>You're oversimplifying a much more complex issue, and you neglect that
there can be other positions/conclusions.
>In essence, I believe the "state" can deny job applications in its employ under certain circumstances, and this includes belief structure.
I would be interested what part of the constitution affirms
>If an organized group shows years of government infiltration, compromise,
blackmail, extortion, etc., etc., then the government can legitimately restrict
civil service employment to people of that organized group (or who hold any
type of allegiance to that organization -- note the word "allegiance") *if*
Legitimately? This would require a quote of the
>(1) the government makes it clear *in public* that they are doing this (so the
people know about it and if they want to change it or oppose it, can do so via
the democratic process and so allow public oversight), (2) limit it to the minimum required to guarantee effectiveness of safeguarding the
government, and (3) base it not simply on belief alone, but on a documented history
of actual attempts at spying, infiltration, document theft, and other crimes against the government by that organization.
Is this all called the Noring's amendment? :-)
>In the case of Bavaria, they are being
public about it, and I believe they are minimizing it as much as they can but still be effective for its intended purpose.
You have defined your own laws and now attempt to
demonstrate that the Bavarian state conform to this law.
>A Scientologist can still get a civil
service job I believe, but are not eligible for all jobs (if I'm wrong here, please do correct
I don't think the Bavarian clause is making mention
that Scientologist can or can't get the job. They only require for anyone
to answer questions as to whether they are associated with an organization
using LRH technology. They have no rights to do this, since the clear
purpose of it to deny you from a post on the basis of crimes you ~may~
commit based on your allegiance to an organized belief system.
>So Bavaria looks like they're doing only the
minimum necessary. And there's so much evidence of actual infiltration by Scientology of government
bodies all around the world, as well as millions of pages of seized documents outlining such infiltration, and conspiracy to do such, that at this
stage I don't think anybody can argue that there's not enough evidence to
conclude that Scientology wants to infiltrate and destabilize the German
government as any foreign enemy would during a time of war.
When it comes to this question, we always receive a
barratry of Scientology crimes by those who defend this position. This is
irrelevant, IMO. Did the ~individual~ who apply for th epost commit these
crimes? If not, why should he be punished in advance for something he
didn't do and may never do, when he otherwise can fulfill the job
perfectly and when he may not be a Scientologist forever.?
>I recall reading recently that a few years
ago the German government seized thousands of pages of documents from a raid on a Scientology office or something (I hope somebody here can fill in the details) where they got
first hand glimpse of intelligence information on the immensity of the actual
and planned penetration of the German government. I believe they saw the
danger this group poses to their national security, and they have every right to take action to safeguard the integrity of the government.
Every right under what part of the constitution?
Under what part of International Charter of Human Rights?
>I believe it was at that time they started considering stronger action.
>[Note the very important distinction that Bavaria, and Germany in
general, is not focusing on the belief system of Scientology and "discriminating"
against it because of belief, but because Scientology has a well-documented
history of infiltration and other criminal acts in governments all over the
I believe this alleged distinction between belief and
action is often just a facade. That's the argument of anti-cult groups:
"we don't attack beliefs, we attack action". Then the next thing you know
is that they are deprogramming or exit-counseling them, based on what?
Their belief. And how many time in this newsgroup the belief of
Scientologist are not attacked? The assertion that it is all crap, the
distortions and discoursing? this being said, the only fair way in this
field for anyone to base on the action of others is according to the law
and the democratic principles. If Scientologists have perpetrated illegal
actions, they should be sued. If they perpetrated unethical acts, then
these should be informed to others through the press and free expression.
But they can't be legally punished for unethical actions other than
actions against the law, at which point it becomes an illegal action. And
the people who perpetrated those actions should be punished, not others
who didn't commit them.
So what illegal action did the Bavarian citizen
commit to be denied fair access to a job? Did he commit the crime to
believe in Scientology technology? To put all Scientologists in the same
bag and treat them all as criminals for acts perpetrated by other
Scientologists is a profound injustice. This of course applies to any
other class as well.
>This is a very important distinction,
Bernie, and I don't think you realize it.
The belonging to an hated group is the real cause,
not the actions. There is no direct link between actions perpetrated 10
years ago by other people and the genuine intention of a Bavarian citizen
to feed his family and serve his country. He momentarily happen to hold
certain belief, practice certain techniques and belong to a certain group.
Where is the alleged crimes? On what action of his is he denied normal
rights enjoyed by others who may happen to have much wider beliefs,
actions and allegiances?
>We as a society should do as much as we can
not to "discriminate" against *individuals* based on beliefs they hold, but society also has the right
to protect itself from organizations that will use society's abhorence to discrimination as a shield to pursue the infiltration and destruction of
the very social order there to protect our religious freedoms!
~If~ members of the COS, or of any other group, are
proven to have pursued infiltration and destruction of the very social
order, then ~these~ individual should be punished, and maybe those who
enticed them in this direction. Until then, the presumption of innocence
should be granted to them as per every judiciary systems and international
>What I outline above is reasonable and pragmatic action to balance between these two
very important needs.]
If this balance is not accomplished according to
constitutional guidelines and international declaration of rights, then it
is left to the arbitrary of those who hold power. It is unacceptable in
any democratic society.
>To give a U.S. example, a person can be
denied certain government jobs if they believe in the forcible overthrow of the U.S. Government, and there certainly are "religions" that believe in this goal
The US have one of the best constitution in the world
in this respect. Probably because it was made by people who fled
persecution and discrimination from Europe. What you say above would
directly violate the US principles of separation of Church and States, as
well as the 1st amendment. The principle is simple: congress shall make no
law... regarding beliefs, and actions should be punished solely through
the established judicial system for proven infringement of the
constitution. Unethical acts are dealt with through free speech, ~not~
through the constitution, and the ~presumption~ of misconduct cannot be
used against the citizen.
>(I'm not saying Scientology does, but I know there are religious and philosophical belief systems that believe this). Also, until recently, a person professing
belief in Communism, which is in itself a philosophical belief system not unlike that of many religions, could be denied a security clearance as well, and this is still in effect I believe.
Does it make it any better? Should we reintroduce McCarthism?
>Are you saying that it is totally wrong for the U.S. government to deny high-level security clearances to
individuals professing allegiance to Communism or Fascism because they believe these things, which include the forcible overthrow of the U.S. government and
the elimination of religious tolerance?
It isn't really me who is saying those things. They
are basic democratic principles, and I do believe that there are reasons
behind them and that these reason have been confirmed over the years over
and over again.
Let me also ask you a question, Jon. Do you think
that the past abuses against minority groups weren't supported by a
philosophy of their own? Don't you think that those perpetrating these
abuses didn't believe that they were really in the right? That they were
justified in exceptionally bending the rules they otherwise asked others
to apply to them?
The current hysteria is not without analogy at all
with past historical occurrences. First you demonize the "other". Then you
start by admitting small infringement to basic principles, than a little
bit bigger. At the end you are left with nothing but your eyes to cry over
the disaster the whole thing engendered.
>One last point: is it possible that an
organization can use the "shield" of religion in a bogus way in order to try to avoid scrutiny?
>If this is possible (and I say the answer is *yes*) then it is, and should be, in
the power of the people (through our elected officials) to deny certain
government positions to those individuals who profess allegiance to any organization
when there's strong documented evidence that the organization is trying to infiltrate and destabilize governments.
It isn't, because you can't prove the link between
the two. you are confounding the right of the individual and the law. If,
as an individual, I don't like your religion, your race, your sex, the
fact that your are Hitler's third cousin by alliance, or I just don't like
you, I do have a certain flexibility for decision in the area that is my
prerogative. This could be discussed because it may not really apply to
the person's ability to fill up the job and I believe there are even some
law that may be applied here for discrimination. But I certainly can't
make it into an ~official~ law that is being applied to all those in my
area or other areas. As official representative or agency, you should
represent ~all~ citizens depending on you and you should not favor
subjective or controversial personal issue over another. For a State to
enact its prejudices and the presumption of illegal conduct into its own
rule is a serious violation of the basic democratic principles.
>To close, Bernie and others, you have to
differentiate between religious belief of individuals and the *actions* of an organization claiming to represent that religious belief. They are NOT the same, and thus the arguments we use for one cannot be automatically used for the other.
We agree on the principle, but not on the definition of the
actions and the scope of what was done by whom and when, that
would lead to infer a prejudiciable presumption of guilt.
I don't think that the Federal Government in Germany or German
Constitutional instances agree to what the Bavarian authorities
are doing. I don't think the International Institutions will
agree with it either. I believe that the COS may even,
eventually, ask for compensation of the damage done, like what
probably happened with the IRS. Then what will you have gained
through all this? It is the most silly way to protest against
the actions of the COS and the most counter-productive on the
long run. It diverts from actual attention on the COS and focus
attention on its enemies. German libertarians and libertarians
around the world will have to side with the COS on this issue,
even though they may abhor the COS with all their guts. I am
quite sure the COS leader ~love~ it. They can't expect better to
defend their cause. And all those who do not put enough thoughts
in this issue and are reactively supporting this infraction of
civil rights are actually playing the COS game without even
In the long history of the world, only a few
been granted the role of defending freedom in its hour of
maximum danger. I do not shrink from this responsibility. I