Naked Body Scanners

[ToeInTheWater]

It seems this has gone from a moral debate to a political one, and I think results in a lot of people missing the point. Many are arguing that the new TSA guidelines are “wrong” in the terms of being poor public policy, possibly a civil rights violation. Accusations of government corruption and uncharitable insinuations that all TSA agents are perverts salivating at the prospect of seeing naked bodies and touching private parts have been made.

And yet, none of this seems to tackle the issue of whether it is moral for Joe and Jane Catholic catching a flight today to visit relatives for Thanksgiving to go along with such procedures. So far, no one has convinced me that anyone who submits to either the body scan or the pat-down is sinning. Which is good, since I’ll be flying out myself (so should really be sleeping) and I know at least one of the airports I’ll be going through does have such a scanner…since I’ve gone through it before myself, as well as gotten the enhanced pat-down. No groping occured, the process was very quick and I really thought “That was it?”

It seems that using the doctor analogy, if a doctor takes advantage of his position to sexually molest patients (or just lust over the visuals he gets of naked bodies),or gets rich by committing fraud or moonlighting as a drug dealer selling drug samples on the street…while the doctor is certainly sinning, that doesn’t mean his patients are. Especially if he’s the only available provider for that specialty in the area and it would be very inconvenient to, say, drive 300 miles to see another one. I have actually known of cases where doctors made the news for inappropriate behavior, yet continued to see patients until they were fired or had their licenses revoked. I can’t see myself doing that, but I can think of a number of reasons these patients might have…perhaps they wanted to give the doctor the benefit of the doubt, perhaps no one else in the area accepted their insurance, perhaps they just didn’t know about the allegations (not everyone watches the news or reads the paper every day). Were all of those patients sinning by providing the doctor with more of an opportunity to sin? I seriously doubt it.

 

[royal_archer]

it must be realized that this is an excuse to further demoralize the citizens of this country.
some years back, it was “better red than dead.” if one wants security, try prison with
maximum security. that is where we are headed unless the people of this nation get
some backbone and start fighting for their country instead of calling 911 to have some
one else do it for you.
too many people have died to give you what you want to throw away. freedom, freedom,
freedom.
you have become to comfortable and soft. the girls have taken over. have a good year.
(alih)
p.s. maybe they will do a better job unless you get out of your comfortble holes.
i said it and i’m glad.

sad but true.

 

[royal_archer]

Maybe…or maybe I’m a bit too much of an idealist to think the Feds can actually get something right.

Why not, look at medicare and social security; Freddie and Fannie; obama care; the post office. . .

 

[royal_archer]

And yet, none of this seems to tackle the issue of whether it is moral for Joe and Jane Catholic catching a flight today to visit relatives for Thanksgiving to go along with such procedures. So far, no one has convinced me that anyone who submits to either the body scan or the pat-down is sinning. Which is good, since I’ll be flying out myself (so should really be sleeping) and I know at least one of the airports I’ll be going through does have such a scanner…since I’ve gone through it before myself, as well as gotten the enhanced pat-down. No groping occured, the process was very quick and I really thought “That was it?”

It seems that using the doctor analogy, if a doctor takes advantage of his position to sexually molest patients (or just lust over the visuals he gets of naked bodies),or gets rich by committing fraud or moonlighting as a drug dealer selling drug samples on the street…while the doctor is certainly sinning, that doesn’t mean his patients are. Especially if he’s the only available provider for that specialty in the area and it would be very inconvenient to, say, drive 300 miles to see another one. I have actually known of cases where doctors made the news for inappropriate behavior, yet continued to see patients until they were fired or had their licenses revoked. I can’t see myself doing that, but I can think of a number of reasons these patients might have…perhaps they wanted to give the doctor the benefit of the doubt, perhaps no one else in the area accepted their insurance, perhaps they just didn’t know about the allegations (not everyone watches the news or reads the paper every day). Were all of those patients sinning by providing the doctor with more of an opportunity to sin? I seriously doubt it.

I’d equate flying where there is the possibility of having to expose yourself or engage in inappropriate contact to be simmilar to the moral dillema around voting. This is a case where you as an individual have to discern between the multitude of evils to choose the least evil in your case.

Is a guy letting another guy (or woman other than his wife) the lesser evil of the option of staying home or taking the trip by car? Is putting a child through that a lesser evil than not going on a family vacation?

I doubt that most TSA agents enjoy the pat downs any more than you do. However as time goes on, many of those will quit and I am sure there are plenty of perverts trying to get those jobs.

The Doctor annalogy is appropriate to consider but is not an apple to apple comparison. Not getting examined by a stranger in a TSA uniform resulting no Carribean vacation vs not getting examined by a doctor you know and trust resulting in an undiagnosed cancer.

If a patient knows a doctor will act inappropriately with them and they still go to that doctor when other options are available, it would be a sin because they are making a concious decision to participate in the sin.

Does this answer your questions?

 

[DanteAlighieri]

Have you seen the actual images or just what they released as the “actual images” Keep in mind that what they reveal as security capabilities is seldom the true capability.

I linked to the article that I used as a source. It includes body scan images. What source are you using other than hearsay?

Peace,
Dante

 

[JohnMPhilomena]

I do not like these searches either. My daughter is a nun and she refused to go in the machine, but submitted to the pat-down.

The TSA agent looked at her and let her pass without the pat-down, mumbling something like “if you can’t trust a nun, who can you trust.”

I think the Holy Spirit worked on him!

But, I did think of another perspective. We go to the doctor and dis-robe and submit to physical exams. So I think morally, we can submit to the TSA pat-down under the assumption / expectation that neither party is deriving any sexual pleasure from it.

 

[royal_archer]

I linked to the article that I used as a source. It includes body scan images. What source are you using other than hearsay?

Peace,
Dante

Experience.

 

[royal_archer]

I do not like these searches either. My daughter is a nun and she refused to go in the machine, but submitted to the pat-down.

The TSA agent looked at her and let her pass without the pat-down, mumbling something like “if you can’t trust a nun, who can you trust.”

I think the Holy Spirit worked on him!

But, I did think of another perspective. We go to the doctor and dis-robe and submit to physical exams. So I think morally, we can submit to the TSA pat-down under the assumption / expectation that neither party is deriving any sexual pleasure from it.

The doctor annalogy only works if the bennefit derived is equivalent. The doctor can save your life, what is the bennefit of the trip itself? a vacation?

 

[runningdude]

Even, Even, Even if these TSA screenings successfully detect an “underwear bomb”, the simple fact is that a dedicated suicide terrorist would simply detonate it in the terminal building instead. I traveled out of Port au Prince in Haiti (before the earthquake ), a country with its fair share of security issues, you must wait in line to walk through the metal detectors and baggage X-rays just to enter the building! At JFK before I left, we simply walked through the front door, and wasn’t until we left the ticketing area and enter the waiting/boarding area did we go through any kind of security.

My take on these TSA patdowns and scanners is that they are simply useless and unnecessary and expensive for every passenger to go through. It is an unjustified invasion to risk radiation exposure and innappropriate touching, especially when front door to the building is wide open!

We live in open country, and that makes us an easy target. We are also a free and beautiful nation, and only a few truly sick terrorists have actually desecrated our soil. We need to take proactive measures to defend again new threats that respect our freedom, not poorly thought out and mildly dangerous reactionary thinking that got us the scanners and pat downs.

 

[tjm190]

Experience.

A freedom of information act request was filed and over 100 images were released

gizmodo.com/5690820/body-scanner-pic-gallery/gallery/2

Do you find blurry vaguely human forms offensive?

Furthermore, if you are going to claim that the released photos are less accurate than the ‘real’ ones, some tangible evidence is required.

I could just as easily claim that TSA agents have xray glasses that allow them to see through clothes in full detail, but without evidence that claim is worthless.

 

[JohnMPhilomena]

The doctor annalogy only works if the bennefit derived is equivalent. The doctor can save your life, what is the bennefit of the trip itself? a vacation?

In theory, the benefit is you will arrive at your destination without getting blown to smithereens.

In practicality, I don’t think this is making us any safer.

 

[royal_archer]

A freedom of information act request was filed and over 100 images were released

gizmodo.com/5690820/body-scanner-pic-gallery/gallery/2

Do you find blurry vaguely human forms offensive?

Furthermore, if you are going to claim that the released photos are less accurate than the ‘real’ ones, some tangible evidence is required.

I could just as easily claim that TSA agents have xray glasses that allow them to see through clothes in full detail, but without evidence that claim is worthless.

Do you really think a submission of a freedom of information act will result in the government releasing information that is deemed classified for security reasons?

 

[royal_archer]

In theory, the benefit is you will arrive at your destination without getting blown to smithereens.

In practicality, I don’t think this is making us any safer.

But does the bennefit of going to the destination via air travel justify the immorality?

 

[alih]

additionally…from this person’s view, this is just another nail into the freedoms this country
used to have. some idiot hijacked a plane years ago and got jumped out of the plane
with a large ransom. some others hijacked planes by to cuba.
the feds, not letting legal constraints get in the way, put people through electronic
detectors and other means of unwarranted searches. the people said nothing exempt;
“please protect us from those bad people.”
children were kidnapped for social engineering; “like your gas prices”
public accommodation rules were expanded to cover private clubs,
federal rules forced banks to get driver’s license numbers and other information to be
either reported to or available to the feds for a centralized data bank. (thanks computers)
travelers were forced to get new passports with a computer readable computer chip.
digital t.v. was mandated as analogue transmissions cannot be controlled.
cameras and sensors that have the ability to read and transmit information to a
centralized monitoring station have been set up nationally. (why?)
naked body scanners and other electronic surveillance techniques have been
installed not only in airports but also public building. (who are they protecting?)
new driver’'s licenses mandated by the feds have the computer chip embedded
into them.
our religious beliefs have been attacked while individuals with questionable morals
tell us that we are discriminating against them.
just expressing my enmity at what has been going on.
welcome to the “people’s socialist republican police state” formerly known as the
united states of america.
have a good year. (alih)
p.s. is it too late for change???

 

[tjm190]

Do you really think a submission of a freedom of information act will result in the government releasing information that is deemed classified for security reasons?

Who says what the images look like are considered classified?

Again, if you believe the government is taking super detailed images and wish other to believe the same, you bear the burden of proof.

I mean, certainly if the government had x-ray glasses that let TSA agents see through clothes then that would be classified. Therefore, the fact that they deny that these glasses exist doesn’t mean anything. Of course I can’t find evidence to support their existence, the government is hiding all of it!

 

[Debora123]

But does the bennefit of going to the destination via air travel justify the immorality?

I thought we had already established that the Church does not consider it to be immoral…

If you think it’s wrong and you forbid your kids and wife to fly, then that’s fine, that’s your choice, and your opinion. But don’t hold others accountable for doing something that the Church has no problem with, and don’t claim that you have the power to say it’s immoral and sinful.

 

[tjm190]

But does the bennefit of going to the destination via air travel justify the immorality?

What immorality? The fact that someone may or may not be seeing an image of us detailed enough to be immoral, even though there is no compelling evidence that such a thing is happening?

 

[royal_archer]

I thought we had already established that the Church does not consider it to be immoral…

If you think it’s wrong and you forbid your kids and wife to fly, then that’s fine, that’s your choice, and your opinion. But don’t hold others accountable for doing something that the Church has no problem with, and don’t claim that you have the power to say it’s immoral and sinful.

The church has not spoken on the issue. If they do they will likely do so in generic terms like they do for voting. For instance it is clearly immoral to vote for someone who supports abortion but the church will not declare that voting for a specific candidate is immoral.

Show me where the church has NO problem with putting children through that process. Or with one engaging in that activity on a voluntary basis.

 

[Tarpeian_Rock]

The church has not spoken on the issue. If they do they will likely do so in generic terms like they do for voting. For instance it is clearly immoral to vote for someone who supports abortion but the church will not declare that voting for a specific candidate is immoral.

Show me where the church has NO problem with putting children through that process. Or with one engaging in that activity on a voluntary basis.

As pointed out by others, the burden is on **you **to show that the Church DOES (allegedly) have a problem with bringing children through security. I am unable to show you where the Church has no problem with my taking my children to an amusement park, but just the same I strongly suspect that Church doesn’t have a problem with that.

 

[Debora123]

The church has not spoken on the issue. If they do they will likely do so in generic terms like they do for voting. For instance it is clearly immoral to vote for someone who supports abortion but the church will not declare that voting for a specific candidate is immoral.

Show me where the church has NO problem with putting children through that process. Or with one engaging in that activity on a voluntary basis.

You’re the one claiming it’s a sin, show me where She DOES. I guarantee you, the Church has not spoken on this issue because it’s silly. plain and simple. If it were wrong and immoral, the Church would have said something by now.

And you’re wrong about the voting thing. If something is immoral, the Church has no problem saying so. The Church has not declared that voting for a pro abortion candidate is immoral, because it ISN’T immoral. From what our parish priest told us during the last presidential election, it’s SUCH a gray issue, that the Church will not officially identify it as immoral. It all depends on the voters’ intent. THAT is the Church’s stance on voting. It isn’t a case of it not having been addressed yet.

I’d also like to make the note that when you go to the Doctor for full physicals/examinations, you have to expose yourself completely and get groped. Especially for breast examinations, gyno appointments, and testicular hernia checks. But yet I don’t see anyone saying THAT’S immoral. I don’t see anyone saying THAT’S pornography and molestation.

If the Church ever actually does come out and say full body scans are immoral (which I can bet my life on that She won’t bc it isn’t), I’ll shut my mouth like I said I would. In the mean time, I find it pretty inappropriate for others to be claiming we’re committing sins for doing something the Church has never even addressed as being a sin.