Are Muslims exempt from full body scanners?

[2046]

Don't know if it's true, and I would like to know where the author got that information from, but according to the neocon rag Human Events, the TSA assured the Council on American-Islamic Relations (which, btw, has ties to terrorist groups like Hamas) that Muslims would not be required to go through the new full body scanners that Michael Chertoff's company so successfully lobbied for. Of course, that would no longer "profile" Muslims, but obviously "profile" everyone else for being non-Muslim. Wtf?

"The TSA, when confronted by CAIR in this regard, immediately capitulated, thus giving in in the face of yet another Islamic threat. Simultaneously, the TSA agreed to instruct its security staff, in enforcing the same tortuous security measures for everyone but Muslims, to ‘pat down’ Muslim men and women, with the proviso, of course, that only same gender ‘pat downs’ would be permitted for our Muslim brethren."

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=35806

[rebelconservative]

I can't comment on the situation in the USA, though exempting Muslims seems to make the whole exercise redundant! However, two Muslim women were turned away from a flight from Manchester Airport in the UK because they refused to go through the body scanners. They did not have their tickets refunded, which is an utter disgrace, considering the scanning technology was not used when they booked their flight.

Edited March 15, 2010 by rebelconservative

[Jake_Ellison]

I heard everyone will have the option to pass through the gate another way (an interview/search with an agent of the same sex). In the US, that is.

[Maximus]

Okay, you don't want to go through the scanner? Fine. Full body cavity search for you, then.

[Robert J. Kolker]

Okay, you don't want to go through the scanner? Fine. Full body cavity search for you, then.

One needs a scanner to see the contents of the stomach or small intestine. If Abdul swallows a bomb, how is it to be found?

Bob Kolker

[CapitalistSwine]

Are Muslims exempt from full body scanners?

Absolutely not. They do not get special privileges because of their irrational beliefs. Someone stated there would be an alternative. Is not the entire point of the full body scanners so that we may find things that could not be found via the other methods? (Besides the time efficiency factor). If they don't like it, they can use another service for transportation. If they didn't want to deal with it then they should either have A: Gotten a clue and dropped their completely unfounded and unrealistic religious dogma or B: Their other followers should have considered the consequences of their actions on those who do not strictly follow their mantra and pursue terrorist action against innocent individuals. Fat chance that will happen.

Edited March 15, 2010 by CapitalistSwine

[Jake_Ellison]

Absolutely not. They do not get special privileges because of their irrational beliefs. Someone stated there would be an alternative. Is not the entire point of the full body scanners so that we may find things that could not be found via the other methods? (Besides the time efficiency factor). If they don't like it, they can use another service for transportation. If they didn't want to deal with it then they should either have A: Gotten a clue and dropped their completely unfounded and unrealistic religious dogma or B: Their other followers should have considered the consequences of their actions on those who do not strictly follow their mantra and pursue terrorist action against innocent individuals.

The reason why there will be an alternative to full body scanners in the US (and not the UK) is the First Amendment. It explicitly prohibits the government pursuing exactly that line of reasoning you just did: that innocent Muslims could be prohibited from travelling by plane because their beliefs are irrational.

[rebelconservative]

The reason why there will be an alternative to full body scanners in the US (and not the UK) is the First Amendment. It explicitly prohibits the government pursuing exactly that line of reasoning you just did: that innocent Muslims could be prohibited from travelling by plane because their beliefs are irrational.

How does the first amendment apply here? Congress is not establishing a national church, nor is it stopping Muslims from practicing their faith - unless their faith involves hijacking planes and er... yeah... moving swiftly on... this does not abridge free speech, or the press in any way, it does not stop people assembling peacefully or petitioning the government.

there is no "right" to travel by plane, just as there is no "right" to a drive on public roads without a licence. it is nothing to do with govt though, if the airline wants to use body-scanners, fine, if they don't, also fine, I can make my decision accordingly - airline A for safety, airline B for privacy. if Muslims (or Christians and anyone else for that matter) do not want to undergo a full-body scan, they should simply find another way to travel - I certainly won't be flying from Manchester airport (UK) due to this.

Edited March 15, 2010 by rebelconservative

[2046]

How does the first amendment apply here? Congress is not establishing a national church, nor is it stopping Muslims from practicing their faith - unless their faith involves hijacking planes and er... yeah... moving swiftly on... this does not abridge free speech, or the press in any way, it does not stop people assembling peacefully or petitioning the government.

there is no "right" to travel by plane, just as there is no "right" to a drive on public roads without a licence. it is nothing to do with govt though, if the airline wants to use body-scanners, fine, if they don't, also fine, I can make my decision accordingly - airline A for safety, airline B for privacy. if Muslims (or Christians and anyone else for that matter) do not want to undergo a full-body scan, they should simply find another way to travel - I certainly won't be flying from Manchester airport (UK) due to this.

It has everything to do with government and hence the First Amendment due to the fact that the federal government nationalized airport security in 2001, which is what the TSA is. The airlines have no say in it and thus cannot offer services accordingly.

[CapitalistSwine]

"It explicitly prohibits the government pursuing exactly that line of reasoning you just did: that innocent Muslims could be prohibited from travelling by plane because their beliefs are irrational."

That is not an issue sourced by my reasoning. The issue is that the government can force each and every one of the airlines (i.e. PRIVATE companies) to follow the full body scanner programme so that there is no alternative for the irrational muslims. If the airline wishes to take the chance, then so be it. If there is no alternative it is not centered in the fact that it is exclusively prohibiting irrational Muslims from air travel, it is centered in the fact that the government can make it so there is no alternative if a airline company wishes there to be one.

the federal government nationalized airport security in 2001,

Bingo.

Edited March 16, 2010 by CapitalistSwine

[Jake_Ellison]

it is nothing to do with govt though, if the airline wants to use body-scanners, fine, if they don't, also fine, I can make my decision accordingly - airline A for safety, airline B for privacy.

Oh, I haven't heard that the TSA was disbanded and the airlines are free to choose whether they want the scanners or not. Never mind then.

[Maximus]

One needs a scanner to see the contents of the stomach or small intestine. If Abdul swallows a bomb, how is it to be found?

Bob Kolker

Well, in that case, we stick a camera up his arse!

[rebelconservative]

Oh, I haven't heard that the TSA was disbanded and the airlines are free to choose whether they want the scanners or not. Never mind then.

I was referring to your statement in the first paragraph only. In the second paragraph, I was arguing that that should be the case - sorry that I was not clear.

Back to the first amendment; even as things stand, I fail to see how it applies. How is the government preventing them from exercising their religion here? It is not. It is saying if you want to fly, you have to undergo a full-body scan. If you don't want a body-scan, don't fly - simple. You can be a Muslim and go to friday prayers, the imam can teach whatever he wants. This does not discriminate between Muslims and non-Muslims in any way, there are many people who are uncomfortable with this and would not want their naked (albeit metalicised) image viewed by anyone, this applies to atheists, Christians etc. Perhaps I have a very narrow interpretation of it, but I really don't see how it relates.

[2046]

I was referring to your statement in the first paragraph only. In the second paragraph, I was arguing that that should be the case - sorry that I was not clear.

Back to the first amendment; even as things stand, I fail to see how it applies. How is the government preventing them from exercising their religion here? It is not. It is saying if you want to fly, you have to undergo a full-body scan. If you don't want a body-scan, don't fly - simple. You can be a Muslim and go to friday prayers, the imam can teach whatever he wants. This does not discriminate between Muslims and non-Muslims in any way, there are many people who are uncomfortable with this and would not want their naked (albeit metalicised) image viewed by anyone, this applies to atheists, Christians etc. Perhaps I have a very narrow interpretation of it, but I really don't see how it relates.

It applies because there is a fatwa against being naked in some such way. It's the same with Mormons and some Christian sects. If a Muslim wants to fly and not have nude pics taken of him, and an airline wants to sell him a ticket and not take nude pics of him, that is their right. In forcing people to be scanned, that right is being violated by the federal government. In forcing him to submit to the scan, the government is prohibiting the Muslim from flying unless be does something against his conscience that does not otherwise involve preventing a rights violation. If that's not a violation of his First Amendment right, I don't know what is.

Edited March 16, 2010 by 2046

[Jake_Ellison]

[edit] bad post, please delete

Edited March 18, 2010 by Jake_Ellison