(Click on image for a larger view.)
On 02/10/10, the Virginia House of Delegates approved a bill that some members believe will protect the state from the Antichrist.
The bill prohibits employers and insurance companies from requiring people to implant microchips ---which one delegate said might be the "Mark of the Beast" as described in the Bible. While the bill's sponsor Mark Cole (R-Fredericksburg) says that the bill's goal is to address privacy issues (which may be a reasonable concern) he told The Washington Post, "My understanding ---and 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 or sell things in end times."
[Does that remark make sense to anyone?]
Some Christian groups believe the Antichrist will force everyone to accept this "mark," which could be a microchip.
House members passed the bill by a vote of 88-9.
Mmmm! What will they ban next? Tattoos? They're marks, aren't they? What about stretch marks? Felt-tip markers? Markets? Question marks? Exclamation marks! Or how about the second book of the New Testament?
Source: Church and State, March 2010
(published by Americans United for
Separation of Church and State)
UPDATE April 2010:
The bill mentioned above has been killed in the VA Senate. Four members of a subcommittee of the Commerce and Labor Committee said that the bill was a solution in search of a problem. (April 2010 issue of State and Church.)
3 comments:
Not sure whether to laugh or weep over this one.
Why is anyone required to implant a microchip anyway?
Snowbrush,
As far as I know, no one has ever been required to have a microchip implanted in them. However, I have heard that they could be used somewhat like microchips in pets.
If a person was, say, in an accident and unconscious and without identification, the microchip would be able to tell doctors who the person is, who to contact, along with important medical information.
I've also heard talk of inserting microchips for identification to, for example, move things along faster at airports. (Of course enterprising terrorists could probably make counterfeit microchips to pass through security.) Employers might require them instead of name badges.
There are, of course, privacy issues and also issues of individuals deciding what can happen to their own bodies.
My post was not meant to endorse or condemn microchips. It was meant to point out the foolishness of thinking that they are "marks" as described in Revelation and that the bill that would prohibit them from being "required" would protect us all from the Antichrist.
Why would such a bill be necessary? I'm sure if an insurance company tried to "require" microchips, anyone afraid of the Antichrist could refuse them on religious grounds, just as Jehovah's witnesses reject blood transfusions. In other words, those legislators were probably wasting their time.
I could also argue that a bill that would prohibit requiring an individual to carry something unwanted in his/her body, might also be a justification for choice in abortion cases, but that is another issue.
Post a Comment