According to this article in USA Today, these machines have been rolled out in the Tulsa airport already, as a preliminary test before they go into full operation. It sounds like many of the passengers who went though the machines didn’t really know how the machines worked.

Basically, they are sort of like the X-Ray glasses many young boys have dreamed off. You know, the ones that would let you see through people’s clothing? To be more specific (quoted from the article),

The machines use electromagnetic waves to create pictures of energy reflected off people. The metallic-looking images show outlines of private body parts and blur passengers’ faces. Two Transportation Security Administration (TSA) screeners in a closed room near the checkpoint view the images on computer monitors and relay information on radio headsets to checkpoint screeners. [emphasis mine]

Elsewhere, the article states that the machines “produce vivid pictures of what is underneath passengers’ clothing.” Granted, the machines will “blur passengers’ faces,” but to be honest, that doesn’t make me feel any better.

Currently, the TSA is only testing these machines, but once they go into production, they will replace the ubiquitous metal detectors that we have become so accustomed to. And what if you would rather not pass through one of these machines?

“It’s a little too revealing,” said Deborah Newell, who had seen images created by the scanner on local TV news Wednesday. When Newell, 29, a software-project manager from Charlotte, declined to go through the scanner, a female screener gave her a traditional pat-down search.

Kerry Holden, 48, of Miami also opted for a pat-down. She said the machine’s electronics might weaken her pacemaker battery. [emphasis mine]

A pat-down search. That’s what the police do with a criminal they’re arresting. So, either you receive a virtual strip-search, or you get patted-down like a criminal. And I think we’ve all heard stories about what happens to people who object to this sort of TSA foolishness (here’s a hint: arrested, detained, whatever word you want to use for it).

Is it just me, or does it seem like the government is going too far?

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
—First Amendment to the US Constitution

Freedom of religion is a much-cherished ideal in the United States. In fact, it is something that is just taken for granted; no one even questions whether we should have freedom to choose our own religion or not. Jews can worship as freely as Muslims and Hindus and Bhuddists and Christians. Orthodox and Catholic Christians can worship openly and freely in a largely Protestant country. And that guy who wants to worship a rock in his backyard? Well, his neighbors will certainly look at him a little oddly, but there’s no law stopping him.

Now, let me take a quick moment to note that I, for one, do not believe that all religions are equally true. I am a member of the Orthodox Church because I believe that, of all religions and denominations, it alone has the fullness of the Truth, and there is nothing to be gained by compromising that belief. However wrong I may believe others to be, and whatever I may say to them in conversation about their and my beliefs, I fully support their freedom to worship as they see best. I would not want that freedom to be taken from me.

However, every so often, a case comes up where the question must be asked: how far does religious freedom go? I came across such a case the other day in an article posted to Twitter by one of the people I follow. This article was: Trials for Parents Who Chose Faith Over Medicine

In summary, an 11-year-old girl has died of complications as a result of untreated diabetes. Her parents had not taken her to a doctor because the church they are members of teaches that “God alone has the ability to heal” (as the article states). Other cases of children dieing of similarly treatable, or even curable, diseases because of their parents religious beliefs about medicine are mentioned in the article. In this case, the parents have been arrested, and are facing 25 years in jail for “reckless endangerment.”

Since I read that article, I’ve had mixed feelings about the case. On the one hand, it saddens me to hear of the harm that is be caused by wrong beliefs. And, certainly, those who believe that we should not seek medical help when necessary are mistaken and deceived. I know of nothing to indicate that God requires this of us.

At the same time, should the parents be punished for this? What they did was foolish, but, given what little information I have about the case, it sounds like they did so in good faith (pun not intended). It sounds like they did what they believed they should do for their daughter: they prayed for her and commended her to God. Had they not believed that they shouldn’t bring their daughter to the doctor, they may well have had her there at the first opportunity.

The parents responded to the court the charges violate their First Amendment rights, that the government is taking a role in matters of religion. So, ultimately, the case is about how far freedom of religion goes. Is freedom of religion guarunteed even to those who cause harm to themselves or others by their practices? Certainly, one could say that Muslim terrorists are acting according to their religion in their attacks (and before anyone comes complaining about that statement, I just note that, whatever other Muslims may believe, certainly many if not all of the terrorists would argee with what I just said), but we would say that’s not a valid argument, because they’re killing and harming people who have nothing to do with their religion. But what about this case, when the harm is within the family? What if the daughter, although 11, agreed with her parents (something we don’t know)? Was it them her choice, or are her parents still responsible?

And, then, there’s this statement from the judge: “The free exercise clause of the First Amendment protects religious belief, but not necessarily conduct.” Honestly, though I understand the context of the statement, such a precedent scares me.

I don’t really know what to think about this. Obviously, we should pray for all involved in this case. At the same time, as citizens of the United States, who vote for their leaders and (supposedly) have some say in the laws that are passed, it would seem like we should have an opinion on this. So, what thoughts might anyone out there have about this?

Obviously, the United States doesn’t have a king, but “The President’s Term is Ended” just wouldn’t have the same ring to it. Besides, President Bush’s term doesn’t end for another couple of months.

This past week, we had a historic event: an African-American is now the President Elect of the United States. I would like to believe, as many others seem to, that this event will bring healing to “race relations” in our country, but I’m doubtful. I read too many articles and too many comments leading up to the election about how “closet racists” might yet end up defeating Obama to believe that we’ve come very far at all in “race relations” (for example, check out this Slate article: Racism is the only reason Obama might lose).

Generally the argument went thus: while the polls tended to show Obama in the lead, it is likely the case that many people said that they’d vote for Obama so that they wouldn’t appear to be racists, but on the inside, they were still racist and just not ready for a black man to be president. I’ve also come across the sentiment that “the only reason not to vote for Obama is because you’re racist.” Unfortunately, after listening to the media, it sounds like many people who voted for Obama weren’t so much voting for Barack Obama as they were voting for a black man.

I have always thought that true progress in “race relations” would mean that a black man was running for the Presidency and no one cared that he was black. As Martin Luther King, Jr. said in his famous “I Have a Dream” speech, “I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.” I think this applies whether the judgment is positive or negative, and regardless of the skin color of the subject.

Personally, I did not vote for Obama because I believe his policies will be bad for our nation. Had someone such as Alan Keyes run on the Republican ticket, I would have voted for him.

That said, Obama is going to be our next President. While I disagree with him politically, and I will continue to be critical of his policies that I think are going to be harmful to our nation, he is going to be the President and I will support him. As a Christian, I will pray for him and his administration. God bless President-Elect Obama.

Last week, I read a news story about McCain getting booed for saying that Obama was a “decent guy.” In another instance, someone at a McCain rally cried out to kill Obama (although this was apparently only heard by one person). On the other side, I read this morning about an Obama supporter assulting a McCain volunteer in Manhattan with her own sign.

All of this reminds me of a story about a monk I read recently.

For some background, Father Stephen, author of the blog Glory to God for All Things, recently went on a pilgrimage to Jerusalem. This is a land that has been torn apart by religious and political strife for centuries. During this visit, Father Stephen visited the Monestary of St. Saba, which has existed since the 5th Century and has seen its share of martyrs. Father Stephen writes of one conversation with a monk:

The monk who was guiding us through the monastery was asked the question about the difficulties the monastery encountered with the political situation in the area (it is situated in the Palestian Authority area). He said, “We have been here since the 5th century and have seen many political situations. We are monks. We have no enemies.”

I immediately grabbed his hand and kissed it and told him, “You’re the first man I’ve met in the holy land who proclaimed that he had no enemies. You are a blessing.”

When he returned, Father Stephen posted a further meditation on this exchange, A Single Monk, which serves as a very good reminder for us as the political season reaches its apex.

In addition, I would offer these words from Psalm 146 (145 in the Septuagint), which are sung as the Second Antiphon in the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom on Sundays in the Orthodox Church:

Praise the Lord, O my soul. I will praise the Lord as long as I live. I will sing praises to my God while I have my being. Put not your trust in princes, in sons of men, in whom there is no salvation. When his breath departs, he returns to his earth; on that very day, his plans perish. The Lord will reign forever; thy God, O Zion, to all generations.