by Patrick B. McGuigan
OKLAHOMA CITY – A national organization with a history of battling for religious liberty has joined Oklahoman Kaye Beach in litigation against the state Department of Public Safety’s requirements for mandatory biometrics (a photograph and fingerprints) to secure drivers’ licenses.
Wednesday (June 18), Kaye Beach reacted joyfully at formal announcement of the involvement of The Rutherford Institute (https://www.rutherford.org/%20) in the case.
“I filed a lawsuit against this policy in the first place because I believe it is a violation of my right to freedom of religion, as well as my right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure, both of which are protected under Oklahoma law,” Beach told Oklahoma Watchdog.
Beach recalled her concerns began a decade ago, when she was required to provide fingerprints to get a license.
The issue triggered Beach to move into political and policy activism, she recalled.
“To make a long story short, as I researched and found out more about this, we’re being enrolled into what is in essence the start of a global system of control; one in which where we work, what we sell and what we buy is available widely in data bases. I believe this is the beginning of, in essence, enrolling us into a single global system of control.”
She says she studied “more about technology and policies being implemented. I was bothered by the fingerprints, and then came the facial recognition.”
The latter was the reference to new photo technology applied to state licenses in recent years. Beach said, “I am opposed to this on a number of levels. I believe it is contrary to my right of privacy, with the government’s growing ability to track us. I contend it violates the First and Fourth Amendments; and, possibly the Tenth Amendment.”
The resident of Norman continued, “As I understand biometric I.D.s, I consider it a former of international I.D. This approach is being implemented around the globe.”
As for her faith and religious liberty concerns, Beach points to the Book of Revelation, Chapter 13, verses 16-18.
She explained, “I am not saying that this is ‘the mark of the beast.’ What I am saying is that when we begin to use the body as identification, it is the beginning of an inevitable process to which I object. It will move identification from the document into the body.”
Beach reflected, “Bottom line, there is no such thing as a secure database. If the information exists, it will be hacked and it will be used and misused. I fear we’ll see in my lifetime a ‘chip’ that would hold all your information, and which can be read from a distance.”
Beach’s passion in the matter is personal, not rhetorical – she still does not have a driver’s license.
In a press release, Rutherford President John W. Whitehead said, “Whatever one’s belief systems — whether a person views a biometric ID card in the form of a driver’s license or other government-issued form of identification as the mark of the Beast or merely the long arm of Big Brother, the outcome remains the same — ultimate control by the government,” said Rutherford Institute President John W. Whitehead.
“As Kaye Beach’s case makes clear, failing to have a biometric card can render you a non-person for all intents and purposes, with your ability to work, travel, buy, sell, access health care, and so on jeopardized.”
Whitehead is the author of “A Government of Wolves: The Emerging American Police State.”
The Institute is a nonprofit civil liberties group based in Charlottesville, Virginia. Whitehead founded the organization in 1982.
The case is “Kaye Beach v. Oklahoma Department of Public Safety, et al.” It is being considered in Cleveland County District Court, as Case No. CJ-2011-1489.