Full Body Scanning: A Religious Question?

[Lil Red]

+JMJ+
I think this sister makes some good points:
http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/religion_theseeker/2010/02/sister-anne-flanagan-fullbody-scanning-a-religious-question-.html
[quote]Sister Anne Flanagan: Author of the Nunblog

More talk (and more than a few articles and op-ed pieces in the Tribune) about activating full body security scanning at O'Hare. Despite all the assurances that the persons monitoring the scans will not be in proximity to the passengers; that data will not be kept; that it's all really important for public safety, I am not okay with this.

Am I being overly prudish? Hung up? Neurotic? Isn't thwarting a potentially catastrophic act of terror (with thousands of lives at stake) worth a virtual strip search every time I travel? What is it that really bothers me, deep down, about this "public safety measure"?

Is it that it is disproportionate, sifting through millions of travelers each week (or day, if you combine US airports that plan to install the equipment) to find one possible evil-doer (who would, of course, have devised an alternative plan by then)?

No, it's not that.

I'm beginning to realize that it's (to use language from Pope John Paul II) a “theology of the body” thing.

I object to full body scanning because I believe that, with the level of detail it offers (even if in silhouette), it violates what Pope John Paul called the spousal meaning of the body.

The body's design itself makes it clear that we are meant for an "other", and we generally choose that "other" with care, because we are vulnerable in revealing ourselves.

Even at the doctor's office, we don't go full frontal unless that is precisely where our health is in question. (That's why they give you that crazy paper outfit.) Self-revelation in the body is a lovely (in the full sense of the word), intimate gift. Because the body is meant for communion. Always.

[b]It is not true that our body is just a sort of envelope for a sexlessly generic soul, or that it is a strange animal-like appendage to the "important," spiritual part, but that really doesn't matter in itself (although plenty of people in our culture seem to think this). We ought to be alert to the tremendous significance of being "bodied persons": God became incarnate so he could relate to us in this very human way![/b]

So there's something really not right, in my book, with a "revelation" of the body that takes place anonymously, apart from personal communion, in which I am being revealed to someone I cannot see or know; whose reaction I cannot gauge; whose trustworthiness with the sacredness of my body's image I am asked to take on the good faith of the United States' Transportation Security Administration.

What is your take on this issue?[/quote]

the emphasis is mine

[ThePenciledOne]

I definitely support this.

[cmotherofpirl]

I see her point, however given a choice between a full body scan and a stripsearch, the scan is obviously less invasive and dignified. I think the notion of looking at overweight or obese shapes all day is not exactly appealing.

[Lil Red]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' date='04 March 2010 - 02:38 PM' timestamp='1267738729' post='2066687']
I see her point, however given a choice between a full body scan and a strip search, the scan is obviously less invasive and dignified. I think the notion of looking at overweight or obese shapes all day is not exactly appealing.
[/quote]
+JMJ+
some scans show the genitals - which would very close to a strip search.

[Nihil Obstat]

Do you think that for the controllers operating the scanning machines, that their job is morally near equivalent to viewing pornography?

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='Lil Red' date='04 March 2010 - 05:44 PM' timestamp='1267739059' post='2066694']
+JMJ+
some scans show the genitals - which would very close to a strip search.
[/quote]
The scans show all parts of the body and constitutes a virtual strip search. I think if a person took the job to see naked bodies all day, they would be quickly disappointed given the current weight and flab of most people

[Lil Red]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' date='04 March 2010 - 02:53 PM' timestamp='1267739614' post='2066699']
The scans show all parts of the body and constitutes a virtual strip search. I think if a person took the job to see naked bodies all day, they would be quickly disappointed given the current weight and flab of most people
[/quote]
+JMJ+
it's not about whether the people looking at bodies feel violated. it's whether i feel violated by being looked at in such a way - a cold, clinical way or a perverse way. i would feel violated being looked at in such a way that should be reserved only for my husband. and i would fight against such a thing.

[Lil Red]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='04 March 2010 - 02:48 PM' timestamp='1267739291' post='2066695']
Do you think that for the controllers operating the scanning machines, that their job is morally near equivalent to viewing pornography?
[/quote]
+JMJ+
well, you know how watching porn over and over leads to becoming dissatisfied and craving more, and not knowing real, true intimacy? i think that in many ways, it could lead operators to the same thing.

[Ephrem Augustine]

Voyeurism is everyone's right isn't it?

[CatherineM]

I would find it less invasive to have the scan. At least I wouldn't have to see their eyes looking at me.

[Veridicus]

[quote name='Lil Red' date='04 March 2010 - 04:02 PM' timestamp='1267740126' post='2066705']
+JMJ+
it's not about whether the people looking at bodies feel violated. it's whether i feel violated by being looked at in such a way - a cold, clinical way or a perverse way. i would feel violated being looked at in such a way that should be reserved only for my husband. and i would fight against such a thing.
[/quote]


[quote name='Lil Red' date='04 March 2010 - 04:04 PM' timestamp='1267740267' post='2066706']
+JMJ+
well, you know how watching porn over and over leads to becoming dissatisfied and craving more, and not knowing real, true intimacy? i think that in many ways, it could lead operators to the same thing.
[/quote]


Physicians see patients nude on many occasions and have to perform maneuvers which require a cool, clinical, professional approach. I do not think that this means physicians are violating their patients or that such clinical activities are equivalent to pornography or will lead the physicians to an inability to achieve true intimacy with their spouse.

[Brother Adam]

[quote name='Lil Red' date='04 March 2010 - 06:02 PM' timestamp='1267740126' post='2066705']
+JMJ+
it's not about whether the people looking at bodies feel violated. it's whether i feel violated by being looked at in such a way - a cold, clinical way or a perverse way. i would feel violated being looked at in such a way that should be reserved only for my husband. and i would fight against such a thing.
[/quote]

Looking at your body in a cold, clinical or perverse way is reserved only to your husband?

These scans are closer to viewing the body in a clinical way though - the way that your doctor would view your body. The question here I think is one of the right to privacy, if it can be assumed in this case, if this is a violation to the right to privacy, or if the police or other federal agents have a right to do these scans and there is no assumption to such privacy.

I don't know what I think about it yet. My initial inclination is it is a violation of privacy. It would be one thing if they had reason to suspect you of a crime, had you placed under arrest, and had to perform a search for their safety and yours.

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='Lil Red' date='04 March 2010 - 06:02 PM' timestamp='1267740126' post='2066705']
+JMJ+
it's not about whether the people looking at bodies feel violated. it's whether i feel violated by being looked at in such a way - a cold, clinical way or a perverse way. i would feel violated being looked at in such a way that should be reserved only for my husband. and i would fight against such a thing.
[/quote]
I would rather feel virtually violated by someone looking at a virtual image, then by being actually violated by a full -body stripsearch or somebody patting all my parts.

[Mark of the Cross]

[quote name='ThePenciledOne' date='05 March 2010 - 08:30 AM' timestamp='1267738252' post='2066677']
I definitely support this.
[/quote]

Are you a brassiere?

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='05 March 2010 - 08:48 AM' timestamp='1267739291' post='2066695']
Do you think that for the controllers operating the scanning machines, that their job is morally near equivalent to viewing pornography?
[/quote]

It would depend on how it affected them. If they were obtaining sexual stimulation then it would be porn. If it's just a job then no it's not porn,

Edited March 4, 2010 by Mark of the Cross

[Lil Red]

[quote name='Veridicus' date='04 March 2010 - 03:15 PM' timestamp='1267740900' post='2066712']
Physicians see patients nude on many occasions and have to perform maneuvers which require a cool, clinical, professional approach. I do not think that this means physicians are violating their patients or that such clinical activities are equivalent to pornography or will lead the physicians to an inability to achieve true intimacy with their spouse.
[/quote]
+JMJ+
there is a world of difference between a physician who has years upon years of schooling, and a controller who maybe gets a year training.