Full Body Scanning: A Religious Question?

[MIKolbe]

to me, it's a non-issue... and i would actually pity someone who saw me naked.

[Lil Red]

+JMJ+
well, you know which system i've heard is the most safe? the Israeli system where they - shocker - profile.

[MIKolbe]

i think they also have armed secruity on the flight.

[Saint Therese]

Personally, I think that people just have to accept a certain amount of risk when they fly. What would really make flying safer would be to get rid of politicaly correctness, and checking to see if someone is actually on a no fly list. No point having the stupid list if no one checks it.

Edited March 5, 2010 by Saint Therese

[Ephrem Augustine]

[quote name='Totus Tuus' date='05 March 2010 - 06:54 AM' timestamp='1267790063' post='2067004']
I guess it is the better of two evils, but the way I see it they are both evils. It's kind like the American principle, "innocent until proven guilty." An invasive search is punishment for someone who hasn't done anything wrong. I don't think we can justify it as a preventative measure. They need to be content with the oodles of other equipment they already have to check for bombs, weapons, etc. It seems like 99.9% of travelers are just trying to get somewhere with no violent motives. Why punish all of those on account of the treat of .01%? Drunk driving has killed far more people, and yet there's no government intrusion between any driver and his car.
Just my .02.
[/quote]

good point.

[zunshynn]

[quote name='Lil Red' date='05 March 2010 - 09:22 AM' timestamp='1267806150' post='2067053']
+JMJ+
well, you know which system i've heard is the most safe? the Israeli system where they - shocker - profile.
[/quote]

I don't know about the Israeli system, but in most European and North American countries, including the US, where profiling has been in place, it's been pretty unsuccessful in preventing attacks. In the United States, for example, in the Oklahoma City bombing... they WERE profiling. And went after the wrong guy. The same thing happened in the 1993 bombings of the WTC.

I think, personally, that the surest way to catch a terrorist, is to catch the weapons. Terrorists do not always fit the "profile" of a terrorist. In fact, they often do not. With profiling, so much information is looked at, and it's too easy for pertinent information to be made untraceable, that its much too easy for the results to not be thorough enough. Not to mention, profiling is much more expensive... Israelis don't fly as much as Americans do. If Americans implement their system, we'll be paying a lot more for it.

I'm not sure that a full body scan is the best way to do that... like Totus Tuus said, the detectors that they have should be enough. And I understand where Sister is coming from. Religious are almost always pulled for full body patdown searches when they go to the airport, which I know is uncomfortable for them. At the same time, if for some reason, there was a threat that they did not have detectors for, then I think full body scans are the way to go. As someone already said, it's a lot more dignified then a strip search. In fact, I'd be more comfortable with a scan of simply a silhouette of my body than a pat-down.

[Veridicus]

[quote name='Slappo' date='05 March 2010 - 12:24 AM' timestamp='1267770249' post='2066958']
To the bolded: Exactly. Thank you for reminding me about that. It is something I often forget.
Scanners used by anonymous people takes away our ability to cover ourselves. Knowing our doctors and choosing who will see us allows us to remain modest. We can reveal ourselves to those whom we trust will use this revelation appropriately and respectfully. Scanners remove this.
[/quote]

I think it is a self delusion (that most people have) to believe that in healthcare you will only be seen nude by your physician or people of which you approve. You might have control for annual check-ups, but any time you are having a procedure done that requires general anesthesia, you really just have no idea who is going to be in the room. Likewise with any CT-imaging that you have done...if someone does a CT of your pelvis...its in the medical records and dozens of doctors or medical students or nurses may have access to radiological images of your nether regions. You simply trust that anyone who views them will be professional and objective in their work.

I see no reason to assume that someone operating a scanner, properly vetted and trained of course, would necessarily be any less objective or professional. No one requires anyone to fly in an airplane; it is an elective service. I would rather not be scanned, but if I elect to fly on an airplane, I just have to deal with their regulations and demand that they be professional.

Edited March 5, 2010 by Veridicus

[Lil Red]

+JMJ+
which is why i will never have any surgery

or fly again

[Vincent Vega]

There is a way to not have to undergo a scan like that, if you prefer not to, and it's big, grey, and has 10 wheels.

[Slappo]

[quote name='Veridicus' date='05 March 2010 - 10:55 AM' timestamp='1267815328' post='2067142']
I think it is a self delusion (that most people have) to believe that in healthcare you will only be seen nude by your physician or people of which you approve. You might have control for annual check-ups, but any time you are having a procedure done that requires general anesthesia, you really just have no idea who is going to be in the room. Likewise with any CT-imaging that you have done...if someone does a CT of your pelvis...its in the medical records and dozens of doctors or medical students or nurses may have access to radiological images of your nether regions. You simply trust that anyone who views them will be professional and objective in their work.
[/quote]

Like I said, a medical procedure is still completely different than a security scan. A medical procedure is done by my own choice or for emergency purposes to save my life. A scan is done by the governments choice and is mandatory if I choose to use [b]private sector airlines.[/b] That is, the government has entered private sector and implemented security measures that are imposed on private industry that violate personal privacy.

[quote name='Veridicus' date='05 March 2010 - 10:55 AM' timestamp='1267815328' post='2067142']
I see no reason to assume that someone operating a scanner, properly vetted and trained of course, would necessarily be any less objective or professional. No one requires anyone to fly in an airplane; it is an elective service. I would rather not be scanned, but if I elect to fly on an airplane, I just have to deal with their regulations and demand that they be professional.
[/quote]

The objectivity or professionalism of the scanner does not change whether or not the scan is ethical. Airplanes are an elective service, but they are a private sector service, not a government service, and it is the government imposing the scans not the airlines.

[Slappo]

[quote name='USAirwaysIHS' date='05 March 2010 - 11:20 AM' timestamp='1267816825' post='2067153']
There is a way to not have to undergo a scan like that, if you prefer not to, and it's big, grey, and has 10 wheels.
[/quote]

Not if you live on an island

[Jesus_lol]

[quote name='MIkolbe' date='05 March 2010 - 07:07 AM' timestamp='1267801625' post='2067035']
to me, it's a non-issue... and i would actually pity someone who saw me naked.
[/quote]

I would pity them too, in that case.

if i were a bit more of a prankster i might be tempted to somehow prank the people working there.

"sir... did you know you are wearing a bra?"
"oh noes how did that get there! ooo lacey"

maybe when im an old coot and i dont care what people think any more.

[quote name='Saint Therese' date='05 March 2010 - 09:08 AM' timestamp='1267808883' post='2067068']
Personally, I think that people just have to accept a certain amount of risk when they fly. What would really make flying safer would be to get rid of politicaly correctness, and checking to see if someone is actually on a no fly list. No point having the stupid list if no one checks it.
[/quote]

they only seem to check it when they are barring 4 year olds from getting on a plane, cause they share a name with someone on the no fly list.

the list being only composed of names is a stupid idea. lots of people who share a name with someone on it are continuosly harrassed, im not sure why they dont link the name with a picture ID or something

[CatherineM]

I have to give a speech in Fort MacMurray next week, and I'm taking the Red Arrow bus rather than fly. I will admit the scanner has nothing to do with my decision. I just don't like planes.

[Vincent Vega]

[quote name='Slappo' date='05 March 2010 - 02:25 PM' timestamp='1267817113' post='2067155']
Not if you live on an island
[/quote]
[img]http://peteandcarol.com/0307-Passenger-ferry.jpg[/img]

[Slappo]

[quote name='USAirwaysIHS' date='05 March 2010 - 01:06 PM' timestamp='1267823198' post='2067206']
[img]http://peteandcarol.com/0307-Passenger-ferry.jpg[/img]
[/quote]

that doesn't have ten wheels!

However I will add... living in Alaska... a ferry to washington takes about 6 days. I could also take a ferry to Skagway, Alaska and drive through Canada to get to the continental US... which would also take almost a week.

So... it isn't a practical alternative.