Home - News - What's New - Quick Map - Site Map - Search - Contact

The German discrimination

Usenet post from the newsgroup alt.religion.scientology.

Source:  Church of Scientology asks Bonn to intervene in Bavaria

Bernie@bernie.cncfamily.com (Bernie)

Wed, 18 Dec 1996 02:06:12 GMT

Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology,misc.legal,soc.culture.german
Subject: Re: Church of Scientology asks Bonn to intervene in Bavaria
Message-ID: 32c45183.16305090@news.ping.be

Jon Noring:
>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 this.

>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 constitution.

>(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 me.)

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 world.

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 laws.

>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?

It is.

>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 realizing it.


In the long history of the world, only a few generations have been granted the role of defending freedom in its hour of maximum danger. I do not shrink from this responsibility. I welcome it.
                                                                (J.F. Kennedy)


Usenet post from the newsgroup alt.religion.scientology.

Source: Super Scio - World Takeover (answering Anonymous)

Bernie@bernie.cncfamily.com (Bernie)

Wed, 10 Dec 1997 20:06:52 GMT

Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology,alt.clearing.technology
Subject: Re: Super Scio - World Takeover (answering Anonymous)
Message-ID: <34b5ef9e.72790266@snews.zippo.com

>>>> 3. Do you think the German Government is overreacting to Scientology?

The Pilot:
>>> Definitely.

Yep. I missed that answer from the Pilot, but I am glad that he seem to see through the situation clearly.

Klaus Bloemker:
>>I would like to make a little comment on the subject, as a complete outsider to Scientology:

>>In the light of the fact that Scientology has not even been able so far to get political control over a small city like Clearwater, the German government's reaction definitely looks like an overreaction. (Having put Scientology under surveillance.)

landless@earth.common (Ruanaidh):
>Hubbard was a corrupt personality, this seems clear. His lusts were for money and power, (sex comes a poor third?). Scientology indulges these lusts, in addition to this his novels (eg, Battlefield Earth), express in fantasy his lust for conspiracy, revenge and power.

>But clearly he is no match for someone like Hitler, whose lust for power is deadly, exact and brilliant. The Nazi SA was a Nazi army in waiting, designed to replace the German army upon the seizure of the state. This actually created a problem for Hitler upon the seizure of power, that the SA under Roehm expected to take over or become the army power. Hitler wasnt ready for this, as the German Army represented the only force that could challenge him. His solution? The night of the long knives, to murder Roehm and his followers and a thousand others. The army was grateful but enslaved.

In real term you are right, but I view the danger of ideologies as equally dangerous, whether it is Hitler's, Hubbard's, Ayatholah (sp?), or anything else. Fanatical ideologies or counter-ideologies are the problem. It would be blindness for us to dismiss the fact that it could happen today. They just take on new forms. I think Scn is one of them, but then I also think that the zeal of the counter-movement can bring about the very same dire consequences just as well. The psychological mechanism behind discrimination is a subtle and unconscious one, in which the person justifies to himself its validity, while blinding himself about other aspects that would contradict his unconscious purpose.

In dealing with the threat that Scn represent, one has to keep a cool head and keep things in proportion. The biggest mistake one can do in this respect is start to accept exceptions to the fundamental principles edicted by a free society. The "immediate" reaction to a threat as represented in its worst aspect, is to start taking on fascist measures to "protect" democracy. It just doesn't work that way. Democracy is never protected by hysterical and fascist measures.

>Hubbard set up his Sea Org, complete with snazzy uniforms, but it is regarded as a joke by every serious politician. Hubbard was a madman, like Koos.

Exactly - which makes the Germans reaction completely unwarranted. They can debunk the ideology and protest the abuse all they want, but to use the power of the State in discriminatory manner is awfully wrong. The denial of rights of those we consider as unworthy is a tricky business, because tomorrow someone can decide that we are the unworthy ones.

>>The Germany-Scientology thing has absolutely nothing to do with religion/philosophy or system of belief or anything of that kind.

Sorry, but the Germany-Scientology thing *is* a matter or religion/philosophy system of belief. Scientologists are discriminated upon based on their belonging to an hated class. You may squeamish around saying "no it's because of their action". It is not true. What is the criteria on which the *individuals* are judged? What action *by_this_individual* is being reproached to him? Nothing. His mere allegiance to a particular religion/philosophy is the criteria used. That makes it a question of discrimination base on religion/philosophy or system of belief.



Random Quote :

Disclaimer :

This web site is NOT created by a Scientologist. It is created by a Scientology EX-MEMBER who is critical of Scientology. However, this ex-member is ALSO critical of the anti-Scientology movement. This does not make him a Scientologist, nor a defender of Scientology.

Quick Map :

About Myths Bigotry Anti-Cultism Criticism Third Way Links
Site map
What's New














Who's Who



What Is?



The Tech








Scientologists Speak