Kaye Beach, a resident of Norman, Oklahoma, no longer has a valid driver’s license. The choice to give it up, she maintains, was a forced sacrifice she made to protect and maintain religious views. See, Beach is convinced that the photo and information (biometric) that is collected for state licenses is the beginning of the “mark of the beast,” a sign of the Antichrist that is mentioned in the Bible’s Book of Revelation (it is commonly referred to as “666″). While at first she ignored her concerns surrounding the information that was being collected, she eventually doubled down and, in 2011, she was unable to get a license after refusing to take a photo, give a finger print and take other steps to solidify the renewal. For the past two years, she has been engaged in legal action, claiming that the process and the mandated data collection violate her religious rights. “My license came up for renewal in 2011 and I literally sat there and said, ‘I can’t do it,’” Beach told KFOR-TV. “The bottom line for me as a Christian was that I believe that the Bible clearly warns us against being enrolled in a global system of identification and financial control that ties to our bodies.” At the center of the debate is biometric photography, which eHow describes as an identification card or passport that is “embedded with electronic chips that store information about the passport holder, including their digitally mapped face.” Clearly, this storage of information is seen as immensely troubling to Beach and her supporters. Beach believes that the information that is being collected will eventually lead to a situation in which identity theft runs rampant. Additionally — and on a more personal note — she also contends that licenses and identity cards will inevitably turn into electronic chips or tattoos. These elements, of course, would contain personal information that is now reserved for and held within identification cards. Constitutionally, she believes that her religious views have been impeded upon and that the the government is violating her right not to undergo unreasonable search and seizure. A group called the Constitutional Alliance, a non-profit organization, is supporting her legal battle. She is also represented by the Rutherford Institute, a civil rights legal firm that provides representation free-of-charge. In 2011, the latter organization wrote the following in announcing the case (the complaint can be read here and a recent motion for a summary judgment can be viewed here):
Posted on: Wed, 17 Jul 2013 15:47:57 +0000
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015