 |
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology, misc.legal, soc.culture.german
From: b...@arcadis.be (Bernie)
Date: 1996/12/18
Subject: Re: Church of Scientology asks Bonn to intervene in Bavaria
nor...@netcom.com (Jon Noring) wrote: I would be interested what part of the constitution affirms >In article b...@arcadis.be (Bernie) writes: >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. this. >If an Legitimately? This would require a quote of the constitution. >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* >(1) the Is this all called the Noring's amendment? :-) >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. >In the case of Bavaria, they are being public about it, and I believe they You have defined your own laws and now attempt to demonstrate >are minimizing it as much as they can but still be effective for its >intended purpose. that the Bavarian state conform to this law. >A Scientologist can still get a civil service job I believe, I don't think the Bavarian clause is making mention that >but are not eligible for all jobs (if I'm wrong here, please do correct me.) 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 When it comes to this question, we always receive a barratry of >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. 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 Every right under what part of the constitution? Under what part >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. of International Charter of Human Rights? >I believe it was I believe this alleged distinction between belief and action is >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. 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 So what illegal action did the Bavarian citizen commit to be >This is a very important distinction, Bernie, and I don't think you realize The belonging to an hated group is the real cause, not the >it. 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 ~If~ members of the COS, or of any other group, are proven to >*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! 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 If this balance is not accomplished according to constitutional >above is reasonable and pragmatic action to balance between these two very >important needs.] 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 The US have one of the best constitution in the world in this >they believe in the forcible overthrow of the U.S. Government, and there >certainly are "religions" that believe in this goal 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 Does it make it any better? Should we reintroduce McCarthism? >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. >Are you saying that it is totally wrong It isn't really me who is saying those things. They are basic >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? 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 The current hysteria is not without analogy at all with past >One last point: is it possible that an organization can use the "shield" It is. >of religion in a bogus way in order to try to avoid scrutiny? >If this is It isn't, because you can't prove the link between the two. you >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. 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 We agree on the principle, but not on the definition of the >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. 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 --------- In the long history of the world, only a few generations have You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
| |||||||||||||