On these pages, I recently wrote about Andrea Hernandez, a 15-year-old sophomore at a science and engineering magnet school in Texas, who was threatened with expulsion for failing to wear a school-mandated RFID spychip tracking badge. (Here is the original blog). Ms. Hernandez equated the use of the spychip and continuous monitoring by school authorities with the “mark of the beast” spoken of in Revelation 13:16-17. As a result of her failing to wear the spychip, she was suspended from her high school, and went to federal court winning a preliminary injunction to continue her studies without the tag until a final decision was made by federal Judge Orlando Garcia.
Judge Garcia, a Clinton appointee, issued his decision earlier this week, and ruled against Ms. Hernandez, saying that if she is to stay at her high school, then she must wear the spychip. The school district, recognizing that Ms. Hernandez was an otherwise serious student who is not disruptive, offered to allow her to wear the student identification badge without the chip. However, Ms. Hernandez presumes that such an “accommodation” would cause her to violate her integrity. Otherwise, Judge Garcia ruled that if she refuses to wear the spychip, then she can transfer to a new school. Judge Garcia wrote, “[Ms. Hernandez’s] objection to wearing the Smart ID badge without a chip is clearly a secular choice, rather than a religious choice. . . The accommodation offered by the district removes [her] religious objection from legal scrutiny all together.”
Ms. Hernandez, through her attorneys at the Rutherford Institute, said she will appeal Judge Garcia’s decision immediately based upon violations of her First and Fourteenth Amendment rights. Interestingly, it is a basic principle of American jurisprudence that government officials may not scrutinize or even question the validity of an individual’s religious belief, not matter how non-mainstream or even absurd it might seem to a non-believer. In this case, Judge Garcia, by declaring that Ms. Hernandez’s objections to be a secular choice and not grounded in her religious beliefs, ironically placed himself as the ultimate arbiter of what is or is not “religious” to Ms. Hernandez.
In the meantime, what is clear is that Ms. Hernandez has been penalized and discriminated against by school officials who object to her sincerely held religious beliefs, by being forced to participate in the district’s spychip program. I went to high school a number of years ago, but in my generation and at my high school, few of us would have worn the spychip in protest, whether Christian or not. I will continue to monitor this interesting story as developments warrant.
A peculiar story. If one’s religion carries a legal weight, then it is necessary for the legal system to be able to determine its validity; if not, the only possibility is for religion to be completely irrelevant to any legal decision. The idea that an ID badge violates Christian beliefs is silly (on any orthodox understanding of Christianity), but unfortunately silly issues like this pave the way for more serious problems.
David, first, under American law, neither you or the judge can decide whether Ms. Hernandez’ views are silly or not. You might have an opinion, and you are entitled to hold an opinion, but you cannot impose your values on her. Second, the use of such RFID spychips is not new. They were first used in the Osaka, Japan, schools beginning in 2004 to check pupils’ attendance and location. It was then used in Dubai, and since last March, it has been used in the Brazilian city of Vitoria de Conquista, where the spychips are sewn into the uniforms to help detect truants. Even though this occurred in Texas of all states, our concern should be that children who submit to tracking in schools will more readily accept state surveillance in adulthood. In any event, I, along with many others, certainly view this as a dehumanizing experience. As we see in Isaiah 11:6, a little child shall lead them, and Ms. Hernandez is reminding and teaching all of us something deeply profound and important. Kudos to Ms. Hernandez and her family.
The law is all about imposing on people. (If it didn’t, it would be a law in name only.) Sure, the judge isn’t supposed to be evaluating religious principles, and that worked fine back when religious differences meant transubstantiation vs. consubstantiation or calvinism vs. arminianism. If your religion is “I can’t pay taxes” or “it’s against my faith to stop for red lights”, then something is going to have to give. What concerns me is that frivolous cases will get people used to the idea that judges need to make prouncements on matters of religious doctrine when it comes to serious matters (e.g. the HHS mandate).
I wouldn’t make a religious argument against it, but I highly doubt that the State has the authority to mandate what amounts to surgical or invasive alterations to one’s own person without their consent (especially when no crime has been committed).
Even if a crime had been committed, there are too many other forms of technology available that would make implanted chips unnecessary (such as the kind used for those under house arrest).
I’m hardly a conspiracy theorist, but this smells a bit Orwellian and should be resisted. If we have no authority over what is put in our own bodies, we have nothing left.
I think you’re absolutely right that this isn’t a religious argument (there’s nothing Christian-only about it, whatever its merits). But it’s not invasive: there is no “implantation”, it’s just a fancy ID badge for students to carry in their pockets or on their clothing.
I’m not comfortable with the idea of wearing a “spychip” either, even if I think the idea of it being “the mark of the beast” is a tad conspiratorial. If Ms. Hernandez had argued that her privacy was being violated, she would have had a case. However, she was arguing specifically against wearing a spychip, and the school had already agreed she could drop it. So why the lawsuit?