n...@petermc.demon.co.uk (Peter McDermott) wrote in article
<B008DA9296687E...@petermc.demon.co.uk>:
>In article <3476521b.496634
...@snews.zippo.com>, b
...@arcadis.be (Bernie) wrote:
>>n
...@petermc.demon.co.uk (Peter McDermott) wrote in article <B007E49596681B8
...@0.0.0.0>:
>>>Ah. In much the same way as most communists. I take it you believe
>>>that all of the discrimination by the US government against
>>>communists was also wrong?
>>I do, even though we deal here with a problem from state to
>>state (or political system) and the entry of foreign citizens.
>>In the case of Bavaria, we deal with state to religion and of
>>the rights of citizens within this state.
>Yes, but I believe it went further than that. I'm pretty sure
>that an American with full citizenship, someone actually born
>in the USA for an example, who was a member of the CPUS (Communist
>Party of the United States) would also have been debarred from
>employment in any government job - this despite the fact that the
>CPUS had never had it's members found guilty of any sort of any
>espionage.
I don't know about the US scene, but they weren't debarred out
because of an official state law, were they? (McCarthism apart).
If, for example, the Bavarian state did not have such a law but
would simply check on people to try and find out somehow if they
belong to the CofS of not, it would be a different matter. As it
is, that's not what they do. They simply pro-actively declare
themselves against Scientologists in their very form. As a
matter of fact, I think that it is a measure that is *less*
effective than just checking on people. If they *really* wanted
to prevent Scientologists to infiltrate the state's
institutions, they would do just that. What they do is, I think,
much more a PR anti-Scn propaganda tool than anything else. It
certainly is useless in achieving what they claim they want to
achieve doing that.
>Do I think it was wrong to discriminate against those people? In
>the main, yes. Not only where they actively barred from getting
>jobs funded by the state, but they were also effectively hounded
>out of jobs in the private sector as well.
>And so while I agree that such discrimination is wrong in
>principle, I believe that in practice it is often necessary -
>hence my argument that I wouldn't have a blanket ban - just a
>ban on them in posts where they have any chance of access to
>information of any sort.
Which is already something that narrows down the debate, and
which is not what the Bavarian state does. Their measure apply
to all applicants.
Sensitive tasks within state institutions already have their
special measures, and it is something that concerns only those
applying for these tasks and not everybody. It is something done
internally, not something that would deny someone job access to
public service in general (as opposed to a specific task), for
which he is otherwise totally competent, on the sole ground of
his belief and potential for spying. If for some reasons he
doesn't fit with the criteria for the task at hand (conflict of
interest, whatever), then he would just be given another job
within the organization. Attribution of tasks within the state
institutions are often very much an arbitrary or political
matter anyway (at least in Europe).
>I don't believe that many Scientologists at all go into jobs with
>the intention of spying. The problem is that once they are in
>those jobs and Scientology realizes that they have access to
>information that may be of value to them, their so-called religious
>doctrine allows them to justify the theft of that information, and
>the cult's track record shows that they have no scruples whatsoever
>about engaging in such crimes. Their actions towards people on this
>newsgroup shows that these tactics are still alive and well - and why
>would they not be? They are 'source', surely and in light of that,
>it's most unlikely that any scientologist who was asked to get such
>information would feel able to refuse.
I could write several paragraphs on this one alone but won't for
the sake of concision. I will just say that although I agree
that this is a possibility, it isn't just a problem limited to
Scientologists, and, mainly that the measure proposed by the
Bavarian state is not addressing the problem adequately, plus it
is discriminatory on all the ones who may *not* engage in these
actions in the first place. I simply think that the "solution"
proposed is worst than the potential problems that may arise if
it wasn't enforced and if normal, internal, measures and rules
were simply being applied.
>>Do you really think that every members are willfully
>>participating in the corrupt actions of the COS? Is it your
>Not actively at every moment of every day, but they don't have
>to. Choosing to associate themself with such an organization is
>sufficient grounds to regard them as unsuitable, I believe.
YMMV.
>>experience that Scientologists are usually stupid people? What
>>about ex-Scn? Do think Dennis Erlich, Martin Hunt, Monica
>>Pignotti, Joe Harrington, are stupid people?
>I think that they showed a serious lack of good judgement by joining
>scientology. I think that they also displayed a woeful failure to
>go out and do the basic research on an organization that they were
>deciding to sell their sole to. And, yes, I think that anyone who
>can buy even the most fundamental parts of Hubbardism - the most
>innocuous Dianetic theory - has to be extremely gullible in some
>sense.
I would agree with gullible, in some sense. But clearly, I don't
think Scientologists have a monopoly in that.
> Or do you think
>>that the mere fact that they quit the CofS made them all of a
>>sudden bright? Do you think John Travolta, Chick Corea, or any
>>of the many Scn celebrities are anymore stupid than a German
>>civil servant?
>Quite honestly, yes I do. I don't have any reason to believe that
>because someody can whack out a tune, or have a face that looks good
>on camera, that they have superior reasoning powers. Do you?
No necessarily, although I do respect those who, through their
talent, are able to manage it to the top. I think that it takes
more than just whack out a tune or have a face that looks good
on camera. Do you see any difference between a Scientologist
celebrity and a non-Scientologist one (or a Christian one,
whatever)? Signs of them being "hypnotized" or other
"pathological" behavior different than the other stars? (I know
that you don't accept the hypnotized argument but I just use it
to emphasis my point) I don't. Not for the worse nor the better.
It is just a matter of individual talent, and so is their belief
a matter of individual choice. I would not preclude from that
alone that they would *automatically*, quasi-robotically,
quasi-hypnotically, perform unethical acts dictated by the CofS.
>Perhaps you believe that Pamela Lee Anderson is more intelligent than you are?
Hey, I don't know her. Is she cute? If yes, then I think I
probably would switch off my critical thinking and actually find
her very intelligent :-)
>You may be right, I don't know.
>But the very fact that they *are* scienos marks them out as none too
>bright in my book. As ever, YMMV
And it is your right to consider them so. When the state does
the same, though, I really have a problem with that.
>>A great quantity of Scientologists aren't stupid, Peter, nor are
>>they willfully or consciously cooperating in corrupt acts. As a
>>matter of fact, many of them have quit the CofS because they
>>were asked to participate in or became aware of the corrupt
>>aspect of the CofS. Do you want the Bavarian measure to be
>>applied to these type of persons as well?
>No, I think that shows that their critical skills and ethical
>principles have started to function again. I'd still want to keep
>a very close eye on them because a Kim Baker-style flip-flop is
>always a risk - especially if they have access to sensitive and
>confidential materials.
OK. I just wish the Bavarian state would find a better way to
achieve that than through a silly and discriminative measure.
My bet is that, as it is, they are going to get busted by some
international human right watch organization, or even
international court. What may happen then, is that, like in
Lyon, the CofS may be recognized as a religion by the said
court, which will turn out to be eventually another "big win"
for the CofS.
All the Bavarian state wins from this measure is to gain an
awfully bad reputation around the world as being hysterical,
overreactive, and bigots - all the while being still unable to
effectively prevent what may happen in their worst scenarios.
Anyway, thanks for your thoughts.
Bernie
