (what a shame they don't require this of our educators, given that our state's track record of hiring convicted felons and pedophiles is as high as it is!) regarding the psych-test that is required for some jobs, i totally agree with you. i've taken one of those in the past. the questions are repetitious, worded in different ways, in order to trip you up because they word them in ways that bring to mind different types of situations. the one i took was probably fifteen years ago, so i can't recall any specific examples. i'm a very forthright and honest person, but my test result had a very low score on the scale relating to honesty. the tests don't prove a thing. and i didn't get the job. wanna know what position i was applying for? a waitress position in a hotel restaraunt. anyway, the one thing i wanted to correct you on is this... I believe that the actual fingerprints of a baby are pretty useless to take as they haven't finished forming yet, but isn't taking their handprints and footprints treating them as potential criminals even before they have had their first meal? What is the "official reason" for this? Is it the same as this: your prints are fully developed in utero.... prior to being born. i think kittyjo may have been mistaken about hospitals taking babies fingerprints... my grandson is 8 months old and was only foot-printed... foot printing of infants has been done since before i was born, and i was born nearly 42 years ago. its purpose is to serve as identification of an infant should the baby be kidnapped or accidentally switched with another child while in the hospital... and also serves useful to distinguish between identical twins if there is any confusion. the prints are part of hospital record and are not submitted to the government. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest LadyC Posted August 31, 2006 Share Posted August 31, 2006 this one is for man... i'm running short on time so if you don't feel inclined to look it up, i'm sure someone will for you. the God of the OT is the same as the God of the NT. He's the same yesterday, today, and forever. Jesus and God are both of the trinity and are always in 100% agreement. and yes, in the NT, Jesus instructed his apostles to arm themselves with a sword for protection. not all killing is murder. God sanctions killing under certain circumstances, but never sanctions murder. (not necessarily shooting illegals on sight, though!) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LadyRaven Posted August 31, 2006 Group: Royal Member Followers: 2 Topic Count: 13 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 1,981 Content Per Day: 0.30 Reputation: 3 Days Won: 0 Joined: 05/22/2006 Status: Offline Birthday: 04/20/1964 Share Posted August 31, 2006 To defend oneself or ones loved ones or one's nation is not contrary to scripture. Ehud of Gera in Judges killed the king of the enemies of his people, his act led to 80 yrs of peace. 1 Tim 5:8 teaches that if you can't take care of what is given to you to take care of, then you may as well be an infidel...this includes seeing to their safety and security. Luke 22:36 also provides the guidence for Christians to take up arms in useful self defense. While there are times when we are called upon to turn the other cheek, and sometimes we will be called upon to die, but the whole of scripture does not indicate that we are to be doormats or that we must suffer abuses at the hands of tyranny or foreign invaders. 1 Cor 7:21 also indcates that we are to pursue freedom whenever it is possible. if it is not possible, we aren't to worry about it, but if it is possible, yes by all means do so. Freedom allows people to worship God and spread the gospel without hindrance. It is not always wise to upset the applecart, just like the Christians had no hope of overthrowing the Romans, but just because they did not have the ability to do so does not mean that we in the modern age cannot pursue freedom and defend our homes and our states from hostile forces. If we were not to believe that we could defend ourselves then we need to all become anarchists, because anarcy means the absence of political authority...and the fundamental reason that government exists is the belief that self defense is right and correct. The whole idea that we can and should defend the right to life libertay and property is the foundation of the US constitution...and it came about because the founders believed that God not only allowed but sanctioned the idea of a state (government) to protect the individual from predators. You quote scripture out of context. You make ref. to Old Testament times...we do not live in OT times. But just so you know what God said back then... Gen. 9:6 Exo. 21:12 Lev. 24:17 Luke 22:36 is not God telling us to take up arms to defend ourselves. If it was, why would He say this.... Matt. 26:52 Rev. 13:10 We live in New Testament times and nowhere in the NT does God instruct us on the taking of another man's life. Nowhere does He say we are justified in killing. I never said we should not protect ourselves...you said illegal's should be shot on sight. To me, that line of thinking is wrong and has no place in the life a christian. Well, I disagree with your exegesis. I'm not coming from the pacifistic anabaptist POV, I don't find it to be the only biblical mode of interpretation. I come from a modified Theonomic mixed with Freedom of Conscience view. We'll agree to disagree because this issue is too passionate an issue for me to continuously spar over without some acrimony. If you click through my political links youll see why. Things could get ugly if I tried to convince you with vigorous defense of my position...I'll take that chance when combating heresy, but when it comes to honest disagreements within the fold, I just can't go there. Sorry. Of course you can still read my posts and comment on them, however you won't get much in the way of personal answers. I do believe my theology to be correct, however this is not the place to defend it. I might decide to do so somewhere online (away from a fellowship format) and if I do you will be welcome to comment Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts