Virginia Delegates Pass Bill That Bans Chip Implants as 'Mark of the Beast'

reply to post by hotbakedtater

Yet as an American, it always makes me stop and think twice before solidifying an opinion, and that's that ALL groups, even the religious have a right to representation of their opinion as much as I do. And in the end I will never waver on my support of THAT.

And I agree with you, wholeheartedly. Even if I disagree with their opinions, strongly at times, I support their right to voice their opinion. I think Jonathan Haidt is somewhat on the right track in regards to moral psychology playing a role in creating the emergence of conservative and liberal "camps" which can be found to routinely manifest in most all human societies. I've also seen this scenario described in some applications of "Edge of Chaos", as this clash of moral values between favoring establishment (even if at the cost of continuing social ills, such as gender/race discrimination and slavery) and favoring modifications to the establishment in order to promote equality and alleviate suffering (even if at the cost of revolution). In a broadly general sense, this clashing of morality works by allowing for social progression and adaptation while minimizing the risk of social entropy. If a system is not adaptive, it stagnates and dies. If a system makes too many unnecessary adaptations, the system looses cohesion and direction... it falls apart.

We NEED their influence in our decisions. We NEED a healthy level of resistance and debate, to hash out these issues as they deserve to be. We NEED their moral input. What we do NOT need, is childish pissing matches, fundamentalist rigidity, and nonsensical magical thinking.

And this extends beyond the theological religious institutions to the more anthropological, or social, religious movements. I will support anyone's desire to voice THEIR opinion, if they so wish. However, if they choose to abdicate their own opinion in favor of comforting group identity, strength in numbers, or in service to a religious/social institution. I do NOT respect the right of an individual to parrot somebody else's opinion. When you voice your own opinion, you have to at least put some base level of thought and consideration to the issue in order to form that opinion. It shows rather quickly whether that opinion is well backed, or half-baked. Parroting somebody else's opinion, or compromising your views to more closely align yourself with an institution is effectively removes YOUR voice from the debate; it dehumanizes you. Worse, it cheapens and neuters the debate as a whole by supplanting reason in favor of volume. And I think the power and potential for abuse, the potential for violation of human rights, these emerging/converging technologies improperly or incompetently applied, can be quite dangerous.

reply to post by Awakening4America I take your point & SyphonX's. Still, the man did say that the issue had been brought to his attention by his constituents & their concern was the mark of the beast. My point being that there are many things religious people have fears about which could quite easily become the basis of legislation, albeit worded into a secular framework. Issues relating to sexuality spring to mind, for instance. It'd be written as a matter of "public decency" of course...
Its a slippery slope I tell ya!

reply to post by iMacFanatic
I am sorry to disagree, but this is exactly what legistlative time should be spent on. The states still have the right to decide what is done required by the federal goverment to be done to its citizens. If a state choses to pass legislation refusing to require mandatory chipping by corporations or by the federal government, then that state is well within the rights guarenteed by the 10th amendment.
It is my hope and prayer that every state in the Union would pass a similar law.