Enough already.
Awhile back I encouraged the Church to rethink her passive acceptance of the State's insistence that we give up traditional modesty and walk through machines that take naked pictures of ourselves, our wives, and our children. Things have only gotten worse since that posting. Now, those who refuse to go through the pornoscanner (which also uses ionizing radiation - the sort that poses an accumulating health risk), will be subject to an "enhanced" pat down. Which is to say, will be treated as felons getting a prison transport with breasts and crotch touched by a State functionary.
With this in mind, a reader wrote to me:
I enjoy your contributions to Gottesdienst Online, especially one discussion awhile back about airport security and being subjected to an invasion of privacy. I wonder what you might recommend, now, given the more invasive body searches / patdowns. My wife and I fly to XXXXXX next week... What's the lesser of two evils here?
My reply:
Your question is a good one. I've sworn off flying for me and my family for the foreseeable future. While I can imagine various family emergencies that would necessitate a compromise, I am perfectly willing to trade the convenience of air travel for the basic human dignity of my wife and children. So, if at all possible, cancel your tickets. Tell the airline exactly why you are doing so - this is what will have to happen, over and over, if there is going to be a change. If the American people roll over for this sort of treatment, then it will never go away. But if enough of us say No Way - well, money talks. The airlines and their lobbyists will then force the TSA to change their ways.Serving your neighbor in this case might just mean bearing the cross of a long drive in the car or missing a holiday with your extended family. If we as ministers of the Church won't stand up to such gross invasions of human dignity by the State, who will?Google maps says a drive from YYYYY to XXXXXX is 9 hrs 49mins. By the time you drive to the airport, get there 2 hours early, and fly - how much time are you saving? Maybe 10 hours on the round trip? Is 10 hours worth having a stranger see your wife naked or having a man put his hand in your crotch and treat you like a convicted felon getting loaded onto a prisoner transport?That's my 2 cents. Like I said, I can imagine serious family emergencies that would necessitate me compromising (probably with just me going as I just cannot stomach the thought of putting my wife and children through any of this: I'm called to be their protector and this stuff is just plain wrong) but for me and my house, turkey day with the cousins just does not rise to such a level.
He later wrote back that this was an important trip for his family, so he would talk to his elders to see if he could get an extra day of vacation so that he could drive instead of fly. Good for him.
+HRC
For the record, that photo was taken three years ago.
ReplyDeleteThat only underscores the point: when will we wake up to this nonsense? Three years of patting down old ladies, children, and nuns? At least three years ago they didn't have the "enhanced" patdown.
ReplyDeleteBut for those who want more up to date photos and video, you can check the link to wewontfly.com.
+HRC
This is a case of people hyper-sensationalizing a few bad instances.
ReplyDeleteMy wife and I flew out of Fort Wayne International Airport a couple of weeks ago. They have the new full-body scanners (though for the life of me I can't figure out why Fort Wayne has these). We both opted out of the scan.
Nobody ran around screaming, "Opt out! Opt out!" Nobody grabbed us roughly and pushed us off to the side. We were both politely asked to step off to the side for a pat-down.
The gentleman who patted me down explained every part of the process as it proceeded. He told me exactly what he was going to do before he did it, and then he checked to make sure that I understood before he proceeded. It was something along the lines of, "I am now going to run my finger just inside your waistline, okay?" Sure. No problem. He never touched me in an inappropriate manner. He didn't fondle me. He didn't grope me. He didn't molest me. He patted me down.
The same holds true for my wife. The woman who conducted her pat-down followed the exact same procedure. And in the instance of my wife, her breasts were never touched. The woman ran the side of her hand between her breasts, but never grabbed them, squeezed them, twisted them, or fondled them.
Neither one of us felt intruded upon in any way. The entire process was very professional, very thorough, and very appropriate.
Are there instances of bad procedure out there? Certainly. But you'll find that everywhere.
But there are also places where this is being done well. FWA is one of them. I would willingly submit to go through that process again if we had to fly someplace. And I would suspect that there are far more stories similar to mine than there are of people who had a bad experience.
Josh, what you described sounds like the old pat-down--at least for Sarah--which I have had twice. It may be that they aren't doing the enhanced pat-down in Ft. Wayne or that they weren't yet when you traveled.
ReplyDeleteBut I really think that this is beside the point anyway. The scanners are intrusive and we have been lied to about them from their introduction. They are not going to stop a determined terrorist, but they have, I believe, given the terrorists a measure of victory by their use.
The new enhanced pat down is intrusive. If it is done as the TSA is directing, it involves being touched by a stranger in places that no stranger has any business touching. We are all now presumed guilty and potentially subject to unreasonable search. I know someone personally who went through it over the weekend in another state and was so upset that she has contacted an attorney.
I, too, will not be flying as long as these are the choices.
Josh:
ReplyDelete"hyper-sensationalizing"?
Really. For a month shy of 219 yrs now we have ostensibly had the guarantee in this country of certain rights. It's a little document called the Bill of Rights. Have you read it lately? Number 4 might prove enlightening. An extremely friendly (and tediously & inconveniently time consuming) violation of one of those rights is still a violation of that right. Beyond that, if we lived in a nation where such rights were not guaranteed, I would still object to my wife being handled in such a manner.
Latif,
ReplyDeleteHaving read the Bill of Rights I find no guarantee of the right to fly.
Flying is a privilege, not a right.
If you wish to travel through airports that are controlled by the TSA then you are subject to the TSA's authority. If you don't like their policies then you have the right not to travel through those airports.
And that is the point of where the hyper-sensationalizing of all of this begins. People want to argue that their rights are being violated. That is absolutely not the case. Your privileges are being restricted, but your rights are not being violated.
Josh,
ReplyDeleteI disagree. The right is not to be searched unreasonably without a warrant. And you have a right to move about freely. Otherwise, is walking down a public sidewalk a privilege? What about riding a bicycle in a public park? What about going shopping in a private mall?
If those are privileges that a State can take away from people willy-nilly in the name of "security" (couldn't that bike in the park be hiding a pipe bomb? Couldn't you be carrying a gun into the mall?) - then we will not be a free society and the Rights of Englishmen are dead.
All reason and even the US Supreme Court has said that you may not be stopped and searched doing the above activities. You are a free man. Moving about, going shopping, walking in the park, and paying a private company to fly you from one spot to another are not privileges but the natural right of every free human being.
+HRC
Relax, guys, the TSA has come out with a book to help you speak to your little ones about this:
ReplyDeletehttp://boingboing.net/2010/11/11/tsas-new-book-for-ki.html
Here is a list of the airports that use these amazing machines: http://www.tsa.gov/approach/tech/ait/faqs.shtm
ReplyDeleteLast time I flew I told them I would not go through the machine. I then was groped, although the TSA man did it with the back of his hand. He told me so, "I'm going to touch you with the back of my hand." As if that makes much of a difference. In the name of security, why not go all out?
ReplyDeleteMy wife and I (along with our five year old son) got the full treatment returning to the U.S. recently. It was nasty. We were clearly being "punished" for opting out of the naked scan. The pilots union, flight attendant's union, and international travelers are all up in arms about this. And ditto for the handicapped (to read their accounts makes one wonder if anyone at the TSA has a high school diploma).
ReplyDeleteIt makes no-one safer, but it makes a lot of money for the manufacturers of the machines, it shreds the fourth amendment and makes a mockery of public standards of modesty. We are made to feel like criminals and slaves. The two feeler-uppers we had in Canada were, shall we say, creepy. I have come to refer to them as "Thing One" and "Thing Two." I'm not fully convinced that "Thing Two" that felt up my wife was female. Even my five year old son was creeped out by the whole thing, and lucky for us, he didn't have a meltdown about it.
And so, we are now expected to tell young children that only their parents, their doctors, AND (now) airport people are allowed to touch them on their genital area - and of the three, only the latter are allowed to do it in public.
I'm done flying. It used to be civilized, and even pleasurable. And the first time explosives are carried on board in someone's rectum, we'll all be told that we'll be subject to cavity searches - and people will gladly agree to it. Maybe the TSA guys in Fort Wayne will be really polite and professional when they perform the inevitable airport cavity searches, but I don't plan on ever finding out...
If flying is a privilege, than so is everything else. The Constitution is very clear about what the federal government may do. And legally speaking, it really isn't very much that it is allowed to do.
ReplyDeleteIf the private airlines wished to make it a requirement to be groped before you fly on *their* airline, that would be their right to make that a condition for doing business with them in the same way that a restaurant can require gentlemen to wear a jacket to eat there.
But the TSA is not a private business. It is the federal government.
And when you are dealing with the federal government, it means that they are specifically restricted by the Bill of Rights.
Travel is not a privilege. It is a right. And to prove it, consider this: if you have a private airfield in your back yard and a private plane, you do not have to hire someone to grab your privates and take nudie pics of you before you get in and fly. In fact, if you actually *were* to pay someone to do that, you would be charged with soliciting prostitution.
There seems to be growing "resistance" to the new TSA policy. For a little graveyard humor about the whole thing, check it out.
ReplyDeleteRev. Curtis,
ReplyDeleteYes, you have the right to move around freely. You have two legs. You may go wherever you want.
But if you want to drive, you must be given that privilege. By who, you ask? The government. Given to you in the form of a driver's license. If you want to drive your own vehicle then you must also have a registration for that. And then when you are driving it you must abide by the rules of the road. Free travel? I don't think so. If that were the case then no man could ever have his license revoked for too many traffic violations.
There are even laws pertaining to your bicycle.
You will really hate this one, but even the right to shop can be taken away. In Fort Wayne when the weather gets bad the City will declare a level 1 snow emergency. That means that businesses must close and you must not drive your car. In fact, you can get pulled over for driving your car. This is done for the protection of the people.
What many consider to be "rights" really are privileges given by the government. Flying through these airports is such a privilege and it requires abiding by these rules.
FOR THE RECORD -- I THINK THE RULES SUCK.
If you don't like the rules, then you are free to find another method of travel that does not require submission to these policies.
The Fourth Amendment prohibits the government from coming into your home and searching your property without just cause. It prohibits the government walking up to you on the street and frisking you for no reason.
The Fourth Amendment does not apply to airline travel. Airline travel does not fall under the realm of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of property." Airline travel is a choice. It is a privilege. You may choose to utilize the service or you may choose not to utilize the service. But so long as you choose to utilize the service you must abide by the rules that have been set in place. The rules might make no sense. The rules might be offensive. The rules might be completely ludicrous. But that is not the point. The rules are the rules. If you don't like them then find another way. And if enough people find another way then perhaps the rules will change.
Much of what we do is actually a privilege and not a right. We just become so used to them that we take them for granted and assume that they are inherently ours.
Life, liberty, and the pursuit of property. I don't see airline travel in that list any where because there is always another way to get where you want (not need) to go.
Dear Josh:
ReplyDeleteI think you bring up an interesting issue: rights vs. privileges.
I think we need to be clear that rights come from God and privileges come from somewhere else, such as from a government.
You make a good point about, say, driving a car. Since it is licensed, is it a right or a privilege? You say the fact that a government requires a license makes it a privilege. But often governments trample on rights. So, whether something is a right or a privilege can't be determined by whether or not a government requires a license.
An example: the second amendment declares that carrying a gun (not owning, mind you, but "bearing") is a "right." It is not a "privilege" to bear arms, but rather a "right." It remains a God-given right whether or not a government demands that I get a permit or a license. Just because a government behaves as if a right is actually privilege doesn't make it so.
I think we would consider having children to be a right that we humans have from God. In China, the state considers it a privilege. You are permitted only one child. Nevertheless, the state is wrong. Procreation is a right given by God. The state is simply usurping authority to license it and treat it as a privilege.
A little closer to home: life is a right, isn't it? It is an inalienable right per Jefferson's Declaration. And yet, according to American abortion laws, life is treated as a privilege. You are permitted to live if an authority (the mother) deigns to permit it. If your mother grants you license to live, you may live. Otherwise, you will die in her womb. Thus saith the state. So, does that make life a privilege instead of a right? Or has the state simply lied and claimed to turn a right into a privilege?
Government claims to have all sorts of authority. It tells people what they can grow and consume on their own property. So, does that make property a privilege. In fact, if a government decides it knows how to use my property better than I do, it will invoke eminent domain laws to seize my property. According to your logic, that makes property ownership a mere privilege. So, life and property are both privileges now?
And how about liberty?
If the state declares war, and decides it wants me to fight, I can be drafted. So, my liberty is likewise curtailed by a government. According to your logic, liberty is also a privilege granted by government. So, I am free so long as the state says I'm allowed to be free? Do you see the logical flaw? The United States forcibly moved Orientals into camps during WW2. Did that mean their freedom was a mere privilege? What about people who have been placed in concentration camps for following their religion? Does that convert the right of religion into a privilege? (cont...)
(cont.)
ReplyDeleteThus, according to your logic, all three: life, liberty, and property are merely privileges - and I should thank government for giving me these privileges. And if the state wants to fondle me as a condition for me to go to church, well, it might "suck," but according to your logic, that makes going to church fondle-free a privilege.
In a free society, I have the right to build an airplane, or contract with someone who has an airplane - and fly to where I need (or merely want) to go. It is none of the state's business. If I damage someone's property, I must make restitution. I can travel by my feet, by a horse, by a bike, by a car, by a boat, by a rickshaw, or by a jet. I can hire someone to transport me over public roads and highways. Travel has always been recognized as a right - especially in English Common Law. Only in recent history have states claimed the power to restrict travel by licensing travel.
But then again, governments all over the world issue permits for things that really are are rights. But they no more convert a right into a privilege any more than the state can turn lead into gold.
Flying is just one way of getting from one place to the other. It is part of the "pursuit of happiness" (property) and of "liberty" in the oft-quoted formula.
And again, if a private company wants to give me the old "turn your head and cough" treatment as a condition for doing business, that is a company's right. But the TSA is not a private company. It is an arm of the federal government, and as such, is restricted by constitutional limits - such as the 4th amendment.
An honest reading of the 9th and 10th amendments means that if the federal or state governments do not have enumerated constitutional authority to restrict something, it is our right as people to do anything we want to do. That's what "freedom" means by definition, and it is expressed in limited government - a concept that is almost non-existent in the world today.
Get a kilt. Go commando.
ReplyDeleteThe government has gone whacko. These practices are not true security. It is make believe. No one is safer by peering into our undies. It is simply the appearance of diligence. Truly, it is simply training us to line up and obey.
If we want security, do it like Israeli's. Profile, yes, profile. Profile based not on your face/race but on the real threat you may present. Do the homework. Find out who is the bad guy. It's not that difficult.
Don't give in. I've been to places where people give in and get walked on. It's not pretty. Obey the Fourth but don't be a milque-toast. Be a citizen not a subject.
A few quick things:
ReplyDelete1. Josh - I think you are close, but the government doesn't "grant privileges" - it is designed to protect rights. Laws aren't the granting of privileges, but they are to be rules ensuring that we do not abuse the rights of our neighbor or act in a way that endangers them.
2. If people would simply read Plato's Republic, none of this would be a surprise - for democracy always turns to tyranny where the tyrant promises security. While we don't have a democracy, the constant focus on polls and our election cycle means more and more that leaders are simply worried about placating the masses instead of leading - and also are able to become entrenched in positions of authority.
3. Father Hollywood - you write "An honest reading of the 9th and 10th amendments means that if the federal or state governments do not have enumerated constitutional authority to restrict something, it is our right as people to do anything we want to do. " I agree. . . except I would apply it not only to the Constitution, but also to Galatians 5:1 and the rest of scripture =o)
4. I am glad to see that this blog and the ACLU are once again finding ground =o)
5. Personally, I'm much more disturbed by the prospect of intensive patdowns. Our patdowns were designed to find hunks of metal (knives, guns, etc) - not small amounts of trace materials which one might use for destructive purposes.
E. Browm writes: "If people would simply read Plato's Republic, none of this would be a surprise"
ReplyDeleteThe issue is not whether this is a surprise. Educated men who can boast of having seen this coming are not thereby excused from doing something about it.
Rev. Beane,
ReplyDeleteYou make some outstanding points. Thank you very much for your thoughtful response.
It also exposed my need to clarify what I am saying. For example, I agree with you 100% that driving, flying, walking, biking, rollerblading, and rickshawing are all rights and not privileges.
However, when the roads, airports, and paths upon which I travel are provided by the government, then I am subject to their oversight. The government has absolutely zero obligation to give us roads, airports, and bike paths. But yet they do. And since they provide these to us they have the authority to regulate how they are used.
This is why flying through these airports is a privilege and not a right. Again, the government was under no moral, ethical, or civil obligation to provide means of transportation for us. But since they did, it is well within their right to prescribe how they are to be used. They may require a license to drive. They may set speed limits. They may revoke driving privileges to those who fail to comply with their standards. (It's interesting that when a license is suspended or revoked it's referred to a loss of driving privileges....)
And why may they do this? Because they are responsible for the roads. They provide them. They maintain them. They clean up the mess that is caused when people don't follow the rules.
And so also this holds true for airports.
So yes, traveling is a right, not a privilege. Traveling through these facilities is a privilege, not a right.
Josh:
ReplyDeleteYou write, "And since they provide these to us they have the authority to regulate how they are used."
I don't see how this gets the government around the prohibition to violate my right not to have my person unreasonably searched.
Josh - Aren't airports private entities though? This is different than tax payer funded roads and whatnot. I don't think the government gives us airports, but they do regulate them.
ReplyDeleteK,
ReplyDeleteI can only operate off of what I know from my experience. I've lived in Fort Wayne for nearly my entire life. What used to be known as Baer Field is now known as Fort Wayne International Airport. FWA is operated by the Fort Wayne-Allen County Airport Authority. The FWACAA was established by state law in 1985. It is not a private entity.
http://www.fwairport.com/airport-authority-info.aspx
I find this bit from that link to be particularly interesting: "The relationship between the Authority and the tenants (e.g. airlines, car rental companies, the gift shop, the restaurant, the parking lots, etc.) of the airport is very much like that of a shopping mall manager and the shop owners. The Authority provides the infrastructure and facilities and ensures that the environment is safe, clean, and attractive. The tenants must abide by Authority ordinances, but operate independently."
In other words, they provide the space. Therefore they get to set the rules. I'm not sure how the relationship between the Airport Authority and the TSA works. But since they are both government agencies (one state, one federal) I would assume that there is some cooperation going on. But again, I don't know.
I don't know about other airports.
Josh,
ReplyDeleteI reject the analysis that since a government has usurped one area of commerce they are now justified in usurping yet more of our rights.
But as the Rev. Deacon mentioned - there are still 4th Amendment issues here even if we accept, for the sake of argument, your premise.
For example, the police on public roads may not stop someone willy-nilly and search their person and car. They don't get to make that rule even they extorted money from the populous to build the road. Why not? Well, the Supreme Court correctly says that it would be an unreasonable search without a warrant. Even though I *might* be carrying drugs, bombs, or have kudzo seeds on my hunting boots? Yup, even then: men have a right to move about freely and not be stopped by law enforcement without probably cause. That's what the 4th amendment means, and in that it agrees with natural law.
What is happening at airports today is a gross violation of the natural rights of men and 4th amendment, plain and simple.
How much more so if you doubt the wisdom, morality, and constitutionality of "public" roads, airports, parks, etc! But as I said, one can accept your premise (which I believe to be flawed) and the end result is the same: these are warrantless searches of persons without probably cause.
+HRC
Josh,
ReplyDeleteOne more point: you actually have things exactly backwards regarding paying and rule making.
If a private individual pays for something, he may make the rules for it. If I build an airport and buy some planes, I demand whatever I want from people to fly in my planes and from my airport so long as I do not coerce anyone through assault or fraud. I can make whatever rules I like otherwise.
The government cannot make any rules it wants, even when it pays for something. We have a Constitution specifically to limit the rules the government can make.
So, the 4th Amendment does not apply to me as a private citizens. In my house, I can demand that anyone who wants to come in has to have a pat down and their pockets emptied.
But the government is specifically disallowed from warrantless searches. The Constitution is the limit on the rules the government can make.
But the Constitution is only a piece of paper if living men will not stand up and insist that it be followed.
+HRC
Dear Josh:
ReplyDeleteI think this cuts to the heart of what secular government is. It is not a god nor a master. Government is a servant. Governments can be established and they can be removed. They are all temporary living arrangements. We live under a federal government that is predicated on the right of people to revolution, secession, nullification, and change through election. Our current constitution dissolved the former United States government that existed from 1776-1789.
"The government" does not give us privileges, rather we give government, at all levels, privileges. We do this in our constitutions, state and federal.
The U.S. Constitution establishes a republican form of government in which the states are all republics in a union of republics. And the powers of that government are strictly enumerated and limited.
We don't have freedom of speech because "the government" allows us to have it. Rather, it is a right, a God-given right. And we give government the responsibility to protect it. And if a government fails to protect God-given rights, that government needs to be disobeyed (as under communism and nazism) or fired (as when Czechoslovakia split into two countries).
I believe we have turned our federal government into a big, multi-trillion dollar nanny-state. Big Sis tells us what we may put in our bodies, under what conditions we can travel, what kind of health insurance we can have, how much we can pay employees, whom we are to recognize as married, whether abortion is legal, how fast we can drive, etc. - and we pay ever-increasing confiscatory taxes for the purpose. Most of these things should be left to the individual or (according to the tenth amendment) left to the states, and not to the federal government.
Government always seeks to expand. It almost never contracts, almost never decides to leave us alone. And when it becomes parasitic, it destroys its host (the people) through bankrupting taxes and/or hyperinflation.
God warned the Israelites against the power of the State, but they insisted on trading their peaceful and decentralized polity of judges for the trappings of monarchy. Governments always become pompous and hurtful to liberty. George Washington observed: "Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master."
Our constitution is supposed to protect us from the government in matters such as searches and seizures, free speech, freedom of association, property rights, etc. But what has happened is the system of checks and balances has failed. The states used to be able to limit federal abuse, but now they are in league. The federal branches also collude rather than check one another.
I highly recommend Thomas Woods's book "Nullification." He puts it into excellent historical and philosophical perspective, and does so in a winsome way.
Thanks for the discussion!