Security

The American Transportation Security Administration (TSA) recently implemented screening procedures that some members of the public consider unreasonable and intrusive. I’m curious about what you think of these measures. Answer the questions below in the comment thread, and add any other thoughts you’d like to share and discuss.

1. Would you submit to a full-body imaging scan?
2. Would you submit to a full-body pat-down search?
3. Do you find either of these measures personally invasive?
4. Do you find both of these measures personally invasive?
5. Do you find both of these measures equally invasive?
6. Do imaging scans enhance airline passenger safety?
7. Do pat-down searches enhance airline passenger safety?
8. Are there other measures that airlines should take, in addition to these, to enhance passenger safety?
9. Are there other measures that airlines should take, instead of these, to enhance passenger safety?
10. Will these security measures make you more or less likely to fly in the future?

I’ll share my thoughts in an update to this post. Before doing that, though, I’d like to hear from you. I’ll show you mine if you’ll show me yours.

– the chaplain

UPDATE: Here’s the update I promised last week.

I don’t fly often, but, should I choose to do so while these procedures are in place, then I will choose the scan over the grope, as I feel that it is the less invasive of two distasteful procedures. Treating all people who purchase airline tickets as terror suspects grossly contradicts such ideals as “innocent until proven guilty,” and the Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable searches and seizures. I doubt that either the scans or the gropes enhance passenger safety significantly and see both measures as being poorly played “security theater,” rather than serious anti-terror measures. I already fly as little as possible, perhaps once or twice a year, and will continue avoiding air travel as long as the American government considers ridiculous measures like these effective deterrents against terror.

There may be some who don’t realize it yet, but the USA lost the War on Terror years ago. If I were Osama Bin Laden, measures like these, color-coded terror alerts (the Washington DC area has been Code Orange for nine years), searches of fans entering sports arenas and museums, and other ridiculous measures would have me howling with mirth. Every time Americans do things like this, we demonstrate that bin Laden won the psychological war against us.

Do I feel less secure today than I did on September 10, 2001? Certainly. But, I refuse to treat all those around me as potential murderers. It’s too bad the American government isn’t doing more to help me sustain that attitude.

 

A Post-Religious Society?

Some of you may be familiar with Brian McLaren, a leader of the post-modern “emerging church” movement. I stumbled across a somewhat old (March 2009) article of his about contemporary worship music. I’ll spare you another post on that topic, and just share some thoughts about this little blurb from his article:

Many of us believe that we are entering (or well into) a significant [t]heological/cultural/spiritual transition period, very possibly as significant historically as the reformation period, when the medieval world gave way to the modern world. Now, as the modern gives way to the postmodern world, we should expect to see a revolution in theology (in the end, helping us be more Biblical, more spiritual, more effective in our mission—and, please God, more clear about what our mission is).

McLaren’s contention that this era may be as significant historically as the Reformation is intriguing. We’d all like to believe that we live in a significant time and place, and that the things we say, write and do will have lasting effects. That’s heady stuff. Let’s assume, for the moment, that McLaren is on to something here. Is it possible that the theological revolution to which he refers is actually a philosophical one? What if, instead of returning to the religious superstitions of the past, humankind is turning – increasingly, incrementally – toward scientific rationalism, humanism or something along those lines? Like humankind’s lurch from medievalism to modernism, such a transition wouldn’t be easy. Those with significant interests in maintaining the status quo would fight such progress at every step. Sad to say, there are many such people. Will they find, as those with interests in maintaining medieval social, political and economic structures did, that a transition is inevitable? Will humankind ever reach a post-religious era? One thing I’m sure of is that it won’t happen in my lifetime.

The realist in me doesn’t think that humankind will ever outgrow religion completely. It seems more likely that, just as humanists, rationalists, etc., always lived in past ages of superstition and ignorance, even if rationalism does one day outstrip religion, superstitious remnants will always survive. Perhaps the best we can hope for, then, is that such people will be tolerated accepted as quaint, quirky “village theists,” somewhat akin to their historical atheistic forebears. Such a future may not be ideal, but I think I could live with it. Could you?

– the chaplain

 

Clueless Conservative Christian

As I was finishing up my lunch today, a co-worker and a guest sat at my table. It turns out that the guest is a sales representative from a local fundogelical radio station; my co-worker recently arranged to buy advertising time during the Rush Limbaugh show. The first minute or so went okay, with polite introductions and handshakes around the table. A fellow with whom I’d eaten lunch knew something about this radio station, so he made some polite comments about it. The sales rep beamed appreciatively, then dropped her bomb: she and her colleagues are thrilled about, in her words, “the Republican takeover” of the House of Representatives in January, because “the government hasn’t been too friendly” to Christians lately. I nearly swallowed my teeth, but managed to keep my mouth shut. Instead of engaging her in an argument a conversation, I waited quietly for a polite interval – perhaps a minute or so – then excused myself.

Had she not been my colleague’s guest, I might have asked her if she honestly thinks – not believes, thinks – that Republican control of one branch of Congress is going to have a significant effect on advancing her station’s agenda in the next two years. Beyond that, I’d be curious to know why she thinks – again, thinks, not believes – that Republicans give a rat’s ass about their agenda. The Republican party, for the most part, has been adroit at giving conservative Christians little more than table scraps and lip service – just enough to keep them coming back for more. In return, the Republicans get millions of conservative Christian votes, which gives them access to the power they crave. In other words, the Republican party powers-that-be are playing conservative Christians for fools.

Now, don’t think for a moment that I think that Democratic office-holders are much better than their Republican counterparts. The Democrats controlled both the legislative and executive branches of the American government for the past two years, and they don’t have a hell of a lot to show for it (which may have something to do with why they lost so many Congressional seats in the recent election). Instead of governing like a party with substantive majorities in both houses of Congress, complete control of the administration, a clear mandate from the public, and a clear vision for the country, they governed like a minority Parliamentary government that has to barter, compromise and muddle through to accomplish anything more complicated than picking their noses. Still, it seems to me that, in the current political climate, with the current political players in place, the Democratic party is slightly less likely than the Republican party to flush average Americans down the national toilet. Having said that, regardless of who’s in power, my newest hobby is making rope ladders out of toilet paper.

My conversation with my colleague’s guest was brief, and I obviously don’t know much about her. But, I know a lot of conservative Christians, and her gushing enthusiasm about the Republican party struck me as the same sort of uncritical acceptance of all things Republican that I’ve observed in them. As far as I’m concerned, all Americans would be well advised to view ourselves as sheep among wolves when dealing with politicians of all persuasions. Being a clueless liberal isn’t any more praiseworthy than being a clueless conservative. Contrary to what snake oil selling politicos want all of us to believe, the clueless will not inherit the earth. And, if the Republicans have their way, they won’t get Medicare or Social Security either.

– the chaplain

 

God Hates Deer

As I’ve driven through Pennsylvania, Maryland and Virginia over the past couple of weeks, I’ve noticed an unusually high number of dead deer sprawled across the dotted lines getting picked over by vultures, or rotting alongside highways. I even saw one get hit by a white Honda and tossed well into the woods near the George Washington Parkway.

This deer-based roadkill epidemic makes me wonder whether God hates deer. That can’t be right, though. After all,

All things bright and beautiful,
All creatures great and small,
All things wise and wonderful;
The Lord God made them all.

If that’s the case, then God can’t really hate deer. So, maybe he’s just punishing them. And we all know there’s only one reason God ever visits gruesome devastation on an unsuspecting population.

Deer must be gay.

Gay Deer

According to Norwegian scientist Petter Bøckman, “Scientists have observed homosexual behavior in 1,500 animal species….” Furthermore, “Homosexuality is most widespread among animals with a complex herd life.” Deer may fit into that category. Bøckman goes on to say that some species, such as “killer whales, bottlenose dolphins, West Indian manatees, and giraffes have all-male orgies.” Wow! Apparently, sex — hetero-, homo-, and bi- — is very hot and wild in the animal kingdom. Perhaps God’s particularly got his dander up with deer because “among mule deer, bisexuality is more common than homosexuality.” It’s obvious that deer are getting their share of unnatural booty, right along with all those other horny critters. And God is plenty pissed off about it.

I’m not saying that every dead deer I’ve seen along the roads has been a gay or bi- deer. After all, it’s widely suspected that God has phenomenally bad aim. I don’t agree with that idea, though. I think the real explanation for God’s apparent bad aim is that punishing actual offenders has never mattered to him; the blood of innocents has always appeased him just as well as the blood of the guilty. Besides, even if the dead deer have not engaged in illicit sex themselves, they’ve tolerated such behavior within their midst and are, therefore, equally deserving targets of his wrath.

That may be the case.

Or, maybe God just hates deer.

– the chaplain

 

Paternal Pride

A nativity scene that will not be available in stores everywhere:

– the chaplain