Though (as Kathy Shaidle reminds us), "Blowing up airplanes? Not so much."
From the CNSNews.com article:
...
"It is a violation of clear Islamic teachings that men or women be seen naked by other men and women," FCNA explained. The group noted that Islam emphasizes modesty, considering it part of the faith. "The Qur'an has commanded the believers, both men and women, to cover their private parts" and to be modest in their dress.
While exceptions can be made in cases of "extreme necessity," FCNA indicated that passenger body scans do not rise to that level.
...
Apparently, a school full of fully-clothed (except for having taken off their body-bags) school-girls trying to flee a burning school building also does not rise to the level of "extreme necessity" (link ).
Which seems more likely:
a) Moslems will stay off airliners ... and thus, Moslems (of a certain sort) will find it more challenging to blow up airliners or simply to act in ways so as to intimidate the other passengers;
b) the US government will cave to Moslem objections to full-body scanning ... even as it would have disregarded any objections the rest of us might have had.
17 comments:
Well, although it would seem simple enough to have both a male and a female screener available -- a solution that I would certainly appreciate -- I'm going to have to go with "b". Final Answer.
Cathy
Hi there, Cathy. Welcome to my dusty little corner of the blogosphere.
Though, even were the government to go with your proposal, the Moslem organizations would still object to it.
Even were it not the case that *some* Moslems want to blow up airliners, and large numbers of other Moslems want there to exist as few obstacles as possible which might hinder the bombers, Moslems would still object to the proposal on at least two grounds:
1) if any of the screeners were non-Moslem they would object because by their supremacist ideology it would be degrading for a Moslem’s (virtual) nakedness to be seen by a non-Moslem;
2) if the government doing the screening has not submitted to (that demon) Allah, then it remains degrading for a Moslem to be in submission to non-Moslems.
It’s all (and always) about Moslem supremacism.
Hey, Ilion. I decided to come slog through whatever "fine print" Google wanted me to agree to, 'cause you've got such interesting posts. (I'd started to leave a comment before but was uneasy. But then I figured, What the heck, if there's anything Googles doesn't know about me already...)
So, now I'm wondering --
it would be degrading for a Moslem’s (virtual) nakedness to be seen by a non-Moslem
Do you suppose there is any proscription against Muslim women clothes-shopping somewhere that the saleswoman isn't Muslim? Wasn't there a Victoria's Secret ad that got a lot of... attention, not too long ago? Of course, they have catalog & internet shopping, so I don't know...
Cathy: "I decided to come slog through whatever "fine print" Google wanted me to agree to ..."
I understand that. I'd been reading blogs for years before I ever commented on one. But, as I had had a HotMail account for years, and as I could use that as the basis for creating the Google account, I finally just went ahead and registered.
I disabled the "Anonymous" poster-identity when I started this blog, as that's one of my pet peeves. I don't mean that anonymity annoys me (after all, unless a person is famous, even a person posting under his full name is anonymous to all readers who don't actually know him), but rather posting as "Anonymous." It's especially annoying when there are multiple persons doing it.
Cathy: "... 'cause you've got such interesting posts."
Well, thank you ... and thanks for the pressure ;-)
I didn't want to just assume that you're the Cathy from April's blog, but I'm taking this to mean that you are. Again, welcome; and I hope to always say things you'll find worthy of thinking about; 'cause if you when to the hassle of registering so that you can comment, I owe it to you to say something worth commenting on.
So *sheepish look* ... ah ... I guess you've decided that I'm not such a jerk, after all? (Or, at least, that I'm tolerable.) Cool!
Ilíon: "it would be degrading for a Moslem’s (virtual) nakedness to be seen by a non-Moslem"
Cathy: "Do you suppose there is any proscription against Muslim women clothes-shopping somewhere that the saleswoman isn't Muslim? ..."
Well, as recent history amply shows us, Moslem organizations (and Moslem individuals) are very elastic about what offends Moslem religious sensibilities, and when.
Perhaps I wasn't clear enough -- I think that all the objecting (and sometimes violent ranting) Moslems do about what offends their religious sensibilities is cynical ... pigshit.
My point wasn't that it really is degrading for a Moslem's (virtual) nakedness to be seen by a non-Moslem, or even that Moslems really do believe that it is (and frankly, after the past few years, I don't give a damn in any event), but rather that some Moslem organization, somewhere, can be counted upon to insist that it is.
I joke about having only one reader, but the truth is I don't mind that there are only a few persons commenting here. I don't see how I could have actual conversations if there were dozens (or *gack!* hundreds) commenting.
The obama administration will definitely lean towards special rules for muslims. I wish they would, they'd be out of office in no time then.
Ilion -- if there's one thing I'm realizing, although quite slowly, I'm afraid, it's that I'm not nearly as clear in what I'm trying to express -- particularly the emotional aspect -- in writing as in person. (Oh - yes, I'm the Cathy from April's. See, perfect example: it didn't occur to me to identify myself!) That's not to say that I don't "lose" people sometimes face-to-face assuming they "get" my sense of humor/irony/whimsy/sarcasm/the absurd. *sigh*
But, then, I'm not always clear on how to interpret things, either. So, I don't know whether you're goofing around about the "such a jerk" thing or not. ?
Well, I shouldn't have said anything (and that I did shows that I do have some jerk in my make up). Also, I could be confusing your name with some other from April's blog.
But, anyway, as I remember things, you had decided some months ago, based on my tangental comment that extending the franchise to women turns out to have been a mistake, that I am a huge (and misogynistic) jerk.
As I said, I well realize I may be misremembering, confusing you with someone else. So, from my point of view, even though mentioning the matter creates a degree of awkwardness, getting it out of the way is in the end a good thing.
Well! I'm pretty sure I've never come to the conclusion that you are a huge (and misogynistic) jerk over anything I've seen you say.
(We did have a (quickly sorted-out) misunderstanding over sentencing as deterrent/revenge/rehabilitation, but that was many chats ago.)
I'm glad you're into talking Caprica at April's!
Well, see, I was confusing you with someone else ... and I'm glad to have the confusion out of the way.
But you're still glad I came by, right? ;)
Of course.
I just noticed that you bolded that :) -- you're getting right tricky with HTML codes, aren't you?
Why (Southern drawl), I thought you'd never notice!
PS -- Congrats on the 100th thread; quite a milestone!
"(Southern drawl)"
In my family, we use a Southern drawl to teaase one another about our roots.
But, knowing how unfocused I can be, it is somewhat surrising that I got to 100 threads in only 10 months.
Post a Comment