Naked Body Scanners

[royal_archer]

1ke:
The Church IS very clearly against pornography.

 

[royal_archer]

…

The Church IS very clearly against pornography.

 

[royal_archer]

It’s never wrong to be upset about being touched in sensitive areas or going through a scan that takes nude photos of yourself. just remember though that jesus said we would have our own crosses to bear. When he said this he meant that through doing what is morally right (in this case i would say visiting the realitive) will have us have to face turmoil (pad downs and nude screens)

Break it down to the base facts: Exposing oneself / submitt to being fondled in order to attain air travel. How is that any different than a girl who agrees to having her naked picture taken in order to get money for air travel?

 

[royal_archer]

It’s funny, I am more worried about the pictures than the touching…Idon’t know why. I agree…the radiation thing is bad.

Could it be that the touching is short lived while the photos may come back to haunt you for years?

 

[dixieagle]

I don’t necessarily agree with the new policies or scanners. But, having traveled over 1.5 times per month all year, as recently as LAST WEEK, I have not encounted anything like what is being reported. So, yes, there is an element of ginning up the hysteria going on in blogs and such.

You’ve been lucky; just wait, as they roll out more and more of them across the country.

 

[royal_archer]

I am curious to see if there will be some sort of instruction from the USCCB on this. It is regretable that those with objections of a moral conscience will not be able to fly. I too have made the decision not to fly until this is resolved, not so much for myself, as for the privacy of my wife and children.

I am still waiting for the TSA to release its rate of pedophilia.

I stopped flying years ago (except emergencies) because the new measures don’t actually reduce the danger they just provide entertainment for perverted or otherwise demented TSA agents. When I drive, I don’t have to worry about if I have the wrong size shampoo bottle or fingernail clippers in my luggage.

I also will not allow my wife or children to fly. Call me old fashioned but I don’t feel having your family sexually assualted is the right way to start a vacation.

I would also like to see the USCCB come out with a statement on this comparing the likelihood of exposure to innappropriate contact or pornographic immaging to the bennefit of travel. Including a statement as to whether the pornography or fondling is more immoral as a guide to help Catholics choose the lesser evil.

I would also like to see guide lines for when a trip warrants exposing ones self and more importantly their family to this assualt. For instance, only fly when it is a life and death situation, or when required by ones job, but not for leisure travel.

 

[karbear]

Break it down to the base facts: Exposing oneself / submitt to being fondled in order to attain air travel. How is that any different than a girl who agrees to having her naked picture taken in order to get money for air travel?

It does sound creepy. It would probably feel very creepy. Is it different because the pat down is not (hopefully) sexual? Is the intent important?

 

[royal_archer]

It does sound creepy. It would probably feel very creepy. Is it different because the pat down is not (hopefully) sexual? Is the intent important?

I think intent on your part is important from a moral point of view. engaging in that activity because you don’t feel you have other options is on a higher moral ground than engaging in that activity because one does not see anything wrong with it.

If someone were to grab my wife between the legs or grabbing her chest, I would have a hard time not considering it to be sexual.

 

[karbear]

Well, that is what they are doing. Someone in power is grabbing you…in a sexual place. I am glad you put it that way.

 

[Tarpeian_Rock]

I stopped flying years ago (except emergencies) because the new measures don’t actually reduce the danger they just provide entertainment for perverted or otherwise demented TSA agents. When I drive, I don’t have to worry about if I have the wrong size shampoo bottle or fingernail clippers in my luggage.

I also will not allow my wife or children to fly. Call me old fashioned but I don’t feel having your family sexually assualted is the right way to start a vacation.

I would also like to see the USCCB come out with a statement on this comparing the likelihood of exposure to innappropriate contact or pornographic immaging to the bennefit of travel. Including a statement as to whether the pornography or fondling is more immoral as a guide to help Catholics choose the lesser evil.

I would also like to see guide lines for when a trip warrants exposing ones self and more importantly their family to this assualt. For instance, only fly when it is a life and death situation, or when required by ones job, but not for leisure travel.

A reasonable definition of “pornography” would be: “The portrayal of explicit sexual subject matter for the purposes of sexual excitement and erotic satisfaction.” Whatever the current TSA practices may be, it doesn’t fit this definition, and to gin up a moral issue where one doesn’t exist does no good service to anyone. However, I believe it IS a moral problem to equate an innocent air traveler involuntarily subject to TSA procedures to a porn actress voluntarily exposing her body for money - as you did in an adjoining post.

 

[royal_archer]

A reasonable definition of “pornography” would be: “The portrayal of explicit sexual subject matter for the purposes of sexual excitement and erotic satisfaction.” Whatever the current TSA practices may be, it doesn’t fit this definition, and to gin up a moral issue where one doesn’t exist does no good service to anyone.

Can you prove that those images will not be used for excitement or satisfaction?

How can you not see the moral issues of people getting felt up or photographed in essentially a naked state?

However, I believe it IS a moral problem to equate an innocent air traveler involuntarily subject to TSA procedures to a porn actress voluntarily exposing her body for money - as you did in an adjoining post.

No one is involuntarily subjected to those screenings yet. I did not say actress or doing it just for money. I specifically stated the question as a comparison of person one who has chosen to expose themselves in order to obtain air travel with another person who also has chosen to expose themselves in order to obtain air travel. The only difference between the two scenarios is the constraining factor with the first being constrained by the TSA and the other by financial resources. Regardless of the constraining factor the common thread is that in both scenarios the person is choosing to expose themselves in order to obtain air travel. If you feel the air travel is not a worthy rationale to expose themselves in one scenario, how can you feel that it is ok in the other scenario.

 

[royal_archer]

Caution: not apporopriate for children.

barcelonareporter.com/index.php?/news/comments/naked_body_scanner_images_of_film_star_shahrukh_khan_printed_circulated_by_/

disregard the images because they are likely doctored.

please just consider the issue with the pictures being printed and circulated.

 

[DebChris]

I must go through the scanner in Amsterdam in order to return to the states. It is only traveling to the states that this is required. No, it is not voluntary.
I would say that I was perhaps a little nervous the first time. The image is no more than a silhouette of the body. It is not to be feared. It does show if there is a foreign object under the clothing, nothing more. In my case, it was the rosary I wear around my neck.
I actually find it more intrusive when my luggage is checked than going through the scanner.

 

[royal_archer]

I must go through the scanner in Amsterdam in order to return to the states. It is only traveling to the states that this is required. No, it is not voluntary.

It is voluntary from the aspect that you do not have to go to the airport. As opposed to being stopped on the street and being forced to endure the electro strip search.

 

[DebChris]

It is voluntary from the aspect that you do not have to go to the airport. As opposed to being stopped on the street and being forced to endure the electro strip search.

I do have to go to the airport if I am to return to America from the Middle East. I am flying, not traveling by ship.

 

[graceandglory]

I do not want to go through the body scanners at the airport or get a pat down with inappropriate touching. I also have a plane ticket and want to go visit my mother for Christmas. Should I submit to this? It makes me want to cry thinking about it, but I don’t know if that is simply a preference or there is a moral question involved. I know that modesty tends to decrease with age and experience, but what about the people who are really, extremely uncomfortable with this? Does the Church teach anything about it? Is it immodest? Is it wrong to feel so upset about it?

I’m trying to figure it out too.
Is it wrong to have a Doctor give a woman a pelvic exam, or a man a bimanual exam?
Is it wrong for an artist to paint a nude?

I am extremely uncomfortable about it. I also know flying the friendly skies is not my constitutional right as an American. If I want to fly, I need to follow the rules. I can choose not to fly until the get the bugs worked out of the system.

John Paul II addresses this (not the body scanners) but being seen in an undressed state, in his Theology of the Body. In my searching theology of the body and airport scanners today, I found this article at Christianity Today, which cites Pope Benedict saying,
“the primary asset to be safeguarded and treasured is the person, in his or her integrity.”
blog.christianitytoday.com/women/2010/03/citing_modesty_two_women_refus.html

I found it very eye-opening that the article in Christianity Today, a protestant publication, ended its article with this, "No major Protestant groups have issued statements about the scanners. "

 

[royal_archer]

I do have to go to the airport if I am to return to America from the Middle East. I am flying, not traveling by ship.

I pressume the trip over there was voluntary right?

 

[DebChris]

I pressume the trip over there was voluntary right?

It is where I found employment after many months of being out of work.
Again, I have not been scanned on my way overseas; only when I return for my yearly vacation=part of the employment package.
As stated earlier, all that shows is a silhouette of the body, no private parts.
There is greater exposure with a one piece swimsuit.

I am used to electronic scans used at court houses and other public places. For a short period after 9/11, people getting on public transportation (buses) were randomly scanned. There is a city on the Greyhound route through TX that routinely checks the luggage of those on board in an effort to combat drug trafficking.

 

[1ke]

I do have to go to the airport if I am to return to America from the Middle East. I am flying, not traveling by ship.

Forget it Deb. People on this thread are entirely beyond reason.

 

[DebChris]

Forget it Deb. People on this thread are entirely beyond reason.

Thanks Ike. Paranoia can be like that. It’s not like I’m a soldier on combat duty. Yes, soldiers and sailors going TDY have been on the same flights as I. I went home twice this year=once for vacation, and before that for my brother’s funeral.
The scanners are not to be feared.