Monday, February 15, 2010

Are Airport Body Scanners A Violation of Religious Rights?

Recently, controversy has emerged following a new policy instituting full body scanners in airports all over the country. Among the various protestors, Muslim-American groups have begun to support a “fatwa” or religious ruling that forbids Muslims from going through body scanners at airports. According to many Muslims, having to pass through these fully revealing body scanners is a violation of Islamic rules on modesty. “It is a violation of clear Islamic teachings that men or women be seen naked by other men and women…Islam highly emphasizes modesty and considers it part of faith.” The Fiqh Council of North America, an Islamic scholars board, has said that they fully support those Muslims that do not feel comfortable going through body scanners, and suggests that they request pat downs instead. The decision to install these scanners throughout Airports in the US stems from a recent attempted terrorist attack by a Muslim suspect onboard a Detroit bound flight, the day after Christmas. Many feel that upgraded security measures, such as the body scanners, could deter future terrorist attacks and prevent the loss of American lives. However, policies like these are never as easy to enact as anticipated due to backlash from multiple civil rights groups. From here the logical question becomes; is forcing individuals with conflicting religious beliefs to pass through body scanners at airports, for the sake of national security, a violation of the first amendment? To beat around the bush and circumvent the true issue at stake would not being doing Americans any good; that is to say, while it may seem as though Muslims are at the root of a majority of terrorist attacks and implementing this security measure might indeed save hundreds if not thousands of lives, from a purely constitutional point of view, I cannot support forcing these body scanners on individuals. The United States, a country founded on freedom and liberty, embodies a nation that does not persecute or forcefully convert those with unique religious beliefs. While enforcing a much needed security measure is by no means persecuting or forcefully converting an individual, one must look at the larger picture. When did surrendering of our freedoms become patriotic? Now more than ever we can see problems in the government’s respect for constitutional rights such as unauthorized use of torture, illegal phone tapping, and warrantless surveillance. Furthermore one could build on this and argue that these body scanners infringe upon the fourth amendment, which guarantees American citizens the right to privacy. The opposition would most probably argue that while body scanners may not be the best solution, their effectiveness and potential to save lives is the most paramount issue. I contest however that forcing religious individuals to engage in something that blatantly ignores their beliefs is a more egregious act than allowing those individuals to abstain from a national security measure. What if tomorrow it was conceived that yarmulkes on flights were a breach of security; then what? While one cannot simply argue from a slippery slope point of view, one doesn’t need to. “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” If passing through a full body scan violated Christian or Jewish law, wouldn’t many of us have a problem with this new measure?

5 comments:

Alicia_W said...

The first time I heard about the airport body scanners was not through this article but rather my mother complaining about it one morning. She insisted that she would refuse such a search on the grounds that it is indecent. This issue is not just a matter of whether or not it goes against religious law but our own moral codes. I do believe that something needs to be done in order to increase our national security without violating our person privacy of our bodies. If Muslims, who unfortunately have been the root of most terrorist problems, are excluded from the body scan due to religious matters, it would be unfair for the rest of the population to have to abide by the rules. I disagree with the author that it does not go against Christian and Jewish law because I feel it does violate the omnipresent social norms of being conservative in the way we cover our bodies. It's why we wear clothes, right? If the body scans do go into affect, it is going to have to apply to everyone without exceptions in order to prevent a battle between morals, religion and national security.

Teresa M said...

This whole religious freedom stuff is sure hard to work with. If Pope Benedict issues a canon stating that Catholic women should never allow their modesty to be compromised and to honor all women as descendants of the holy mother Mary, would our government or its agencies seriously consider this an issue for national safety concerns? I'd like to believe that, yes, the U. S. government would seriously consider the religious avowals of the Catholic faithful with the same seriousness as other religious faithfuls. Yet, we still must consider the otherwise fairly continuous affirmation of the Supreme Court that although we have the right to our religious conscience, we must still follow the law.

I seem to remember a Muslim consideration several years back regarding a Florida woman who refused to remove her burqa for her drivers license photo. (See: http://althouse.blogspot.com/2005/09/completely-covered-face-in-drivers.html) Her claim was denied, but the law had to be specifically changed after her lawsuit to reinforce the court ruling. I would hate to see a FEDERAL LAW have to be created to force the issue. I would rather the pope of Rome, a few bishops, Pat Robertson, and maybe Rick Warren or James Dobbs just come on out and agree that a full body scan at a public setting is inappropriate for all religious peoples (ah, heck, for all people--period). Once those Christians get riled up, then maybe our security advisers can go back to the drawing board and think of other ways to deal with airport security issues. Perhaps it's the whole "fatwa" thing that gets people. The closest equivalent non-Muslims have is the ACLU threatening a lawsuit on behalf of all Wiccans who feel their religious rights might be violated with airport body scanners.

Rob K said...

Clearly, the institution of these full body scanning machines has not gone according to plan. When I first heard that such machines were being used, I thought that this was an appropriate and necessary step toward improving air-travel safety for everyone, and I still think that it can serve that purpose. However, upon further thought, this stands out as a clear violation of not only religious, but also social beliefs. As Alicia put it in her comment, these scanners are not only offensive to Muslims, but to anyone and everyone in our society. I do, however, think that until these machines are outlawed or legislation is passed allowing for individuals to bypass this type of scan, that everyone should be subject to the same level of scrutiny when going through airport security. This is not my endorsement of the continued use of these machines, but I am hard-pressed to say that I think certain individuals should be exempt from an FAA policy at this point in time.

Shannon H. said...

To play devil’s advocate here, the fourth amendment only protects against “unreasonable search and seizure,” with an emphasis on unreasonable. It would be easy to make an argument that searching someone with advanced equipment is perfectly reasonable when they are about to board an aircraft where any illicit materials they are concealing could cause the death of hundreds of people. And no one is being forced to undergo these searches; rather, they choose to fly in airplanes and thus as a term of their contract with the airline, they are searched. Though taking a car, train, or boat to their destination may take more time and be less convenient, it is still an option.

Claire said...

While I am empathetic towards Muslim travelers who are religiously opposed to airport body scanners, I think that the scanners are necessary in this day and age. As Shannon said, airplane travel is a choice. In making the choice a passenger is agreeing to adhere to certain safety precautions. These include limits on the liquid contents that you bring on the plane with you, passing through a metal detector and now, passing through a full body scanner.