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?