Naked Body Scanners

[Big_Dummy]

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?

The alternative is to fly naked or maybe change clothes into flying uniforms. One could enter a changing room remove all clothing and jewerly put everything into a carry on which is then passed through a small door like an urine sample to be inspected without your body. Then you would walk down a short hall where it can be verflied that you are completely naked. Then you enter a second changing room where you put on the flying uniform.

What matters is I doubt that the scanners are even safe for anyone.
“He states that radiation produced by the scanners is twenty times higher than the official estimate.” which is the radiation you get in a chest xray.
rutherford.org/articles_db/commentary.asp?record_id=685

In Israel, each flyer meets a trained interrogrator for 5 to 20 mintues each to determine whom to search.

If you want to have a little fun, refuse the scan tell them that you are gay and demand to be examined by the oppostie sex whom you are not attracted to. I am betting that they don’t even want to open that can of worms and let you pass.

 

[karbear]

The alternative is to fly naked or maybe change clothes into flying uniforms. One could enter a changing room remove all clothing and jewerly put everything into a carry on which is then passed through a small door like an urine sample to be inspected without your body. Then you would walk down a short hall where it can be verflied that you are completely naked. Then you enter a second changing room where you put on the flying uniform.

What matters is I doubt that the scanners are even safe for anyone.
“He states that radiation produced by the scanners is twenty times higher than the official estimate.” which is the radiation you get in a chest xray.
rutherford.org/articles_db/commentary.asp?record_id=685

QUOTE]

I have a different outlook than when I first posted the question. I didn’t know that they were reaching down people’s pants and acting drunk with power. I didn’t know that you couldn’t leave if you wanted to. Another question about the radiation besides the dose is the fact that it is concentrated on the skin which is amuch smaller area than the total body. I wouldn’t like to find out later about the skin cancer or premature aging due to dna damage.
There is a funny vido on the web where a security guard is explaining to a passenger…“don’t worry, the chance of harm from that dose of radiation is very low…about the same as dying in a terrorist attack.”

This whole thing is very bizarre.

 

[Debora123]

What people seem to be missing here is that this is all for our own safety. They didn’t put the body scanners in the airports to embarrass you or to offend modesty or because they enjoy the extra work of looking at “naked” people walking through. They did it because people out there like to carry bombs and weapons into planes and blow everyone up. This scanner will keep that from happening. I don’t know about you, but I’d rather me and my loved ones have to go through a scanner than be blown up mid air! Think of it as going to the doctor. We all have to go periodically for full physical examinations. It’s for our own safety and well being, and there’s nothing sinful or wrong or impure about that. The workers who walk you through the scanner aren’t the same workers who sit behind the desk and watch you scan on the screen. They don’t see you face to face. They sit there and go through hundreds of scans each day, pretty much non stop. They’re not going to get to your specific scan and think to themselves “oh my goodness, I’m seeing this person naked!”

Furthermore, I looked at some images online of what the scans actually look like, and they’re honestly not that bad. They aren’t detailed, colored images of your naked body. They are more like 3-D silhouettes - pretty much just the shape and figure of your body, with minimal detail.

If you feel uncomfortable with it to the point where you won’t fly anymore, that’s completely fine… it’s your choice, and it’s not wrong to feel upset about it. Some people here though, have said the scanner should be all together banned, and THAT I don’t agree with. Think about it. It’s about your safety and the safety of all those other human beings on your flight. Those are other people’s loved ones. That’s what the scanner is for.

This is also a personal issue with me, because 1. my husband is a pilot and 2. I have family all over the country and all over South America. We travel A LOT. I want my loved ones to be safe, just like everyone else’s loved ones want them to be safe when they fly. I don’t think it’s right for anyone to write to the airlines and try to get the scanner banned because I think putting other people’s lives at risk just because you don’t want to be humiliated by going through a scanner is a little selfish.

 

[royal_archer]

There is a funny vido on the web where a security guard is explaining to a passenger…“don’t worry, the chance of harm from that dose of radiation is very low…about the same as dying in a terrorist attack.”

This whole thing is very bizarre.

I heard a spoof audio clip like one of those late night “phone sex” line commercials where women with sexy voices are encouraging people to opt for the pat down because then might get patted down by one of them.

This whole thing is a joke that is starting to remind me of some of the juvenile hazing stunts where you keep making the target go through sillier and sillier tasks while seeing how long you can string them along doing pointless and humiliating stuff.

 

[royal_archer]

What people seem to be missing here is that this is all for our own safety. They didn’t put the body scanners in the airports to embarrass you or to offend modesty or because they enjoy the extra work of looking at “naked” people walking through. They did it because people out there like to carry bombs and weapons into planes and blow everyone up. This scanner will keep that from happening. I don’t know about you, but I’d rather me and my loved ones have to go through a scanner than be blown up mid air! Think of it as going to the doctor. We all have to go periodically for full physical examinations. It’s for our own safety and well being, and there’s nothing sinful or wrong or impure about that. The workers who walk you through the scanner aren’t the same workers who sit behind the desk and watch you scan on the screen. They don’t see you face to face. They sit there and go through hundreds of scans each day, pretty much non stop. They’re not going to get to your specific scan and think to themselves “oh my goodness, I’m seeing this person naked!”

Furthermore, I looked at some images online of what the scans actually look like, and they’re honestly not that bad. They aren’t detailed, colored images of your naked body. They are more like 3-D silhouettes - pretty much just the shape and figure of your body, with minimal detail.

If you feel uncomfortable with it to the point where you won’t fly anymore, that’s completely fine… it’s your choice, and it’s not wrong to feel upset about it. Some people here though, have said the scanner should be all together banned, and THAT I don’t agree with. Think about it. It’s about your safety and the safety of all those other human beings on your flight. Those are other people’s loved ones. That’s what the scanner is for.

This is also a personal issue with me, because 1. my husband is a pilot and 2. I have family all over the country and all over South America. We travel A LOT. I want my loved ones to be safe, just like everyone else’s loved ones want them to be safe when they fly. I don’t think it’s right for anyone to write to the airlines and try to get the scanner banned because I think putting other people’s lives at risk just because you don’t want to be humiliated by going through a scanner is a little selfish.

Selfishness is a matter of perspective we could say that those wanting the draconian measures are selfish.

Considering the statistical history in the US, if you are flying an Air Bus, you are much more likely to have your plane just spontaneously flying apart in mid air than being blown up by a terrorist. If you want safety, the dollars would be much more effectively spent upgrading the actual aircraft.

 

[roveau]

What people seem to be missing here is that this is all for our own safety. They didn’t put the body scanners in the airports to embarrass you or to offend modesty or because they enjoy the extra work of looking at “naked” people walking through. They did it because people out there like to carry bombs and weapons into planes and blow everyone up. This scanner will keep that from happening. I don’t know about you, but I’d rather me and my loved ones have to go through a scanner than be blown up mid air! Think of it as going to the doctor. We all have to go periodically for full physical examinations. It’s for our own safety and well being, and there’s nothing sinful or wrong or impure about that. The workers who walk you through the scanner aren’t the same workers who sit behind the desk and watch you scan on the screen. They don’t see you face to face. They sit there and go through hundreds of scans each day, pretty much non stop. They’re not going to get to your specific scan and think to themselves “oh my goodness, I’m seeing this person naked!”

Furthermore, I looked at some images online of what the scans actually look like, and they’re honestly not that bad. They aren’t detailed, colored images of your naked body. They are more like 3-D silhouettes - pretty much just the shape and figure of your body, with minimal detail.

If you feel uncomfortable with it to the point where you won’t fly anymore, that’s completely fine… it’s your choice, and it’s not wrong to feel upset about it. Some people here though, have said the scanner should be all together banned, and THAT I don’t agree with. Think about it. It’s about your safety and the safety of all those other human beings on your flight. Those are other people’s loved ones. That’s what the scanner is for.

This is also a personal issue with me, because 1. my husband is a pilot and 2. I have family all over the country and all over South America. We travel A LOT. I want my loved ones to be safe, just like everyone else’s loved ones want them to be safe when they fly. I don’t think it’s right for anyone to write to the airlines and try to get the scanner banned because I think putting other people’s lives at risk just because you don’t want to be humiliated by going through a scanner is a little selfish.

Agreed.

I don’t know why some good Catholics are misrepresenting or exaggerating these procedures which are aimed at protecting innocent lives. The more precautions at an airport, the safer I feel when flying.

There has been an assumption that the body frisk is ‘inappropriate touching’, ‘fondling’ being ‘groped/sexually assulted’ by perverts. Employees, ‘grabbing’ between legs and sexual areas and ‘fondling’ chests. This is a misrepresentation and seems to be creating a sort of hysteria. It also puts into disrepute the good names of airport security employees (labelled ‘perverted or otherwise demented TSA agents’) and their employees. The police have been frisking people for years in the name of public safety. We all know that if any employee really did engage in ‘inapproproiate touching’ they would be legally up for sexual assualt and that would be prosecutable… and easy to prove with all the security cameras about.

The scanners have been represented as being ‘as close to “nude” as you can get’ - that would be scary but it just is not true. It was suggested that the scans would be kept by the airports when in actuality they are used only for the moment and are not archived. The scans have been equated with pornography. Writers here portray it as being ‘photographed in essentially a naked state’. Even pedophilia has been mentioned.

That this is all a misrepresentation is illustrated by the fact that the Pope, cardinals, bishops, the Church, have not spoken out on these security measures… and that priests, nuns, friars etc., submit to these procedures.

If these procedures protect travellers from being blown up mid flight, then that has to be a minor irritation that should be tolerated.

I do understand that to be frisked is intolerable to some people but there are alternatives for them. I’m guessing though that more people would find alternatives to air travel if they thought that it wasn’t close to 100% secure against would-be terrorists.

 

[OldSchoolChops]

Originally posted by Debora123:

What people seem to be missing here is that this is all for our own safety.

“Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759.

Originally posted by Debora123:

This scanner will keep that from happening.

With all due respect, can you point to any evidence, aside from faith in the assurances of the federal government, that validates your presumption?

Originally posted by Debora123:

Furthermore, I looked at some images online of what the scans actually look like, and they’re honestly not that bad.

Again, with all due respect, where would you draw the line? Irrespective of concerns about modesty and impurity, once we get accustomed to behavior like this, it seems to encourage the powers that be all the more to engage in further encroachments on our liberty.

Originally posted by Debora123:

Some people here though, have said the scanner should be all together banned, and THAT I don’t agree with. Think about it. It’s about your safety and the safety of all those other human beings on your flight. Those are other people’s loved ones. That’s what the scanner is for.

Because the next terrorist, of course, will hide explosives in his underwear, just like the last one. The TSA has this extraordinary ability to respond swiftly and effectively to the threat after it just happens. The track record of the federal government exhibits with painful clarity their lack of ability to manage anything beyond a lemonade stand. When they say something “is for our safety” is the precise moment warning bells and red flags should be going off in our minds.

A group of hijackers take over planes with boxcutters? No sharp objects permitted on your person.

A terrorist tries to blow up a plane with a bomb in his shoes? Now we remove our shoes before passing through security.

A group then attempts to get on a plane with explosives in beverage containers. No more “liquids and gels over three ounces.”

Underwear bomber → naked body scanner.

What’s next?

 

[royal_archer]

If these procedures protect travellers from being blown up mid flight, then that has to be a minor irritation that should be tolerated.

I do understand that to be frisked is intolerable to some people but there are alternatives for them. I’m guessing though that more people would find alternatives to air travel if they thought that it wasn’t close to 100% secure against would-be terrorists.

There is no evidence that these methods will protect anyone.

There are alternative to those who have a fear of terrorist.

 

[Debora123]

Selfishness is a matter of perspective we could say that those wanting the draconian measures are selfish.

Considering the statistical history in the US, if you are flying an Air Bus, you are much more likely to have your plane just spontaneously flying apart in mid air than being blown up by a terrorist. If you want safety, the dollars would be much more effectively spent upgrading the actual aircraft.

I don’t think it’s selfish to say that I’d rather people be scanned then have people die. I DO think it may be a little selfish to put ppl’s lives at risk just bc you don’t want to go through a scanner.

And what you said in the second paragraph is true, but this is what they have to offer right now. If that’s what they’ve got to make flying safer for the people, I’m all for it, and I highly doubt the Church has anything against that. In fact, I’m sure it doesn’t.

 

[Debora123]

Agreed.

I don’t know why some good Catholics are misrepresenting or exaggerating these procedures which are aimed at protecting innocent lives. The more precautions at an airport, the safer I feel when flying.

There has been an assumption that the body frisk is ‘inappropriate touching’, ‘fondling’ being ‘groped/sexually assulted’ by perverts. Employees, ‘grabbing’ between legs and sexual areas and ‘fondling’ chests. This is a misrepresentation and seems to be creating a sort of hysteria. It also puts into disrepute the good names of airport security employees (labelled ‘perverted or otherwise demented TSA agents’) and their employees. The police have been frisking people for years in the name of public safety. We all know that if any employee really did engage in ‘inapproproiate touching’ they would be legally up for sexual assualt and that would be prosecutable… and easy to prove with all the security cameras about.

The scanners have been represented as being ‘as close to “nude” as you can get’ - that would be scary but it just is not true. It was suggested that the scans would be kept by the airports when in actuality they are used only for the moment and are not archived. The scans have been equated with pornography. Writers here portray it as being ‘photographed in essentially a naked state’. Even pedophilia has been mentioned.

That this is all a misrepresentation is illustrated by the fact that the Pope, cardinals, bishops, the Church, have not spoken out on these security measures… and that priests, nuns, friars etc., submit to these procedures.

If these procedures protect travellers from being blown up mid flight, then that has to be a minor irritation that should be tolerated.

I do understand that to be frisked is intolerable to some people but there are alternatives for them. I’m guessing though that more people would find alternatives to air travel if they thought that it wasn’t close to 100% secure against would-be terrorists.

Thank you. Thank you for the logical thinking lol. It seems like we need more of that around here sometimes.

 

[onenow1]

There is no evidence that these methods will protect anyone.

There are alternative to those who have a fear of terrorist.

archer !
Wow a new form of porno ! :tsktsk:

Peace
onenow1

 

[Debora123]

“Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759.

Benjamin Franklin? Lol, who was he, the Pope?? (fyi - sarcasm lol)
What about going to the Doctor and getting full physical exams?? You could use that quote to condemn that too. Hopefully you get my point. Until the Church actually comes out and says this is immoral, I don’t think you can take it upon yourself to tell us it is. If this were wrong I’m pretty sure the Church would have said something by now, but I’ll give it the benefit of the doubt and wait, and if you’re right and I’m wrong, I’ll shut my mouth

With all due respect, can you point to any evidence, aside from faith in the assurances of the federal government, that validates your presumption?

Well the evidence is, considering you can see someone’s naked body through the scanner, you’d probably be able to see what they’re hiding under there. It’s a safety precaution. It’s not a guarantee that nothing bad will ever happen again. If the above is your mindset on the issue, then I guess one could use that same argument to speak out against any other safety precaution we take at airports.

Again, with all due respect, where would you draw the line? Irrespective of concerns about modesty and impurity, once we get accustomed to behavior like this, it seems to encourage the powers that be all the more to engage in further encroachments on our liberty.

Why would I have to talk about where I would draw the line? I simply stated that I saw what the scans look like and that there was no color and very very little detail, and I thought there was nothing wrong with that. Again, until the Church comes out and says there is (which it won’t do, bc there isn’t), I’ll continue to believe it’s perfectly fine.

Because the next terrorist, of course, will hide explosives in his underwear, just like the last one. The TSA has this extraordinary ability to respond swiftly and effectively to the threat after it just happens. The track record of the federal government exhibits with painful clarity their lack of ability to manage anything beyond a lemonade stand. When they say something “is for our safety” is the precise moment warning bells and red flags should be going off in our minds.

A group of hijackers take over planes with boxcutters? No sharp objects permitted on your person.

A terrorist tries to blow up a plane with a bomb in his shoes? Now we remove our shoes before passing through security.

A group then attempts to get on a plane with explosives in beverage containers. No more “liquids and gels over three ounces.”

Underwear bomber → naked body scanner.

What’s next?

Well yes, something bad happens and they take the precaution to make sure it doesn’t happen again. What’s been the problem with that? Are you trying to suggest nothing should be done then? Should we be allowed to carry sharp objects on planes then? Should we not run our bags through scanners anymore? Is that what you want? I’m pretty sure Osama would looooove that!

 

[Debora123]

There is no evidence that these methods will protect anyone.

There are alternative to those who have a fear of terrorist.

Sure it will. It’ll make sure ppl don’t hide weapons under their clothes!

“There are alternatives to those who fear terrorists” you say. Two things wrong with that statement.

1. Business trips a lot of times require quick transportation. There is no other alternative for those people. Some people have family who live out of the country (me) or over seas. There is no other alternative for them either. Believe it or not, they don’t make trains that go to Europe!
2. Great! So whoever wants to fly should just have to suck it up and not fear terrorists. In that case we should just get rid of all the OTHER safety precautions as well. I mean, why run our bags through scanners? If someone is scared of a terrorist carrying a bomb on his carry on, that person should just not fly. Plain and simple!

 

[Romanova]

Sure it will. It’ll make sure ppl don’t hide weapons under their clothes!

“There are alternatives to those who fear terrorists” you say. Two things wrong with that statement.

1. Business trips a lot of times require quick transportation. There is no other alternative for those people. Some people have family who live out of the country (me) or over seas. There is no other alternative for them either. Believe it or not, they don’t make trains that go to Europe!
2. Great! So whoever wants to fly should just have to suck it up and not fear terrorists. In that case we should just get rid of all the OTHER safety precautions as well. I mean, why run our bags through scanners? If someone is scared of a terrorist carrying a bomb on his carry on, that person should just not fly. Plain and simple!

I suspect the poster you quoted meant that there are alternative methods of keeping air travel safe, rather than alternative means of travel?

I’m all for safety and security. But let’s have real security, not just security theater. Let’s fully screen cargo. Let’s find a system that prevents boarding passes from being forged. Let’s make sure that security lines aren’t themselves dangerous by gathering too many people in one place, and install blastproof glass at all checkpoints. And yes, let’s think about some of the Israeli practices and whether they could or should be implemented here.

But I’m just not convinced that the safety that might be gained from these new policies is worth the cost.

 

[OldSchoolChops]

Debora123:
I think we’re arguing apples and oranges here. I was primarily concerned with overreach by the federal government as a basis to rebut your argument in favor of the scanners, as opposed to concerns of morality and purity. To the extent my post’s intent appeared to be an attempt to goad you into a fight over the politics of limited government and the Constitution, please accept my apology.

My apologies as well to the moderators, lest my words in any way may be construed to derail the thrust of this topic. This is a religious, and not [overtly] political forum, so my message may not fully be valid here.

Nevertheless, our society has become gripped with fear fueled in large part by our “leaders” who only too happy to oblige our bleats for “security” at the expense of our freedom. Our way of life has been drastically, and most likely irreparably altered for the worse.

I think Osama loves that plenty well.

 

[Debora123]

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

Lol, ANY picture can be used for excitement or molestation.

A picture that shows someone’s feet - there are ppl out there with foot fetishes

A picture that shows an attractive girl who is still fully clothed - men can get turned on by a picture of a beautiful girl, even if she is dressed modestly.

Pictures of your children - there are pedophiles out there.

Are you gonna prohibit your wife and kids to have cameras as well???

 

[Morwenna]

From the 19th Nov.The Seattle Times

That riff is a crowd-pleaser because everyone knows that the entire apparatus of the security line is a national homage to political correctness. Nowhere do more people meekly acquiesce to more useless inconvenience and needless indignity for less purpose. Wizened seniors strain to untie their shoes; beltless salesmen struggle comically to hold up their pants; 3-year-olds scream while being searched insanely for explosives — when everyone, everyone, knows that none of these people is a threat to anyone. We pretend that we go through this nonsense as a small price paid to assure the safety of air travel. Rubbish. This has nothing to do with safety — 95 percent of these inspections, searches, shoe removals and pat-downs are ridiculously unnecessary. The only reason we continue to do this is that people are too cowed to even question the absurd taboo against profiling — when the profile of the airline attacker is narrow, concrete, uniquely definable and universally known. So instead of seeking out terrorists, we seek out tubes of gel in stroller pouches. The junk man’s revolt marks the point at which a docile public declares that it will tolerate only so much idiocy. Metal detector? Back-of-the-hand pat? OK. We will swallow hard and pretend airline attackers are randomly distributed in the population. But now you insist on a full-body scan, a fairly accurate representation of my naked image to be viewed by a total stranger? Or alternatively, the full-body pat-down, which, as the junk man correctly noted, would be sexual assault if performed by anyone else? This time you have gone too far, Big Bro’. The sleeping giant awakes. Take my shoes, remove my belt, waste my time and try my patience. But don’t touch my junk.

:clapping:

 

[quotidianum]

I work overseas. I have been through the scanner on my way back to the states. It does not show the body in the way that most people fear. It did show the first time I went through that I was wearing my rosary under my clothes.
I would be more concerned about “inappropriate touching.”

No, they very much are naked body scanners. Here are several examples:

google.com/images?hl=en&source=imghp&q=naked+body+scanner&gbv=2&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=

And, yes, I agree, the touching is bad as well. I’m faced with the same choice myself, and I know I’m going to get groped because I will not submit to the scanner. And I won’t be quiet while it is happening, either, because I have an obligation to speak out about this. And if they thing they’re getting my Rosary and Scapular off me, they got another thing coming!!

 

[onenow1]

I think we’re arguing apples and oranges here. I was primarily concerned with overreach by the federal government as a basis to rebut your argument in favor of the scanners, as opposed to concerns of morality and purity. To the extent my post’s intent appeared to be an attempt to goad you into a fight over the politics of limited government and the Constitution, please accept my apology.

My apologies as well to the moderators, lest my words in any way may be construed to derail the thrust of this topic. This is a religious, and not [overtly] political forum, so my message may not fully be valid here.

Nevertheless, our society has become gripped with fear fueled in large part by our “leaders” who only too happy to oblige our bleats for “security” at the expense of our freedom. Our way of life has been drastically, and most likely irreparably altered for the worse.

I think Osama loves that plenty well.

:thumbsup:Chops
I was wondering are the scans 100% fool proof ? Then lead popped into my mind. Fido at the gates can be the answer and I think their cheaper then the scans.

Peace

 

[royal_archer]

I don’t think it’s selfish to say that I’d rather people be scanned then have people die. I DO think it may be a little selfish to put ppl’s lives at risk just bc you don’t want to go through a scanner.

And what you said in the second paragraph is true, but this is what they have to offer right now. If that’s what they’ve got to make flying safer for the people, I’m all for it, and I highly doubt the Church has anything against that. In fact, I’m sure it doesn’t.

My going through a scanner does not make anyone safer. my not going through a scanner does not put lives at risk.

The church does not have anything against these acts. I expect the church to remain silent on the entire issue of necesary safeguards for safety and will defer to “local” authority on such issues. Where church teaching comes into play is the decision between necesity and morality. If one has to expose themself to fly is it realy that important that they fly? is the good achieved by the flight out weigh the bad.

Why do you feel that 100 people in an airplane should have such scrutiny while 100 people in close proximity on the ground do not get equal scrutiny?

If it will make it safer how about we have random unanounced searches of homes that are in stinger range of an airport’s traffic pattern? At what point does this blank check for security bounce?