LEGAL TX teacher sues state for trying to condemn her to torment in burning sulfur

[Fred]

http://www.ktre.com/Global/story.asp?S=11458231

Polk County teacher suing state over fingerprinting

LUFKIN, TX (KTRE) - A Polk County teacher is suing the state for requiring her to be fingerprinted for a background check, saying it violates her religious freedom.

According to her attorney, Scott Skelton, of Lufkin, Pam McLaurin believes the book of Revelation literally and that getting a fingerprint would bear her the mark of the beast and she would be "be tormented in burning sulfur."

McLaurin teaches at Big Sandy School District in Dallardsville, which is in Polk County.

Skelton said the case, which will be heard in the Lufkin federal court, is the only religious freedom case he knows of taken place in Lufkin and the only fingerprint case he is aware of in the United States.

Skelton said McLaurin, who has taught at the district for 20 years, is willing to undergo any other type of background check.

"She just doesn't want to be fingerprinted. That's all she doesn't want to have to do. She doesn't mind her background being checked out. She just doesn't want to submit to that. But TEA is not allowing an exception and so she is in this predicament," said Skelton.

He said the state is enforcing the rule on McLaurin, even though it is not supposed to go into effect until 2011.

Superintendent Kenneth Graham said the district will do whatever the state requires, but hopes it will allow McLaurin to continue teaching without being fingerprinted.

"A person's religious convictions are their own and we're not going to judge them as far as I'm concerned," Graham said. "My only consideration is that she does a good job for us and she is good for our children."

Wayne Haglund is the lawyer for the Big Sandy School District.

"The Constitution issues are very, very interesting, from a stand point of a conflict between a teacher's sincere upheld religious beliefs under the first amendment to the United States Constitution and the state's intent in providing a safe environment for children in the public schools," said Haglund.

Skelton said a preliminary injunction hearing is set in Beaumont on Nov. 12 to determine if the Texas Education Agency can terminate McLaurin's license.

Revelation 13:16-17 in the King James Version states, "He also forced everyone, small and great, rich and poor, free and slave, to receive a mark on his right hand or on his forehead, so that no one could buy or sell unless he had the mark, which is the name of the beast or the number of his name."

Revelation 14:9-11 states, "A third angel followed them and said in a loud voice: "If anyone worships the beast and his image and receives his mark on the forehead or on the hand, he, too, will drink of the wine of God's fury, which has been poured full strength into the cup of his wrath. He will be tormented with burning sulfur in the presence of the holy angels and of the Lamb. And the smoke of their torment rises for ever and ever. There is no rest day or night for those who worship the beast and his image, or for anyone who receives the mark of his name."

Graham said McLaurin keeps her religious beliefs to herself and does not push them on students or other staff.

Skelton said McLaurin wished to not speak to the media about the matter.

[Dennis Olson]

I had to be fingerprinted and background checked for a damn HAZMAT endorsement on my CDL. I would/will definitely support background checks for those working with children.

If she wants to be left alone, she needs to wear a burka. Then they won't do ANYTHING regarding background checking.

Cuz that would be PROFILING dontcha know....

[dissimulo]

She has already been teaching there for 20 years. Doing a background check on her is stirring up a hornet's nest for nothing.

[Dennis Olson]

I had a HAZMAT endorsement on my CDL since 1992. I was only background checked this past summer when I renewed my license. And I was told that from now on, EVERY TIME I renewed the HAZMAT endorsement, I would need to be re-fingerprinted and re-background checked. And (as yet) I don't drive for a living.

I have ZERO sympathy for the teacher. Want the job? Suck it up and get checked. (What does she have to hide?) Personally, I feel that ANY job where you come into contact with children under 16 should require a background check.

[Grantbo]

Background check then, finger prints today, biometric chip in the hand tomorrow. See where this is going?

[Dennis Olson]

Nope. I don't. In order to be background checked, you already need your fingerprints taken. So that leaves the chip. And chipping has nothing to do with background (criminal records) checking, and everything to do with absolute control of the population. The two are not related IMO.

[mscoffee]

Ink washes off.

You leave finger prints on everything you touch ink or no ink n' she'd be leaving a mark not excepting one.

I'd bet money she's hiding something.

So if her sharpie leaks and she gets it on her fingers will she "be tormented in burning sulfur."

Just don't see this applying.

[AzProtector]

I agree with Dennis....she wants to be around kids...it has to happen...period.

[Amaryllis]

A fingerprint is basically the same as a photo: a means of identification. I'm sure her drivers license has a photo. I'm not sure how she comes up with a print being the mark of the beast. Now if it were a permanent mark or tatoo, I'd agree with her.

Now if she's worried about being in a government database, I sympathize with her, but it's waaaay too late to worry about that. Either way, you work for the government, you better be ready to play by their rules. Big Sandy is a public, not private, school so they have to do what the state tells them. The teachers to too.

[blackjeep]

A finger print isn't the mark of the beast. She isn't being required to take a mark, just getting her finger soiled. The book of Revelation is widely misunderstood, as this lady proves.

[inbredhill]

Originally Posted by blackjeep

A finger print isn't the mark of the beast. She isn't being required to take a mark, just getting her finger soiled. The book of Revelation is widely misunderstood, as this lady proves.

Still if she wins the argument in court. It could spell the end for fingerprinting based on religious beliefs. As a side note why do we even have to have the government's permission to do something we feel we are called to do?

[Volleyball Granny]

I teach in Texas. I've been teaching here for almost 20 years. They, to my knowledge, are not going back and fingerprinting those of us who were hired before fingerprinting became necessary.

This issue came up when I started grad school last year and the university needed a copy of my fingerprint/background check. The district sent them a letter saying that I'd been hired before fingerprinting was required and they weren't going to do it now.

If I ever change districts, it will be necessary. I have to wonder about this particular incident. I'm pretty familiar with the Big Sandy schools (not recently, but we used to play their teams when I was in high school). I played in a church league--and their church team was the same as the school team. It's a pretty fundamentalist Christian community. I guess we shouldn't be surprised that someone would take this stance.

I can't see it with fingerprints, but that might just be me. I'd be more worried about ID chips or something permanent.

[Milk-maid]

Originally Posted by Dennis Olson

I have ZERO sympathy for the teacher. Want the job? Suck it up and get checked. (What does she have to hide?) Personally, I feel that ANY job where you come into contact with children under 16 should require a background check.

She has no problem with a thorough background check, she has already said so.

But will you still feel the same way when they say take the chip or it's the end of your job?

At what point does a person say "enough is enough!"? Blood, DNA, internal organ checks, my first born?

They already do urine, photos ID's, polygraphs, etc. Come on, how much does there need to be? Where does it stop?

[Hfcomms]

If she really believes this then well and fine. I think it's easily proven she is demonstrably wrong on this belief but she is entitled to it. The government and the law makes all kinds of exceptions today to keep from offending muslims and every other religious stripe but what about the Christians? Well, we know about that don't we? IN this case it would be very simple to grant a waiver and have alternate I.D. being used. For an established teacher that is the least they can do. For new hires if they make submission to a finger print as a condition of employment I have no problem with that. At that point she would have to choose if she wants the job or not. For her being an established teacher with a good reputation they should work with her on this. I actually have a lot more of a problem with the piss tests that they give you on a random basis that many employers require. I mean if you were in an on the job accident their might be probable cause but to make you submit to that just to prove your not doing drugs is wrong IMO. I was in a job that required that but I am no longer.

[Satanta]

But if she was a muslim and refused it would be dropped immediately and never made the news.

[Reader]

Originally Posted by Volleyball Granny

I teach in Texas. I've been teaching here for almost 20 years. They, to my knowledge, are not going back and fingerprinting those of us who were hired before fingerprinting became necessary.

This issue came up when I started grad school last year and the university needed a copy of my fingerprint/background check. The district sent them a letter saying that I'd been hired before fingerprinting was required and they weren't going to do it now.

If I ever change districts, it will be necessary. I have to wonder about this particular incident. I'm pretty familiar with the Big Sandy schools (not recently, but we used to play their teams when I was in high school). I played in a church league--and their church team was the same as the school team. It's a pretty fundamentalist Christian community. I guess we shouldn't be surprised that someone would take this stance.

I can't see it with fingerprints, but that might just be me. I'd be more worried about ID chips or something permanent.

Yes, they are going back and requiring fingerprints. My district (which is in Texas) sent all employees an email about it this week. We had to update our profiles TEA has on each one of us, and to make sure that information exactly matches what is on our driver's license or other state recognized i.d. The company that has been contracted by the state to fingerprint us has already started in my district. I've been teaching for many years, and even us "old-timers" are required to be fingerprinted.

[FarmerJohn]

How would you do a thorough background check without submitting her fingerprints to the national DB? In my opinion, a background check thorough isn't thorough unless they can verify that you are who you say that you are.

FJ

[Volleyball Granny]

Originally Posted by Reader

Yes, they are going back and requiring fingerprints. My district (which is in Texas) sent all employees an email about it this week. We had to update our profiles TEA has on each one of us, and to make sure that information exactly matches what is on our driver's license or other state recognized i.d. The company that has been contracted by the state to fingerprint us has already started in my district. I've been teaching for many years, and even us "old-timers" are required to be fingerprinted.

Well, chit..then I'm in trouble. Hmmm...maybe not so much. My teaching certificate matches my legal ID, but neither match the name the school district insists on using. Maybe this will be a good time to get them to change it...last time I tried, they told me that Social Security would have to change their information because the district wasn't going to change it.

[fruit loop]

If it's not a requirement now, then why enforce it??

[Dennis Olson]

Originally Posted by Milk-maid

She has no problem with a thorough background check, she has already said so.

But will you still feel the same way when they say take the chip or it's the end of your job?

At what point does a person say "enough is enough!"? Blood, DNA, internal organ checks, my first born?

They already do urine, photos ID's, polygraphs, etc. Come on, how much does there need to be? Where does it stop?

AS I SAID BEFORE, the RFID chip is entirely different than testing and background checking. The chip is a method of CONTROL; background checking is a method of VERIFICATION that a person is "safe" to do something-or-other.

Entirely different.

[Technomancer]

It does make me suspicious... I mean yeah some people beleive some really 'out there' things, but most times it makes some kind of sense. I am being very generous here, but I just cant see how she thinks her own fingerprints she was born with are the mark of the beast. Her fingerprints are left on everything she touches, so why does leaving on one piece of paper make it the mark of the beast but touching other papers during classes dont come across as the mark of the beast?

Hats, burkas, etc MAYBE and thats a big MAYBE make some sense if they are always required while in public, but until she wears gloves always in public, I'm not buying it.

Maybe they should just drop it so theres no court case and precedent set, and just grab her prints from a glass or the desk, etc and run them quietly to see if theres a reason shes scared to have her prints run.