|
The group you are posting to is a Usenet group. Messages posted to this group will make your email address visible to anyone on the Internet.
Your reply message has not been sent.
Your post was successful
 |
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology, soc.culture.german
From: b...@arcadis.be (Bernie)
Date: 1997/08/02
Subject: Re: Case study: Kathleen Wilson
n...@petermc.demon.co.uk (Peter McDermott) wrote in article >In article <3476521b.496634...@snews.zippo.com>, b...@arcadis.be (Bernie) wrote: I don't know about the US scene, but they weren't debarred out >>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. 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 Which is already something that narrows down the debate, and >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 not what the Bavarian state does. Their measure apply to all applicants. Sensitive tasks within state institutions already have their >I don't believe that many Scientologists at all go into jobs with I could write several paragraphs on this one alone but won't for >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. 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 YMMV. >>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. >>experience that Scientologists are usually stupid people? What I would agree with gullible, in some sense. But clearly, I don't >>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. think Scientologists have a monopoly in that. > Or do you think No necessarily, although I do respect those who, through their >>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? 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. And it is your right to consider them so. When the state does >But the very fact that they *are* scienos marks them out as none too >bright in my book. As ever, YMMV the same, though, I really have a problem with that. >>A great quantity of Scientologists aren't stupid, Peter, nor are OK. I just wish the Bavarian state would find a better way to >>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. achieve that than through a silly and discriminative measure. My bet is that, as it is, they are going to get busted by some All the Bavarian state wins from this measure is to gain an Anyway, thanks for your thoughts. Bernie 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.
| |||||||||||||