Naked Body Scanners

[karbear]

Right, but obviously, traveling, in isolation, is not a sin. And I’m sure we can all agree on that. The discussion here, and the reason you started this thread, was because you were in doubt about whether or not it’s a sin to go through the new security procedures, correct? So I thought THAT was what we’re trying to justify here.

And it’s ok if it’s his opinion, that’s totally fine. But he’s making it out to be like it’s THE WORD or something. The Church has not spoken on this issue. She has not told us it was wrong. She has not told us to stop traveling. She hasn’t even said that these security measures need to be abolished. Royal is making is sound like it IS wrong and if we still travel we’ll be sinning. I don’t think a single person, especially one who isn’t a pope or a bishop or even a priest, can come out and tell us we’re doing something wrong just because that’s his opinion, and not because it’s what the Church teaches. I have nothing against his opinion, as long as he recognizes that it’s his opinion and doesn’t try to play it off like it’s Church doctrine by condemning anyone who wants to fly somewhere.

I started it because I din’t feel like I was informed enough to make the best decision. I didn’t feel like I had the knowledge to really understand the criteria involved. I was never interested in a blanket judgement on anyone who decides one way or the other. I am interested in knowing the truth. I don’t think that you are right about Royal. I don’t think that he ever passed himself off as having some sort of authority that he doesn’t. I do think its okay to have a discussion about this and even use the word sin, and even discuss whter or not something can be objectively considered sinful. I don’t think that doing so amounts to passing judgement on other people. No one knows anothers heart.

 

[royal_archer]

The related issue in this case would be going to the doctor. Many of us have said that many times in this thread.

The doctor provides detection and treatment of diseases and the contact by the doctor is a reasonable based on the bennefit received in terms of protecting a childs life and health.

But if it were not a doctor and the child in no way bennefitted from the contact would you still approve of a stranger touching your child?

 

[royal_archer]

And besides, I thought we were talking about the new safety procedures here, not just about traveling in isolation. It would have been more accurate for you to say intended end result of new safety procedures = safety. I think that correlates pretty well with one’s intention of going to the doctor for a check up.

Your not following this. The safety can be achieved with out exposing the children. They are only exposed to the danger if they fly instead of drive or stay home.

Your arguement that the safety of the child can only be protected by getting scanned/innappropriately touched can only hold up if the trip is a matter of life and death for the child or if you feel that your child just needs to be scanned regardless of the trip.

Even with the scanners, putting the child on the flight exposes them to risks. The safer alternative is to not travel or take a train.

 

[royal_archer]

Right, but obviously, traveling, in isolation, is not a sin. And I’m sure we can all agree on that. The discussion here, and the reason you started this thread, was because you were in doubt about whether or not it’s a sin to go through the new security procedures, correct? So I thought THAT was what we’re trying to justify here.

And it’s ok if it’s his opinion, that’s totally fine. But he’s making it out to be like it’s THE WORD or something. The Church has not spoken on this issue. She has not told us it was wrong. She has not told us to stop traveling. She hasn’t even said that these security measures need to be abolished. Royal is making is sound like it IS wrong and if we still travel we’ll be sinning. I don’t think a single person, especially one who isn’t a pope or a bishop or even a priest, can come out and tell us we’re doing something wrong just because that’s his opinion, and not because it’s what the Church teaches. I have nothing against his opinion, as long as he recognizes that it’s his opinion and doesn’t try to play it off like it’s Church doctrine by condemning anyone who wants to fly somewhere.

I have not stated that my statements were based on anything other than my opinion and interpretation. I have further outlined the reasons, facts. comparisons, and logic behind that interpretation.

If you can produce additional facts, logic, or rationale that I have not considered, I will gladly integrate that into my assessment and if need be I will update my opinion.

In response you have offered the doctor annology which I have considered and addressed. You have also offered the logic that If the Church has not given a ruling on this specific situation that it by default can not be considered immoral. I have addressed this but a new annalogy came to mind on that one:

Ice cream is OK and even good. The church has not specifically decreed that you can not let the ice cream man fondle your child. The ice Cream man has agreed to check the expiration date on your ice Cream if you allow him to fondle your child. Using what logic has been presented here by others, the child will be safer (less likely to get food poisoning) if the ice cream man fondles them. And, the church has not specifically said it is immoral, therefore using that logic it would be OK for the parrent to let the child to get fondled for ice cream. I obviously disagree with that and feel the error in the logic is that the child does not have to have ice cream and does not have to get it from that vendor.

Further I have not said that air travel is a sin. I have not even said that getting felt up by a TSA agent is in itself a sin. I have said that the innappropriate touching and images are wrong and must be justified by an equivalent need to take the flight.

Why does this bother you?

 

[Debora123]

I do think its okay to have a discussion about this and even use the word sin, and even discuss whter or not something can be objectively considered sinful. I don’t think that doing so amounts to passing judgement on other people. No one knows anothers heart.

I totally agree. That’s not the impression I got from him though. I could go back and copy/paste some of his quotes to show why I got the impression I got, but quite frankly, I think it’s best for me to be done with this thread. It’s not quite getting me anywhere, and my conscience is cleared about getting on a plane later this month anyway, so I have no reason to further debate this topic. Happy Holidays!

 

[karbear]

I totally agree. That’s not the impression I got from him though. I could go back and copy/paste some of his quotes to show why I got the impression I got, but quite frankly, I think it’s best for me to be done with this thread. It’s not quite getting me anywhere, and my conscience is cleared about getting on a plane later this month anyway, so I have no reason to further debate this topic. Happy Holidays!

You too, happy holidays. Thank you for participating. I learned alot from this. Your reply made me think about just how complicated these decisions can be…there are so many factors besides just the obvious ones. One difference in our situations, of course not the only one, is that I am single and you are married. I know in my heart that I have to get to my mom this Christmas. For so many reasons, I know in my heart that it would be wrong not to. But I make an independent decision. I have choices as to how. I’m thinking that the maybe the church really can’t make a statement because it would really not be possible to take all these sorts of things, into consideration. God Bless.

 

[karbear]

Thank you to everyone. I sure know more about how to think about this and I’m grateful to everyone for helping me.