Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Germany Starts Branding Scientologists

1 view
Skip to first unread message

Bernie

unread,
Oct 5, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/5/97
to

I just found out that Roland's idea of branding
Scientologists was picked up by some officials in Germany.

As you may remember, Roland Rashleigh-Berry wrote the following:

____________________________________________________

Message-ID: <32C467...@netcomuk.co.uk>

"I made the further suggestion that German
Scientologists should be marked in some way to identify
them as such. In that wise a person meeting them would
be warned as to their affiliations and methods and
would therefore be in a position to defend themselves
against it. I stand by what I said."

[...]

"I previously thought the best way to do this was
through use of brands or tattoos on a very visible part
of the body, such as the forehead. The trouble with
this method is that people leave the Church and so they
would be left with a mark that no longer applied. On
reflection I have come up with the best solution.
Scientologists are very fond of their badges, tie-pins
etc. Some symbol is required that would be both
acceptable to a majority Scientologists and would be
identifiable to the public."

[...]

"If it were made compulsory for Scientologists in
Germany to wear these in a prominent place on their
person at all times when they were in public, then
combined with public education some of the tragic
stories of those who have entered the cult could
hopefully be avoided."
____________________________________________________

I now read the following from a (very factual) report
put together by Scientologists and to be found at
http://hatewatch.freedommag.org/press/eng/gen/dscr/page00.htm :

____________________________________________________

• March 1997: Labor Offices are now marking businesses
owned by Scientologists with an “S.” Starting in
mid-1997, job consulting offices will be equipped with
special software so that the “Scientology marking” will
appear on the computer screen of job counsellors. This
measure has been implemented following a circular by
the Federal Labor Institute which gave labor offices
until the end of April to comply. The intiative to mark
businesses owned by Scientologists came from Federal
Labor Minister Norbert Blüm.
____________________________________________________


The brave people on alt.religion.scientology may soon
see their dream come true: all dissenters branded by the All
Mighty German State's computer...

Bernie


Roland

unread,
Oct 5, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/5/97
to

Bernie wrote:
<snip>
> The brave people on alt.religion.scientology may soon
> see their dream come true: all dissenters branded by the All
> Mighty German State's computer...

It's not the same. If I hear of Scientologists being put on trains and
sent off to death camps in Poland then I'll put in a very stiff word of
complaint (after I get my German perfect and damn, damn this bloody
pencil keeps breaking).

Roland

Cornelius Krasel

unread,
Oct 6, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/6/97
to

Gunbunny (Gun_...@hotmail.com) wrote:
[major snippage]
> 1. In 1989, if someone said the Berlin Wall was coming down would you have
> believed it?

Yes.

> 2. In 1997, some say that Germany and America will be enemies
> again, do you believe it?

Why not? The U.S. government is currently making "friends" all over the world.
(There was a nice article in yesterday's Sueddeutsche Zeitung.)

Remember, it is the U.S. who thinks it should investigate Germany. What
if Germany investigated the U.S.? (And, according to the Sueddeutsche,
regarding Scientology this may very well happen.)

--Cornelius.

PS: As to the original accusation: if I were looking for a job, I would
like to know whether my future boss is a Scientologist, or not.

PPS: A personal note aside: I never had thought that I could be proud
of being a German. Then I went to the U.S. for the first time.

--
/* Cornelius Krasel, U Wuerzburg, Dept. of Pharmacology, Versbacher Str. 9 */
/* D-97078 Wuerzburg, Germany email: pha...@rzbox.uni-wuerzburg.de SP4 */
/* "Science is the game we play with God to find out what His rules are." */

DeoMorto

unread,
Oct 6, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/6/97
to

Bernie wrote:>> * March 1997: Labor Offices are now marking businesses

owned by Scientologists with an "S." Starting in
mid-1997, job consulting offices will be equipped with
special software so that the "Scientology marking" will
appear on the computer screen of job counsellors.<<

the part you managed to omit Bernie (naturally) is why the German government
felt it necessary to alert job counsellors to the scientological connection.
I'm not surprised that you left it out because it is one more reason why the
cofs is in the pooh in Germany.
I know its hard to believe that a church would stoop to lying but can you
believe that the CofS tries to recruit people to work there without actually
telling people what they will be doing? Yep.
Take for example Sterling Management in the USA, helping dentists become more
efficient, more profitable, has also worked to supply new people to the
mission in San Francisco and to the cofs itself. Now, if you were to apply for
a job at Sterling this would not be part of your orientation....
Lets face it Bernie - the one thing above all else that the cofs despises in
anyone keeping track of what they are actually doing and publicizing it.
It actually forces them to stay sort of honest.

Alec

unread,
Oct 6, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/6/97
to

DeoMorto wrote in message <19971006144...@ladder02.news.aol.com>...

> I know its hard to believe that a church would stoop to lying but can you
> believe that the CofS tries to recruit people to work there without
actually
> telling people what they will be doing? Yep.
> Take for example Sterling Management in the USA, helping dentists become
more
> efficient, more profitable, has also worked to supply new people to the
> mission in San Francisco and to the cofs itself. Now, if you were to apply
for
> a job at Sterling this would not be part of your orientation....

This is not to refute your very good point, but...

I worked at Sterling for a while as a Consultant in training. The only ones
hired as Consultants are proven Scientologists. (Why do I feel like I'm
bragging?)

The hired help who are not Scientologists and not clued-in to the awsome
spectre of Sterlings nether affiliation do the lower paper-chase work.

--alec

Martin Hunt

unread,
Oct 6, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/6/97
to

In article <a1ha16...@wpxx02.toxi.uni-wuerzburg.de>,
kra...@wpxx02.toxi.uni-wuerzburg.de (Cornelius Krasel) wrote:

>PPS: A personal note aside: I never had thought that I could be proud
> of being a German. Then I went to the U.S. for the first time.

I think the modern state of Germany has a lot to be proud of; it
is an advanced society, very educated, very safe when compared to
the US.

It's amazing to me that Germany still has such a chip on its
shoulder about WWII. After all, most of the people from that era
are dead now of old age. In another 20 years there will hardly be
any of them left. The majority of people in Germany now weren't
even *born* then! I don't see Canada or the US still worrying
about our collective genocide, and we killed just as many people
as the Nazis, maybe more. (I can see some people scratching their
heads; let me refresh your memories: this continent wasn't ours...we
took it through brute force and slaughter.)

I can't believe Scientology still thinks there's juice left in
this button in late 1997. Oh, sure; "Germany is a fascist state."
Ho hum.

*Scientology* is a fascist state!

--
Cogito, ergo sum. Use "Xenu" in Subject: line of email.


Gunbunny

unread,
Oct 6, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/6/97
to

On Sun, 05 Oct 1997 19:27:29 GMT, be...@arcadis.be (Bernie),
<346ae9d1...@news.ping.be> wrote :

> I just found out that Roland's idea of branding
>Scientologists was picked up by some officials in Germany.
>
>As you may remember, Roland Rashleigh-Berry wrote the following:
>
>____________________________________________________
>
>Message-ID: <32C467...@netcomuk.co.uk>
>
>

> ? March 1997: Labor Offices are now marking businesses


> owned by Scientologists with an "S." Starting in
> mid-1997, job consulting offices will be equipped with
> special software so that the "Scientology marking" will

> appear on the computer screen of job counsellors. This
> measure has been implemented following a circular by
> the Federal Labor Institute which gave labor offices
> until the end of April to comply. The intiative to mark
> businesses owned by Scientologists came from Federal

> Labor Minister Norbert Blum.
>____________________________________________________


>
>
> The brave people on alt.religion.scientology may soon
>see their dream come true: all dissenters branded by the All
>Mighty German State's computer...
>

>Bernie

The BundesRepublik ist returning to the Good Old Days when you
could easily find out who the enemy is from government offices.

Through out the history of Deustchland we see one consistent act
by the German Government. The donimanation of Europe by Germany.
The fact is that Germany doesn't want to be part of the European
Common Union it wants to "be" the European Common Union. One way
to obtain this is to identify a enemy. It has worked so well in the past
and it is natural to return what has worked.
If you analysis WWII you will find that Hitler's big mistake was taking
on Russia. If he had not done that some say that Germany would rule Europe
today. Now a smarter generation sees that domination of Europe can be more
easily done by "economic" means. One thing that stands in the way of
Germany is America. So if you need a reason to deflate the role of America
in Europe, Scientology is the best way to do that. Although, something major
must happen to lessen America's role, some propuse within the next few years
we could see this happen.

1. In 1989, if someone said the Berlin Wall was coming down would you have
believed it?

2. In 1997, some say that Germany and America will be enemies
again, do you believe it?


It is also important to remember the the NAZI's did not kill any Jews,
The GERMAN people did. The "German People" are returning to the policies
of the past. They could very well succeed this time. They seem to learn
from their mistakes.

Was ist der Devise auf Deutschland, heute!

Keith

-----------------------------------------------------------
! Keith Wyatt http://www.teleport.com/~kewyatt !
! PGP KEY by finger and keyservers !
! Proud member of the Cult of Catholicism. Hail Mary. !
-----------------------------------------------------------
"Terrorism, as an instrument of war, will influence our lives and
those of our children for the next several decades."
CIA Expert in Crime & Justice International


Unit 61

unread,
Oct 6, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/6/97
to

Gunbunny wrote:
> 1. In 1989, if someone said the Berlin Wall was coming down would you have
> believed it?

No.

> 2. In 1997, some say that Germany and America will be enemies
> again, do you believe it?

Sounds like clam manipulation, but I'll answer anyway.

Identify some.

No I don't.

"Some say" the Church of $cientology will die in the next few years.
(We can only hope)

John

Tilman Hausherr

unread,
Oct 6, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/6/97
to

In <19971006144...@ladder02.news.aol.com>, deom...@aol.com
(DeoMorto) wrote:

>Bernie wrote:>> * March 1997: Labor Offices are now marking businesses


> owned by Scientologists with an "S." Starting in
> mid-1997, job consulting offices will be equipped with
> special software so that the "Scientology marking" will
> appear on the computer screen of job counsellors.<<
>

> the part you managed to omit Bernie (naturally) is why the German government
> felt it necessary to alert job counsellors to the scientological connection.

Bernie (or rather, "Gabor") is only using 10% of his brain. Before this
decision, there were many problems with scientology trying to suck
people in through job offers. The job offers make a much bigger share in
recruiting that the street harassment.

Scientology could have prevented this years ago - by no longer trying to
recruit this way. They didn't do it, now they get what they deserve.

And they still do it in the US, see Executive Software or RealWorld.

Tilman


Stefan Blandow

unread,
Oct 7, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/7/97
to

I remember a time, there were other people really given time in germany
to leave. They did not do it, I wonder if Tilman thinks, they got what
they deserved.


> And they still do it in the US, see Executive Software or RealWorld.

Sell 'em ovens, Tilman, nice smell.

> Tilman


steff

Perry Scott

unread,
Oct 7, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/7/97
to

Bernie (be...@arcadis.be) wrote:

: And I just found an independent confirmation of this at
: the Ontario Consultants for Religious Tolerance:
:
: http://www.religioustolerance.org/scie_neg.htm


This is really disingenious, Bernie. www.religioustolerance.org is
another front group for Scientology.

"Gosh, the same information coming from two directions! My pathetic wog
brain must conclude that the information must be 'very true'." I think
my intelligence has just been insulted.


Perry Scott
Co$ Escapee

Perry Scott

unread,
Oct 7, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/7/97
to

Bernie (be...@arcadis.be) wrote:
: I just found out that Roland's idea of branding
: Scientologists was picked up by some officials in Germany.

[34 lines not supporting the Subject: line snipped.]

"I just found out". Hubbard used that phrase, Bernie. It's a little
eerie coming from you.


: I now read the following from a (very factual) report


: put together by Scientologists and to be found at
: http://hatewatch.freedommag.org/press/eng/gen/dscr/page00.htm :

Bernie, you used "very factual" and "freedommag" in the same sentence.
Based on past literary reviews, I would have to say that I do not share
your opinion. For those who do not recognize hatewatch.freedommag.org,
it is yet another front for the Church of Scientology. Freedom magazine
is an official publication of the Church of Scientology.

Why "very factual", and not just "factual"? Either it is true or it is
not.

: ____________________________________________________

: • March 1997: Labor Offices are now marking businesses


: owned by Scientologists with an “S.” Starting in
: mid-1997, job consulting offices will be equipped with
: special software so that the “Scientology marking” will

: appear on the computer screen of job counsellors. This


: measure has been implemented following a circular by
: the Federal Labor Institute which gave labor offices
: until the end of April to comply. The intiative to mark
: businesses owned by Scientologists came from Federal

: Labor Minister Norbert Blüm.
: ____________________________________________________

Hmm. Could it be that Scientology engages in deceptive practices, not
telling job applicants that they are being given a job that ultimately
reports to Scientology? Most businesses tell you who their CEO is. Why
do Scientology-controlled businesses have lower ethics than other
businesses, which forces the German Government to respond in this
manner?

: The brave people on alt.religion.scientology may soon


: see their dream come true: all dissenters branded by the All
: Mighty German State's computer...

I'm in the Central Files of INCOMM, the Scientology information
retrieval system. So what?


: Bernie

Perry Scott
Co$ Escapee

DeoMorto

unread,
Oct 7, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/7/97
to

Steffan posted:>>I remember a time, there were other people really given time

in germany
to leave. They did not do it, I wonder if Tilman thinks, they got what
they deserved.<<

and I remember a time when the CofS infiltrated the BND. I remember a time
when scientologists were persuaded to get their family and friends to co-sign
for loans they could not repay. I remember a time when scientologists
routinely lied to banks in order to get loans to pay for services.
I even remember when Hamburg mission was a fun place to go - before the
mission holders were persuaded to turn it into an org and the "hard sell"
could begin.
I remember listening to a wife crying on the phone because her husband had
paid in far more money than they could afford.
Tell you what Steffan, your selective memory loss should, perhaps get checked
out in an Alzheimer's clinic.


Bernie

unread,
Oct 7, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/7/97
to

til...@berlin.snafu.de (Tilman Hausherr) wrote in article
<344f2655...@news.snafu.de> (alt.religion.scientology):

>>Bernie wrote:>> * March 1997: Labor Offices are now marking businesses


>> owned by Scientologists with an "S." Starting in
>> mid-1997, job consulting offices will be equipped with
>> special software so that the "Scientology marking" will
>> appear on the computer screen of job counsellors.<<

>Bernie (or rather, "*****") is only using 10% of his brain.

Tilman running short of argument stoop low and don't
hesitate to use outed information about my supposed name, and,
as usual, act in a childish way.

How come I can still beat you on logical ground using
10% of my brain, Tilman?

>Before this
>decision, there were many problems with scientology trying to suck
>people in through job offers. The job offers make a much bigger share in
>recruiting that the street harassment.

Tilman agree with branding and justify why it is
necessary.

>Scientology could have prevented this years ago - by no longer trying to
>recruit this way. They didn't do it, now they get what they deserve.

"They get what they deserve", said the nazi about the
Jews.

>And they still do it in the US, see Executive Software or RealWorld.

You mean the US is still a free country? What a pity.
They should follow Germany's idea of "freedom" where your every
step is monitored by the Supreme State. It doesn't matter the
growing international uproar against the new German way lead by
Hausherr. Here is a summary taken from
http://www.religioustolerance.org/scie_neg.htm.

________________________________________________________

•1995-JAN: The United Nations Special Rapporteur on Religious
Intolerance cited Germany for religious intolerance and human
rights violations against Scientologists.

<•1995-MAR: The United States State Department issued its annual
"Human Rights Report". They observed that:
•"major German political parties exclude Scientologists from
membership." •"business firms whose owners or executives belong
to the Church of Scientology may face boycotts and
discrimination, sometimes with governmental approval." •"artists
have been prevented from performing or displaying their works
because of their Scientology membership." •"public criticism of
Scientologists by leading political figures increased during the
year, with one Cabinet member publicly stating that
Scientologists were unfit to serve as teachers, police officers,
or professors." •"Scientologists continued to take such
grievances to court, and the courts have frequently ruled in
their favor."

•1996-JAN: A group of 34 actors, artists and executives from the
entertainment industry sent an open letter to German Chancellor
Helmut Kohl.

•1996-JAN: The United Nations Special Rapporteur on Religious
Intolerance cited Germany for the second consecutive year.

•1996-MAR: The United States State Department issued its annual
"Human Rights Report" criticized Germany for religious
persecution and "both social and government-condoned
harassment."

•1996-SEP: A British fact-finding committee visited Germany. It
was made up of two members of the House of Lords and academic
experts. They interviewed members of 17 small religious and
philosophical groups as well as representatives of the
government. They reported that they were "completely unprepared
for the sheer scale of [religious] prejudice, discrimination and
even persecution" in the country.

•1996-NOV: The U.N. Human Rights Committee stated that the
decision by the Bavarian government to exclude Scientologists
from public sector employment was a worrying development that
could violate rights that Germany is legally bound to guarantee.


•1997-MAR: The Rutherford Institute is a conservative Christian
organization dedicated to preserving religious freedom in the US
and other countries. John Whitehead, President of the Institute
said: "When individuals with unpopular belief systems are being
penalized it is nothing less than encroachment on religious
liberty." He listed three areas of concern, involving the
Jehovah's Witnesses, a Charismatic Christian church and the
Church of Scientology.

•1997-APR: The University of Tuebingen issued a report
commissioned by the state government of Baden-Wuerttemberg. The
Associated Press reported that the study found that German
government accusations against Scientology are groundless.

•1997-APR: Tal Pechner is the author of "History of Zionism and
the Holocaust", and was a Holocaust lecturer at the Yad-Vashem
Museum of the Holocaust. She issued a study which found
"persuasive documentation of human rights abuses" in Germany
against Scientologists and non-traditional Christian groups. She
noted "ouster and banning from political parties, jobs, banks,
schools and civic organizations." She urged fellow Jews to turn
their "subjective rage of 'Never Again'" into action in defense
of religious freedom.

•In addition to the above, the Helsinki Commission,
Congressional Arts Caucus, Congressional Black Caucus, and the
Congressional Hispanic Caucus have independently expressed their
concerns. Within Germany, the Cooperation of Christian Lawyers
and Legal Advisors has warned that "religious freedom is in
danger in Germany."
________________________________________________________

Good work, Tilman. You are leading the way to get your
country in international disrepute again and effectively help
Scientology to gain wider and wider recognition.

Bernie


Bernie

unread,
Oct 7, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/7/97
to

deom...@aol.com (DeoMorto) wrote in article
<19971006144...@ladder02.news.aol.com>
(alt.religion.scientology):

>Bernie wrote:>> * March 1997: Labor Offices are now marking businesses
> owned by Scientologists with an "S." Starting in
> mid-1997, job consulting offices will be equipped with
> special software so that the "Scientology marking" will
> appear on the computer screen of job counsellors.<<

> the part you managed to omit Bernie (naturally) is why the German government


> felt it necessary to alert job counsellors to the scientological connection.

Do you think that the reason why they "felt it necessary
to alert job counselors to the jewish connection" valid as well?
You probably are not aware that in the 30s Jewish businesses
were marked with the letter “J”.

What type of people did "critics" become?

> I'm not surprised that you left it out because it is one more reason why the
> cofs is in the pooh in Germany.

You can justify discrimination and hate ad infinitum.
Read the fascist propaganda, they have *plenty* of reasons why
they feel that what they do is perfectly justified.

> I know its hard to believe that a church would stoop to lying but can you
> believe that the CofS tries to recruit people to work there without actually
> telling people what they will be doing? Yep.

If they did anything illegal, then they should be
punished for it. Maybe you are in favor as well to make
Scientologist wear badges or brand them on the head?

> Take for example Sterling Management in the USA, helping dentists become more
> efficient, more profitable, has also worked to supply new people to the
> mission in San Francisco and to the cofs itself.

Should we prevent Christians to help other people
because it is a mean to recruit them to their beliefs? Should we
deprive people of the right to promote their own belief because
we disagree with their beliefs?

I suggest you give some more thought to this issue, Deo.

>Now, if you were to apply for
> a job at Sterling this would not be part of your orientation....

I am not apply for a job at Sterling.

> Lets face it Bernie - the one thing above all else that the cofs despises in
> anyone keeping track of what they are actually doing and publicizing it.

The State is not "anyone", Deo.

Here we have people who supposedly support freedom of
speech and beliefs, and oppose State intervention in these area,
and because their hate of the demonized CoS, they end up
encouraging the State to engage in the very thing they
supposedly oppose.

> It actually forces them to stay sort of honest.

It doesn't "forces them to stay sort of honest" anymore
than it forced the jew to "stay sort of honest".

Your is actually a good example of the gradual shift
towards support to a totalitarian system by well meaning
citizens. If Roland publish his creed, then it is a troll, a
joke, of course we will never do that, etc... (and of course it
wasn't a joke either, as I demonstrated). But by sufficient
demonization of the group and a gradual approach, we end up
applauding just these measures.

This sort of actions will do nothing to fight the CoS,
Deo, quite on the contrary. So, if you want Scientology to gain
increasing international recognition and its opponents to
increasingly gain a reputation of totalitarian bigots, just keep
on supporting these measures.

Bernie


Dave Bird---St Hippo of Augustine

unread,
Oct 7, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/7/97
to

In article <343A89...@stuttgart.netsurf.de>,
Stefan Blandow <ste...@stuttgart.netsurf.de> writes:
>> I remember listening to a wife crying on the phone because her husband had
>> paid in far more money than they could afford.
>
>1) You show no taste and no feeling for order of magnitude. In a society
>that
>corrupt and bigot politicians precede, it is not immoral to try to get
>insider
>information from its secret service. In fact, intelligence activity was,
>though
>also quite bigot, never really considered criminal in societies. They
>often can
>get away with murder, because it is considered a kind of a silent war.
>So do not

Why is this shit for-
matted with
alternately very long and very
short
lines so one can' read it clearly?

--
^-^-^-@@-^-;-^ http://www.xemu.demon.co.uk/
(..)__u news:alt.smoking.mooses

"There is no black and white....only varying shades of gray"

Stefan Blandow

unread,
Oct 7, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/7/97
to

Bernie wrote:
>
> I just found out that Roland's idea of branding
> Scientologists was picked up by some officials in Germany.
>
snip
> • March 1997: Labor Offices are now marking businesses

> owned by Scientologists with an “S.” Starting in
> mid-1997, job consulting offices will be equipped with
> special software so that the “Scientology marking” will
> appear on the computer screen of job counsellors. This
> measure has been implemented following a circular by
> the Federal Labor Institute which gave labor offices
> until the end of April to comply. The intiative to mark
> businesses owned by Scientologists came from Federal
> Labor Minister Norbert Blüm.


But please, people, why not make it a star again, many people are
still used to it in germany, and eventually 'Norbert, the Furchtbare'
will have to go on the street to make his distinction more popular.
After he has trained his ministry dogs.
He then could advance to minister of chambers. What a career!

____________________________________________________


>
> The brave people on alt.religion.scientology may soon
> see their dream come true: all dissenters branded by the All
> Mighty German State's computer...
>

> Bernie


steff

Oliver Gassner

unread,
Oct 8, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/8/97
to

pe...@fc.hp.com (Perry Scott) wrote/schrieb in soc.culture.german :

>Bernie (be...@arcadis.be) wrote:
>: I just found out that Roland's idea of branding
>: Scientologists was picked up by some officials in Germany.
>

>[34 lines not supporting the Subject: line snipped.]
>
>"I just found out". Hubbard used that phrase, Bernie. It's a little
>eerie coming from you.

I guess Zillions of English speakers used it before Hubbard.
And Zillions after him...

Does H. own the enmglish language now?

>Why "very factual", and not just "factual"? Either it is true or it is
>not.

Ever read a philosphy book? ;)

OG

Fup2 alt.religion.scientology [which I do not read, reading s.c.g.]
--
Ich suche zur Zeit das Buch 'David Lodge: Kunst des Erzählens'.
Erschienen bei Haffmans, ISBN 3-251-00237-6 z.Zt. nicht lieferbar
Bei guter Erhaltung bezahle ich Neupreis + Porto.
Literatur am Draht --> http://www.carpe.com/lit/


Alec

unread,
Oct 8, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/8/97
to

Gunbunny wrote in message <34397b9f...@nntp.lightlink.com>...

>It is also important to remember the the NAZI's did not kill any Jews,
>The GERMAN people did. The "German People" are returning to the policies
>of the past. They could very well succeed this time. They seem to learn
>from their mistakes.
>
>Was ist der Devise auf Deutschland, heute!
>
>Keith


!.....!!! Jesus Christ! Did Bum Gummer really say that? Talk about
"broad sweeping generalization"!

He obviously can't discriminate the perpetrators from the victims. He's
been using Hubbard's definitions too long.

OSA, did you hear that? Hope you intend to retire Gummy Bum.

---Alec

DeoMorto

unread,
Oct 8, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/8/97
to

Stefan posted:>>1) You show no taste and no feeling for order of magnitude. In

a society that corrupt and bigot politicians precede, it is not immoral to try
to get insider information from its secret service. In fact, intelligence
activity was, though also quite bigot, never really considered criminal in
societies. They often can get away with murder, because it is considered a
kind of a silent war. So do not tell me, it would be reprehensible, to
infiltrate these group of perverted guys, that want to do all this kind of
things, quasi legally, one is not allowed to do normally.<<

Wow - thats the first time I have seen a CofS apologist actually lay out the
rational behind the church's breaking of the law.
Funnily enough Stefan that EXACT rationale was also laid out for Baader
Meinhof, Irgun, RAF, Brigatti Rossi, IRA.
"its so corrupt that we are justified in breaking its laws".
Rather than take ones ideas and beliefs into the market place of debate and
persuasion one attempts to impose those beliefs 'for the greater good". This
is totalitarianism. "We have decided that this institute is corrupt therefore
we are justified in our illegal infiltrations".
Congratulations Stefan - you have branded the CofS as the totalitarian mind
set that it is.
For scientology in germany - the church decides what is good and what isn't,
not the voters, the Church decides what is acceptable "quasi" legal behaviou -
not the laws of the country.
Brilliant logic Stefan. Well done.

DeoMorto

unread,
Oct 8, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/8/97
to

Stefan posted:>>And that you did not make it in the CoS so far, does not mean
it is bad. That you feel ruined somewhere, has not to mean you have to blame
others for it. Though blaming others might be higher on the scale than blaming
oneself, it does not mean you have to fix on that idea. Because if you put
responsibility on someone else, you are lost.<<
Ah a trenchant analysis from someone oviously skilled in ferreting out the
truth.
Well actually Stefan yes it does mean that its bad - by the one test that
scientologists continue to insist is the only valid way to judge their
"church" - whats true for me.
Unlike you Stefan I was in the Sea org for a number of years and did a lot of
training and auditing. Unlike you now I am not trying to suck up to a corrupt
institution to try and make brownie points.
On assigning cause - unfortunately I realise that this is probably going to
be a little beyond you right now - but the fact that you cannot even see the
evil things this "church" does on a daily basis means that you cannot even lay
claim to your own integrity - it has been replaced by a set of rules from
someone else - you have yet to rise to being able to blame anyone except for
the nameless (and multitudinous) enemies of Hubbards ravings.
I doubt sincerely that you have any idea what it is that you are ineptly
trying to defend, neither its policies or its cosmology.

Tilman Hausherr

unread,
Oct 8, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/8/97
to

In <61e4pk$b...@fcnews.fc.hp.com>, pe...@fc.hp.com (Perry Scott) wrote:

>This is really disingenious, Bernie. www.religioustolerance.org is
>another front group for Scientology.

This is incorrect, these guys are not a front group. Don't confuse
stupidity with malice; this applies for the scientology-related pages,
where they take 1:1 the scientology allegations without telling the
actual truth. For example, they mention lots of cases where the
scientologists claim that scientology is a religion; but neglect to
mention the one where the court said that it is not a religion. Besides,
scientology has been unable to prove that most of these cases exist. A
german scientologist was asked to bring 5 cases in the last 5 years. He
failed miserably - 3 of the 5 mentioned did not state that scientology
is a religion. Not long after that, he disappeared from the usenet.

Tilman Hausherr

unread,
Oct 8, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/8/97
to

In <343A8E...@stuttgart.netsurf.de>, Stefan Blandow
<ste...@stuttgart.netsurf.de> wrote:

>> Let's stick to the facts, Steve. Scientology has violated the freedom of
>> individuals by recruiting them.
>
>I am sorry I have to say, this is bullshit. This looks like another
>attempt, to take away responsibility from individuals. Any Scientologist
>who tries to attract attention on the purpose of recruiting - usually in
>trying to find the ruin of that person, is in the worst case bullbaiting
>the other person, thus making it stronger by raising its awareness of
>its
>problems. That this stirs up emotions is immanent. Everybody who wants
>to deny that either does not see this or is a deceitful person.

It seems you forgot what I am talking about, as your answer has nothing
to do with what I said (except that you seem to mean that the
scientology victim is responsible for being deceived). We are talking
about scientology using "management courses" and jobs to actually suck
people into scientology. This is deceptive, and is not acceptable. The
"scientology repellant" that is used now is a written declaration that
an employer, course provider, business partner "does not apply the
technology of Elron Hubbard". Scientology is of course meant, but the
word "Hubbard" is used because scientologists lie less about "Hubbard"
than about "scientology". A german scientologist will say "I am not a
scientologist", because this "is true for him" as he is not a member of
the org in Upper Mongolia, but he will usually not deny that he applies
Elron's "technology" (as there is only one).

>> What do you think - that we will just
>> shut up accept it? No. Scientologists can stay here, but they will be
>> less and less able to commit fraud.
>
>That is my innermost desire. As there could not be one, who has to hide
>something, and wins.

"As there could not be one, who has to hide something, and wins" has no
meaning.

Tilman


--
Tilman Hausherr [KoX, SP4]
til...@berlin.snafu.de http://www.snafu.de/~tilman/#cos

Resistance is futile. You will be enturbulated. Xenu always prevails.

Find broken links on your web site with "Xenu's Link Sleuth":
http://www.snafu.de/~tilman/xenulink.html

Perry Scott

unread,
Oct 8, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/8/97
to

Oliver Gassner (fra...@gmx.de) wrote:
: pe...@fc.hp.com (Perry Scott) wrote/schrieb in soc.culture.german :

: >Bernie (be...@arcadis.be) wrote:
: >: I just found out that Roland's idea of branding
: >: Scientologists was picked up by some officials in Germany.
: >
: >[34 lines not supporting the Subject: line snipped.]
: >
: >"I just found out". Hubbard used that phrase, Bernie. It's a little
: >eerie coming from you.

: I guess Zillions of English speakers used it before Hubbard.
: And Zillions after him...

"I just found out" lends an air of urgency to the issue. It's news!
Listen to me! Hubbard used the phrase to keep his followers in a
constant state of emergency. In the context of scientology, it set off
my B-S detector. Sorry for bugging the s.c.g crowd.

: Does H. own the enmglish language now?

Religious Technology Center, which owns copyrights to Scientology
"technology", seems to have trademarked every word in sight. I'll check
with them and get back to you on it, OK?


: >Why "very factual", and not just "factual"? Either it is true or it is
: >not.

: Ever read a philosphy book? ;)

I've read a few. Explain the difference between "factual" and "very
factual". Is the latter truer than the former? Is there a Truth that
is Truer than True? Try to not get metaphysical on me. :)

Again, I heard a Hubbardism and my B-S detector went off. The Old (con)
Man would embellish his words in this way to distract the listener, much
like a magician uses actions to distract the audience from his sleight
of hand.


: OG

Perry Scott
Co$ Escapee

Stefan Blandow

unread,
Oct 8, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/8/97
to

On 8 Oct 1997 13:01:56 GMT, deom...@aol.com (DeoMorto) wrote:

snip

> Unlike you Stefan

Oh boy.

> I was in the Sea org for a number of years

snip


steff

Tilman Hausherr

unread,
Oct 8, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/8/97
to

In <343BAF...@ALLt-online.de>, Klaus Beck
<klausNOguent...@ALLt-online.de> wrote:

>Blüm thought to be a good idea. The answer was: "Wer hat denn den Scheiß
>erzählt?"

Looking back at the beginning of the thread, you could respond "Er was
der alt.religion.scientology Dorf-Trottel Nr. 2".

True is only that scientology businesses are registered in the computer.
The job seeker can then make an informed decision if he wants to work
for scientology or not.

Misenla

unread,
Oct 8, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/8/97
to

Bernie says <348ab820....@snews.zippo.com>:


> Do you think that the reason why they "felt it necessary
> to alert job counselors to the jewish connection" valid as well?
> You probably are not aware that in the 30s Jewish businesses
> were marked with the letter “J”.


Ahem. Bernie, Jews never attempted to recruit gentiles through
offers of jobs, tmk. It doesn't cost nearly $400k to learn the core
cosmology of the Jewish faith. There is no way you are going to
manage to make the Jews::Scientologists analogy valid in the slightest.

Perry Scott

unread,
Oct 8, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/8/97
to

Tilman Hausherr (til...@berlin.snafu.de) wrote:

: In <61e4pk$b...@fcnews.fc.hp.com>, pe...@fc.hp.com (Perry Scott) wrote:

: >This is really disingenious, Bernie. www.religioustolerance.org is
: >another front group for Scientology.

: This is incorrect, these guys are not a front group. Don't confuse
: stupidity with malice;

I stand corrected.


Perry Scott
Co$ Escapee

Dave Bird---St Hippo of Augustine

unread,
Oct 8, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/8/97
to

In article <61g9ra$g...@fcnews.fc.hp.com>, Perry Scott writes:
>Oliver Gassner (fra...@gmx.de) wrote:
>: pe...@fc.hp.com (Perry Scott) wrote/schrieb in soc.culture.german :
>: >Bernie (be...@arcadis.be) wrote:
>: >: I just found out that Roland's idea of branding
>: >: Scientologists was picked up by some officials in Germany.
>: >
>: >[34 lines not supporting the Subject: line snipped.]
>: >"I just found out". Hubbard used that phrase, Bernie. It's a little
>: >eerie coming from you.
>
>: I guess Zillions of English speakers used it before Hubbard.
>: And Zillions after him...
>
>"I just found out" lends an air of urgency to the issue.

Actually it sounds to me the sort of thing mailspammers say :->


|~/ |~/
~~|;'^';-._.-;'^';-._.-;'^';-._.-;'^';-._.-;||';-._.-;'^';||_.-;'^'0-|~~
P | Woof Woof, Glug Glug ||____________|| 0 | P
O | Who Drowned the Judge's Dog? | . . . . . . . '----. 0 | O
O | answers on *---|_______________ @__o0 | O
L |{a href="news:alt.religion.scientology"}{/a}_____________|/_______| L
and{a href="http://www.xemu.demon.co.uk/clam/lynx/q0.html"}{/a}XemuSP4(:)


Cornelius Krasel

unread,
Oct 9, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/9/97
to

Stefan Blandow (ste...@stuttgart.netsurf.de) wrote:

> DeoMorto wrote:
> > and I remember a time when the CofS infiltrated the BND.

Are there any documents about this event anywhere? It is the first
time I've heard about that.

> 1) You show no taste and no feeling for order of magnitude. In a society
> that corrupt and bigot politicians precede, it is not immoral to try to
> corrupt and bigot politicians precede, it is not immoral to try to get
> insider information from its secret service.

Thanks for confirming that this really happened. BTW, the same reasoning
is used by terrorist groups all over this planet.

> Just some 150 years ago, there were women, somehow specially bright,
> just burned up, puhfs, just like that, in the middle of the marketplace,
> some twenty miles from here!

I guess you should do something about your history knowledge. Witch-hunts
in Europe ended much earlier. (150 years ago? That would have been around
1850.)

--Cornelius.

--
/* Cornelius Krasel, U Wuerzburg, Dept. of Pharmacology, Versbacher Str. 9 */
/* D-97078 Wuerzburg, Germany email: pha...@rzbox.uni-wuerzburg.de SP4 */
/* "Science is the game we play with God to find out what His rules are." */

Bernie

unread,
Oct 9, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/9/97
to

mis...@aol.com (Misenla) wrote in article
<19971008164...@ladder01.news.aol.com>
(alt.religion.scientology):

>Bernie says <348ab820....@snews.zippo.com>:

>> Do you think that the reason why they "felt it necessary
>> to alert job counselors to the jewish connection" valid as well?
>> You probably are not aware that in the 30s Jewish businesses
>> were marked with the letter “J”.

>Ahem. Bernie, Jews never attempted to recruit gentiles through
>offers of jobs, tmk. It doesn't cost nearly $400k to learn the core
>cosmology of the Jewish faith.

Then ask the nazi why they did it.

>There is no way you are going to
>manage to make the Jews::Scientologists analogy valid in the slightest.

You are wrong about that. The psychological mechanisms
behind discrimination are very similar in both cases. The only
difference is that one is far away in the past, and the other
one is so close to our nose that we don't see it.

The "reasons" why discriminative and criminal acts are
taken against a group of people are not important, since there
are *no* valid reasons for these.

Bernie


Bernie

unread,
Oct 9, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/9/97
to

Klaus Beck <klausNOguent...@ALLt-online.de> wrote in
article <343BAF...@ALLt-online.de>
(alt.religion.scientology):

>For anybody interested, I called the PR-department at the ministery and
>asked, if this is really something that was planned and something which


>Blüm thought to be a good idea. The answer was: "Wer hat denn den Scheiß

>erzählt?" So, it seems, there are people around here telling lies.

It seems that some people around the PR-department at the
ministry are rather clueless. The information is at
http://www.religioustolerance.org/scie_neg.htm, and at
http://hatewatch.freedommag.org/press/eng/gen/dscr/page05.htm,
and is also being indirectly confirmed (justified and supported)
by your German "expert" on Scientology Tilman Hausherr. Check in
the thread.

So far we only have the statement of your clueless clerk of the
PR-departement to contradict this information, right? Give them
the URL and let us know what they say :-)

>Which
>is nothing new. Scientologists throw their magazines into my mailbox and
>so on, they get it delivered by the German post ( whereby the post of
>course cautions people that this kind of bullshit has to be delivered,
>no matter if the post likes it or not. )

Of course. Are you in favor of the post censoring mail?

>Insofar, a discrimination of
>sceintology in Germany is not really a problem ( least of all for us
>Germans;-))

Ah? So depriving people of their job because of their beliefs is
not "really a problem of discrimination" for German? Marking
them in the *State* computer with a big S is not a problem? I
would have thought so...

>They are allowed to spread their ideas, to give workshops,
>etc. pp.. And they lie a lot about what happens to them in Germany, even
>to German people.

What in the reports that are posted is a lie?

>And they have a tradition to occupy the Jewish
>position, that they are persecuted like them. In short, all this crap is
>ridiculous.

It would be if it was really crap. It isn't. It puts your
country in a really bad light internationally. I suggest that at
least this time German citizens react against such abuses.

Bernie


Bernie

unread,
Oct 9, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/9/97
to

pe...@fc.hp.com (Perry Scott) wrote in article
<61e4la$b...@fcnews.fc.hp.com> (alt.religion.scientology):

>Bernie (be...@arcadis.be) wrote:

>: I just found out that Roland's idea of branding
>: Scientologists was picked up by some officials in Germany.

>[34 lines not supporting the Subject: line snipped.]

It is supporting my point that what we claim "is a troll
and a joke, we will never do it", we end up doing out of gradual
acceptance of increasing stringent measures justified by the
demonization of the enemy.

>"I just found out". Hubbard used that phrase, Bernie. It's a little
>eerie coming from you.

Don't be ridiculous. It's a normal English sentence.

>: I now read the following from a (very factual) report
>: put together by Scientologists and to be found at
>: http://hatewatch.freedommag.org/press/eng/gen/dscr/page00.htm :

>Bernie, you used "very factual" and "freedommag" in the same sentence.
>Based on past literary reviews, I would have to say that I do not share
>your opinion.

Neither do I in normal time, but the report I read was
different than the usual freedom mag style.

Until I found the page on the Ontario Consultants for
Religious Tolerance, which is an independent and scholarly site,
contrary to what you think, it was the only source of
information where I found such data.

>For those who do not recognize hatewatch.freedommag.org,
>it is yet another front for the Church of Scientology.

I always thought that "front" is a group that disguise its
connection with the organization it is part of. Maybe I was
wrong.

>Freedom magazine
>is an official publication of the Church of Scientology.

So it is.

>Why "very factual", and not just "factual"? Either it is true or it is
>not.

"Very" is emphasizing the word it precedes. Example
(repeat after me): "she is pretty", "she is very pretty" (I am
now giving English lessons to an American :-)

>Hmm. Could it be that Scientology engages in deceptive practices, not
>telling job applicants that they are being given a job that ultimately
>reports to Scientology? Most businesses tell you who their CEO is. Why
>do Scientology-controlled businesses have lower ethics than other
>businesses, which forces the German Government to respond in this
>manner?

There are laws to take care of any wrong doing. It is
not the business of the state to police the thoughts of its
citizens.

>I'm in the Central Files of INCOMM, the Scientology information
>retrieval system. So what?

But this is the *State*, Perry, not just a private
company.

Bernie


Bernie

unread,
Oct 9, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/9/97
to

til...@berlin.snafu.de (Tilman Hausherr) wrote in article
<343eb117...@news.snafu.de> (alt.religion.scientology):

>The "scientology repellant" that is used now is a written declaration that
>an employer, course provider, business partner "does not apply the
>technology of Elron Hubbard". Scientology is of course meant, but the
>word "Hubbard" is used because scientologists lie less about "Hubbard"
>than about "scientology". A german scientologist will say "I am not a
>scientologist", because this "is true for him" as he is not a member of
>the org in Upper Mongolia, but he will usually not deny that he applies
>Elron's "technology" (as there is only one).

Same declaration applicants of state job in Bavaria have
to make.

Quite obviously this would apply to freezoners as well
as to Scientologists. This would include Ralph Hilton and Joe
Harrington, amongst many others.

Bernie


Paul

unread,
Oct 10, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/10/97
to

Bernie wrote:
>
> mis...@aol.com (Misenla) wrote in article
> >There is no way you are going to
> >manage to make the Jews::Scientologists analogy valid in the slightest.
>
> You are wrong about that. The psychological mechanisms
> behind discrimination are very similar in both cases.

And naturally you have some evidence to support this, right?

> The only
> difference is that one is far away in the past, and the other
> one is so close to our nose that we don't see it.

Since we're looking at it right here in this newsgroup, I'd say that
that is pretty clearly wrong.

> The "reasons" why discriminative and criminal acts are
> taken against a group of people are not important, since there
> are *no* valid reasons for these.

I beg to differ. Replace "Scientology businesses" with "Mafia
businesses" or "terrorist businesses" and suddenly the picture looks
completely different. Now you may wish to argue that the Church of
Scientology[tm] is not like the Mafia nor like a terrorist organization,
but that's a different topic.

-Paul

Perry Scott

unread,
Oct 10, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/10/97
to

Bernie (be...@arcadis.be) wrote:
: Klaus Beck <klausNOguent...@ALLt-online.de> wrote in
: article <343BAF...@ALLt-online.de>
: (alt.religion.scientology):

: >For anybody interested, I called the PR-department at the ministery and
: >asked, if this is really something that was planned and something which
: >Blüm thought to be a good idea. The answer was: "Wer hat denn den Scheiß
: >erzählt?" So, it seems, there are people around here telling lies.

: It seems that some people around the PR-department at the
: ministry are rather clueless.

This tactic of Bernie's is direct from secret OSA Network Order 19,
"Willful False Reports". (Note to non a.r.s. readers: OSA is
Scientology's Office of Special Affairs, that branch of Scientology
charged with intelligence gathering. You might ask yourself, "why
would a 'church' need an intelligence-gathering function?").

[my notes in brackets]

OSA NW ORDER 19 18 February 1988

OSA NW
Execs [executives]
Invest, Legal [Investigations, Legal department]
PR Staff [Public Relations]
[These are all departments of OSA]


_Secret_

_WILLFUL_FALSE_REPORTS_

"(Originally written by LRH on 21 January 1975. [Guardian Office days]
Issued as an OSA NW Order on 18 February 1988.) [Hubbard died 1984]

[the Guardian's Office was disbanded in name only after it was convicted
of infiltrating the US Government and stealing documents.]

"In dealing with governments, one would usually go on the theory that the
government has stupidly accepted false information into its files and is
riding or leaning on one because of it. This would be a relatively sane
interpretation.

[Hubbard is tells OSA that the German Government is against Scientology
because it has false information in its files. Operation Snow White was
launched to infiltrate the US Government and remove "false information"
from government files. Watch out, Germany.]

"However, one cannot rule out another possibility. The government could
be willfully manufacturing false reports in order to get rid of
somebody.

[Hubbard suspects another conspiracy - there is someone in the German
government actively manufacturing lies (false reports) in order to
get rid of Scientology.]

"Thus one can see that a superficial DAing of each false report would
wind up as perpetual motion as one is dealing with a lie factory.

[Did you hear that? Hubbard calls government a "lie factory". Also,
why does a so-called church "DA" (Dead Agent, an ad hominem attack)
information in government files? "DA" implies not arguing against the
substance of the information, only its source.]

"The insane covertly execute hidden destructive intentions. By all
standards modern governments are not sane.

[Remember that: "By all standards modern governments are not sane."
Also note that when Hubbard comes to power, he will "dispose of quietly
and without sorrow" all those who are insane.]

"Thus, somewhere at the bottom of the pile is some hidden intention.

[More conspiracy theory. Snip so as to not anger the gods of RTC.]

"Confrontation of a government agency and DAing cools them down and
causes them to back down. This is an insane attribute - to fear
disclosure and greatly value their rickety PR. So nothing in this
should inhibit doing that."

[The German Government is now being confronted by Scientology. Note
that the Holy Tek of Elron states that the German Government will now
"cool down". The part about "fear disclosure" means that Scientology
will be investigating the Government as well as Government officials for
crimes. The crimes need not relate to their official job. By Elron
Tek, anyone against Scientology is insane and a criminal. How will
German Government officials react to Scientology attempting to dig up
dirt on its employees in an effort to intimidate them?]


What a nice "Church" the German Government has taken on.

Roland:
: So far we only have the statement of your clueless clerk of the


: PR-departement to contradict this information, right? Give them
: the URL and let us know what they say :-)

The clerk is clueless, per OSA Network Order 19. ElronTek says so.

: >Which


: >is nothing new. Scientologists throw their magazines into my mailbox and
: >so on, they get it delivered by the German post ( whereby the post of
: >course cautions people that this kind of bullshit has to be delivered,
: >no matter if the post likes it or not. )

: Of course. Are you in favor of the post censoring mail?

"How often do you beat your wife?"

: >Insofar, a discrimination of


: >sceintology in Germany is not really a problem ( least of all for us
: >Germans;-))

: Ah? So depriving people of their job because of their beliefs is
: not "really a problem of discrimination" for German? Marking
: them in the *State* computer with a big S is not a problem? I
: would have thought so...

Uh, Bernie, Scientologists cannot hold government jobs in certain German
states. You are overgeneralizing to say that they cannot hold any jobs.
By ElronTek, Suppressive Persons generalize to suit their purposes.
Your protest has origins in the Church of Scientology, Office of Special
Affairs. Is the Church of Scientology Suppressive?

I'm marked by a big "M" (male) in my State's computer. Can I complain
of gender discrimination?

Again I ask, "Why were Scientologists withholding their business's
affiliation during recruiting?" If I were applying for a job, I would
want to know if another business (or church) controlled it. According
to ElronTek, withholds are the sign of a criminal. Is the Church of
Scientology criminal?


: >They are allowed to spread their ideas, to give workshops,


: >etc. pp.. And they lie a lot about what happens to them in Germany, even
: >to German people.

: What in the reports that are posted is a lie?

You repeated one of the lies, Bernie - overgeneralization causes it.

Scientologists are not denied employment. They are denied jobs in some
state governments. With Scientology's history of infiltration in the
US, I think Germany's actions are prudent. According to ElronTek,
Scientology commited an overt against the US Government and is now
"pulling it in" in Germany. However, Scientology does not apply
ElronTek to itself.


: >And they have a tradition to occupy the Jewish


: >position, that they are persecuted like them. In short, all this crap is
: >ridiculous.
:
: It would be if it was really crap. It isn't. It puts your
: country in a really bad light internationally. I suggest that at
: least this time German citizens react against such abuses.

Here is an example of ElronTek. The German people have overts (sins)
against the Jews. Scientology and Bernie are trying to "cave in"
(introvert) the Germans by making them focus on their past overts and
not on Scientology. It's one of Elron's "look over there" techniques.

In my opinion, Germany has fully atoned for WWII. As part of their
pennance, they are now the world's leader in recognizing fascist
organizations. The Church of Scientology does not fool the Germans like
it does the Americans. The Church of Scientology is now stamping its
feet and having a temper tantrum like a three-year-old. A "sane"
organization would look at the criticism against it and reform.

Tilman Hausherr

unread,
Oct 11, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/11/97
to

In <343f9093...@snews.zippo.com>, ref...@bway.net (Diane
Richardson) wrote:

>A rather large group of Italian-Americans has battled for years to end
>what they consider the misrepresentation of all Italian-Americans as
>criminals. They point out the tendency of the entertainment industry,

One such group was actually founded by a mafia boss, Joeseph "Joe"
Colombo (1923 - 1978). This behaviour is similar to scientology starting
various "grassroots" groups for their own good.

One such "italian-american" group (no idea if it was the one of Joe
Colombo) was successful in getting the words "mafia" and "cosa nostra"
deleted from the screenplay of "Godfather".

...

>Besides, I think individuals are far more capable of determining for
>themselves who they're willing to work for. Some individuals find

Not if the group does not highlight its ties to organised crime. That's
why it is a good idea to have the "S" tag for scientology enterprises.
THEN people can decide if they want to work for scientology.

Diane Richardson

unread,
Oct 11, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/11/97
to

On Fri, 10 Oct 1997 10:34:57 -0700, Paul <pauldb@REMOVE_ME.seanet.com>
wrote:

>Bernie wrote:
>>
>> mis...@aol.com (Misenla) wrote in article

>Since we're looking at it right here in this newsgroup, I'd say that


>that is pretty clearly wrong.
>
>> The "reasons" why discriminative and criminal acts are
>> taken against a group of people are not important, since there
>> are *no* valid reasons for these.
>
>I beg to differ. Replace "Scientology businesses" with "Mafia
>businesses" or "terrorist businesses" and suddenly the picture looks
>completely different. Now you may wish to argue that the Church of
>Scientology[tm] is not like the Mafia nor like a terrorist organization,
>but that's a different topic.

OK, let's take a look at your comparison of the CoS with the Mafia,
and a government's right to label an organization controlled by either
the CoS or the Mafia.

I don't know the laws in Germany, but in the United States it's not a
crime to belong to a group called the Mafia (although I don't think
there's an organization that actually calls itself by this name).
It's not a violation of the law for an individual to belong to a group
called the "Church" of Scientology[tm], either.

A rather large group of Italian-Americans has battled for years to end
what they consider the misrepresentation of all Italian-Americans as
criminals. They point out the tendency of the entertainment industry,

news media, and the like, to portray Italian-Americans as criminals,
just because the Mafia was originally Italian-based. The group
objects to the portrayal of *all* Italian-Americans as criminals,
just because *some* Italian-Americans have been convicted of crimes.
They think it's unfair and discriminatory to label an entire ethnic
group with a pejorative label just because of the actions of a few
members of the ethnic group to which they belong.

Arab-Americans have done the same. They now actively protest
portrayals of *all* Arab-Americans as terrorists just because *some*
Arabs are members of terrorist organizations. They point with
justification to the automatic assumption by many members of the press
and law enforcement officials that the Oklahoma City bombing was the
work of Arab terrorists.

Would the United States be justified in officially labeling businesses
owned by Italian-Americans as Mafia-related? No. Would the U.S.
government be justified in officially labeling businesses owned by
Arab-Americans as terrorist-related? No.

Let's be more specific. Would the U.S. government be justified in
questioning Italian-American businessmen on their ties with organized
crime and officially labeling businesses run by those with ties to
organized crime Mafia-related? What sort of ties would justify that
label?

If an Italian-American was a member of an Italian-American fraternal
organization (like the Sons of Italy), would that qualify his business
as Mafia-related? If an Italian-American was a social acquaintance of
a well-known Mafia figure would that qualify his business as
Mafia-related? If an Italian-American man was married to a woman
whose family was known to have ties with the Mafia would that qualify
his business as Mafia-related?

The U.S. government made some serious mistakes back in the McCarthy
era when it was willing to look for a "pinko" if not a downright "Red"
behind every tree. It took a long time for the government to learn
the lessons this experience taught. There are still plenty of U.S.
citizens, some of whom are government officials, who have yet to
understand the importance of those lessons.

Whatever the case, you're not going to find the U.S. government
officially identifying certain businesses as Mafia-related and warning
prospective employees of this fact. If a business *is* Mafia-related,
the government can prosecute the owners of the business for any
violations of the law that the business commits. The RICO statute
even allows the government to prosecute for conspiracy to commit
crimes as part of an organized group.

Does the government have an obligation to warn its citizens that a
prospective employer is Mafia-related? I don't think so. I think the
problems involved in the government making such determinations far
outweigh any benefit the warning might provide to citizens.

Besides, I think individuals are far more capable of determining for
themselves who they're willing to work for. Some individuals find

ties with organized crime much more objectionable than others do.
I've heard enough to be wary of anything owned by some corporations,
but it doesn't seem to bother the vast majority of U.S. citizens
enough to keep them from patronizing businesses owned by those
corporations. Is Las Vegas a ghost town? Hardly. Do the casinos
have a hard time finding people willing to work for them? Not by a
long shot.

Labeling all members of a group as "bad," whether that group happens
to be Scientologists[tm], Italian-Americans, or Arab-Americans, just
isn't going to happen in the U.S. The U.S. tried that once and came
up with McCarthyism. It's not going to happen here again.

Some day, perhaps, some German states will see the folly of attempting
to do the same thing the U.S. attempted during the height of the Cold
War.


Diane Richardson
ref...@bway.net


Tom Klemesrud

unread,
Oct 11, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/11/97
to

Diane Richardson (ref...@bway.net) wrote:

: A rather large group of Italian-Americans has battled for years to end


: what they consider the misrepresentation of all Italian-Americans as
: criminals. They point out the tendency of the entertainment industry,
: news media, and the like, to portray Italian-Americans as criminals,
: just because the Mafia was originally Italian-based. The group
: objects to the portrayal of *all* Italian-Americans as criminals,
: just because *some* Italian-Americans have been convicted of crimes.
: They think it's unfair and discriminatory to label an entire ethnic
: group with a pejorative label just because of the actions of a few
: members of the ethnic group to which they belong.

Oddly enough, it was LA Cosa Nostra under boss Joe Columbo who
started this protest movement in New York. It was an organized
crime boss organizing a protest that brands Italian Americans
as members of organized crime. The hypocracy, and the unwanted
attention that this movement caused, was the reason Columbo was
"hit" in central park in New York City in the late '60's.

(I may be mistaken, but wasn't there some connection to the trigger
man, and Scientology--that was discovered when Scientology broke
in to the offices of the FBI to find material the FBI had on
Scientology?)

Tom Klemesrud SP6
KoX

Bernie

unread,
Oct 11, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/11/97
to

pe...@fc.hp.com (Perry Scott) wrote in article
<61m2j2$8...@fcnews.fc.hp.com> (alt.religion.scientology):

>Bernie (be...@arcadis.be) wrote:

>[my notes in brackets]

> _Secret_

> _WILLFUL_FALSE_REPORTS_

Get a clue yourself, Perry. The clerk is clueless because he
doesn't know the informatin that is posted on two sites and what
Tilman confirmed himself, or do you now say that Tilman is
lying?

I am not saying that the ministry "has false information in
its files" nor that they are "insane and criminal", even though
discrimination and the manufacture of fear and paranoia, such as
the one you just displayed here above, could lead to serious
crimes on the part of those acting out of the irrational and
hysterical reaction created thereby.

As for a "conspiracy theory" and calling those who disagree
with you insane, I observe that you and Tilman have no better
arguments against the points I am making than doing just that.
Are you that desperate?

The clerck at the PR-department of the ministry should be
the first to know about this information, so either the
information isn't true or he is clueless. Since everything
indicates that it is true, he is quite obviously clueless.

Maybe you should better try to ascertain if the information
is true or not, before launching in ridiculous mind-boggling
paranoid theories and the type of propaganda to be found in
virtually every anti-Scientology sites to justify totalitarian
tactics to purportedly fight totalitarian tactics.

Totalitarian, discriminative and hysterical reaction is
*not* an adequate answer to the same type of behavior, even the
way you present the situation is true. In doing so, *you* are
the one who is being dishonest and dangerous.

>Roland:
>: So far we only have the statement of your clueless clerk of the
>: PR-departement to contradict this information, right? Give them
>: the URL and let us know what they say :-)
>
>The clerk is clueless, per OSA Network Order 19. ElronTek says so.


>: >Which
>: >is nothing new. Scientologists throw their magazines into my mailbox and
>: >so on, they get it delivered by the German post ( whereby the post of
>: >course cautions people that this kind of bullshit has to be delivered,
>: >no matter if the post likes it or not. )
>
>: Of course. Are you in favor of the post censoring mail?
>
>"How often do you beat your wife?"

"How often do you beat your wife?" can't be answered by a
"yes/no" question. "Do you often beat your wife can", but this
is the typical non-sensical question towards which neither yes
or no is a valid answer.

My question "are you in favor of the post censoring mail" is
a sensical question that can be answered with a yes or no, it
has nothing to do with a "do you often beat your wife" question.

Do you sometimes think before typing something or are you
just writing from the top of your head based on the most
rehashed cliché, whether it applies or no? (now that's a bit of
a tricky question ;-)

>: Ah? So depriving people of their job because of their beliefs is
>: not "really a problem of discrimination" for German? Marking
>: them in the *State* computer with a big S is not a problem? I
>: would have thought so...

>Uh, Bernie, Scientologists cannot hold government jobs in certain German
>states. You are overgeneralizing to say that they cannot hold any jobs.

Where did you read that I say they can't hold *any* jobs?
You know very well what I am refering to. From Tilman's faq:

"The suitability for work in the public sector would be
doubtful for officials and employees with connections to
Scientology in the light of the organization's claims to
abolutism and the total orientation towards its goals, which
could give rise to a conflict of interests with the duties of
public service. In such a case, applicants will be given the
opportunity to clear any doubts about their suitability, in a
conversation where they will be confronted with goals of the
cult. Applicants who fail to distance themselves from these
goals in satisfactory or credible manner, cannot be hired."

Even though this is written in the most acceptable possible
way, by a fanatical anti-Scientologist, it clearly shows that
the State is telling the individual what he is allowed to
believe or not. There are other similar cases to be find in the
URL I provided.

>By ElronTek, Suppressive Persons generalize to suit their purposes.
>Your protest has origins in the Church of Scientology, Office of Special
>Affairs. Is the Church of Scientology Suppressive?

My protest has origin in the obvious abuses of civil rights
that is going right now in Germany. It's as simple as that,
whatever your crazy rationalizations may be.

>I'm marked by a big "M" (male) in my State's computer. Can I complain
>of gender discrimination?

You obviously don't know what discrimination is.

A big "M" (male) in the State's computer is a factual,
undisputable fact (I hope ;-) But a big "G" (gay) would be
discrimination.

>Again I ask, "Why were Scientologists withholding their business's
>affiliation during recruiting?" If I were applying for a job, I would
>want to know if another business (or church) controlled it.

Ah yea? So do you go to the State and ask for the personal
beliefs of the person holding a business before accepting a job?
Boy, are you weird.

>: What in the reports that are posted is a lie?

>You repeated one of the lies, Bernie - overgeneralization causes it.

What lie? You are the one making me say something I didn't
say. Straw man.

What in the reports that are posted is a lie? Can you point
that out or can't you do anything better than twisting your
brain in all possible direction in a desperate effort to escape
the obvious?

>Scientologists are not denied employment. They are denied jobs in some
>state governments.

Your two sentences contradict themselves. It is only you who
interpret my statement that the State is "depriving people of
their job because of their beliefs" as to mean that it applies
to every job.

>With Scientology's history of infiltration in the
>US, I think Germany's actions are prudent.

It isn't "prudent" to deprive its citizens of their rights.
It is a downright paranoid reaction based on disinformation and
propaganda.

>: It would be if it was really crap. It isn't. It puts your
>: country in a really bad light internationally. I suggest that at
>: least this time German citizens react against such abuses.

>Here is an example of ElronTek. The German people have overts (sins)
>against the Jews. Scientology and Bernie are trying to "cave in"
>(introvert) the Germans by making them focus on their past overts and
>not on Scientology. It's one of Elron's "look over there" techniques.

But I am criticizing Scientology just as well. I just speak
against discrimination from whatever camp it comes.

What you do, however, is to pretend to oppose the CoS
abuses, but endorse the same type of abuses when it is against
the CoS. That's plain dishonesty.

>In my opinion, Germany has fully atoned for WWII. As part of their
>pennance, they are now the world's leader in recognizing fascist
>organizations.

They are the world's leader of being pointed at
internationally as making the same mistake they did in the past.
There is *no* justification for the state to police the thoughts
of its citizens and tell them what they have to believe or not.
That's ugly, and you make yourself an accomplice of this abuse.

The German State is not attacking the organization at all.
They are attacking and criminalizing the *individuals* in this
organization who have done no other crimes than to believe they
can bring about a better world. They pro-actively punish them
for crimes they may never do. It's guilt by association. Pure
discrimination.

>The Church of Scientology does not fool the Germans like
>it does the Americans. The Church of Scientology is now stamping its
>feet and having a temper tantrum like a three-year-old. A "sane"
>organization would look at the criticism against it and reform.

They are protesting against discrimination that is brought
against their adherent, and, for once, they are right on that
one. Your continuous and dishonest support of such measure are
only going to make them even more right.

Check your statement above with this statement from Goebels:

"We must, therefore, proceed to a large-scale boycott of all
Jewish business in Germany. Perhaps the foreign Jews will think
better of the matter when their racial comrades in Germany begin
to get it in the neck."

That's about the same mentality as what you display here.

The sympathy towards the CoS is growing around the world as
a result of the injustices that is being committed in Germany.

Here is the list taken from
http://www.religioustolerance.org/scie_neg.htm :

________________________________________________________

•1995-JAN: The United Nations Special Rapporteur on Religious
Intolerance cited Germany for religious intolerance and human
rights violations against Scientologists.

<•1995-MAR: The United States State Department issued its annual
"Human Rights Report". They observed that:
•"major German political parties exclude Scientologists from
membership." •"business firms whose owners or executives belong
to the Church of Scientology may face boycotts and
discrimination, sometimes with governmental approval." •"artists
have been prevented from performing or displaying their works
because of their Scientology membership." •"public criticism of
Scientologists by leading political figures increased during the
year, with one Cabinet member publicly stating that
Scientologists were unfit to serve as teachers, police officers,
or professors." •"Scientologists continued to take such
grievances to court, and the courts have frequently ruled in
their favor."

•1996-JAN: A group of 34 actors, artists and executives from the
entertainment industry sent an open letter to German Chancellor
Helmut Kohl.

•1996-JAN: The United Nations Special Rapporteur on Religious
Intolerance cited Germany for the second consecutive year.

•1996-MAR: The United States State Department issued its annual
"Human Rights Report" criticized Germany for religious
persecution and "both social and government-condoned
harassment."

•1996-SEP: A British fact-finding committee visited Germany. It
was made up of two members of the House of Lords and academic
experts. They interviewed members of 17 small religious and
philosophical groups as well as representatives of the
government. They reported that they were "completely unprepared
for the sheer scale of [religious] prejudice, discrimination and
even persecution" in the country.

•1996-NOV: The U.N. Human Rights Committee stated that the
decision by the Bavarian government to exclude Scientologists
from public sector employment was a worrying development that
could violate rights that Germany is legally bound to guarantee.

•1997-MAR: The Rutherford Institute is a conservative Christian
organization dedicated to preserving religious freedom in the US
and other countries. John Whitehead, President of the Institute
said: "When individuals with unpopular belief systems are being
penalized it is nothing less than encroachment on religious
liberty." He listed three areas of concern, involving the
Jehovah's Witnesses, a Charismatic Christian church and the
Church of Scientology.

•1997-APR: The University of Tuebingen issued a report
commissioned by the state government of Baden-Wuerttemberg. The
Associated Press reported that the study found that German
government accusations against Scientology are groundless.

•1997-APR: Tal Pechner is the author of "History of Zionism and
the Holocaust", and was a Holocaust lecturer at the Yad-Vashem
Museum of the Holocaust. She issued a study which found
"persuasive documentation of human rights abuses" in Germany
against Scientologists and non-traditional Christian groups. She
noted "ouster and banning from political parties, jobs, banks,
schools and civic organizations." She urged fellow Jews to turn
their "subjective rage of 'Never Again'" into action in defense
of religious freedom.

•In addition to the above, the Helsinki Commission,
Congressional Arts Caucus, Congressional Black Caucus, and the
Congressional Hispanic Caucus have independently expressed their
concerns. Within Germany, the Cooperation of Christian Lawyers
and Legal Advisors has warned that "religious freedom is in
danger in Germany."
________________________________________________________

Bernie


Message has been deleted

Diane Richardson

unread,
Oct 11, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/11/97
to

On Sat, 11 Oct 1997 21:24:54 GMT, til...@berlin.snafu.de (Tilman
Hausherr) wrote:

>In <343f9093...@snews.zippo.com>, ref...@bway.net (Diane
>Richardson) wrote:
>

>>A rather large group of Italian-Americans has battled for years to end
>>what they consider the misrepresentation of all Italian-Americans as
>>criminals. They point out the tendency of the entertainment industry,
>

>One such group was actually founded by a mafia boss, Joeseph "Joe"
>Colombo (1923 - 1978). This behaviour is similar to scientology starting
>various "grassroots" groups for their own good.
>
>One such "italian-american" group (no idea if it was the one of Joe
>Colombo) was successful in getting the words "mafia" and "cosa nostra"
>deleted from the screenplay of "Godfather".

Do you believe that all Italian-Americans are connected to the Mafia,
Tilman? Do you think it's fair to label all Italian-Americans with
the Mafia label because of their ethnic identity?
>...


>
>>Besides, I think individuals are far more capable of determining for
>>themselves who they're willing to work for. Some individuals find
>

>Not if the group does not highlight its ties to organised crime. That's
>why it is a good idea to have the "S" tag for scientology enterprises.
>THEN people can decide if they want to work for scientology.

Do you believe that all Italian-American owned businesses should be
labeled with an "M" for Mafia enterprises? The same corporations that
own some of the casinos own non-gambling-related businesses as well.
Few people are aware of the connection. Do you believe people should
be made aware of this connection? How do you determine whether a
business is Mafia-related or not?


Diane Richardson
ref...@bway.net

Message has been deleted

Jens Tingleff

unread,
Oct 12, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/12/97
to

> On Fri, 10 Oct 1997 10:34:57 -0700, Paul <pauldb@REMOVE_ME.seanet.com>
> wrote:

[..]


>
> Labeling all members of a group as "bad," whether that group happens
> to be Scientologists[tm], Italian-Americans, or Arab-Americans, just
> isn't going to happen in the U.S. The U.S. tried that once and came
> up with McCarthyism. It's not going to happen here again.
>

-1 What labelling ar we talking about? Please be specific...

-2 the groups you mentioned don't seem to me to have identical properties.


Nice rant, though

Jens

------ No PGP signature, no authenticity. Vive La France!! ---------
http://www.imaginet.fr/~jensting/. Scientology[tm]?? Check it out at
http://www.xs4all.nl/~kspaink/mpoulter/scum.html *and*
http://www.scientology.org/. Report to alt.religion.scientology ;-)

*********
And for you automated email spammers out there,
here's the email addresses of the current board of
the Federal Communications Commission:

Chairman Reed Hundt: rhu...@fcc.gov
Commissioner James Quello: jqu...@fcc.gov
Commissioner Susan Ness: sn...@fcc.gov
Commissioner Rachelle Chong: rch...@fcc.gov

And let's help you send some spam to the US Postal Service, too:

cust...@email.usps.gov

Diane Richardson

unread,
Oct 12, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/12/97
to

On Sun, 12 Oct 1997 01:09:47 GMT, gr...@tidepool.com (Grady Ward)
wrote:

>
>>Do you believe that *all* member of the "Church" of Scientology[tm]
>>are bad? You comment appears to be implying this, although I'm sure
>>you don't actually believe it to be the case.
>
>Depends what you mean by "bad."

What did you mean by "bad" when you wrote the following sentence?

>>>But for some groups, all the members *are* bad.

I'm not able to read your mind to decide what you mean by "bad" in
your sentence. I think it's rather unfair to expect me to define a
word you chose to use.

>Probably not too many have actually
>participated in criminal acts. Many more are passive supporters of an immoral
>and vindictive leader called L. Ron Hubbard. They have some responsibility.
>Others may take courses and be relatively ignorant of what kind of criminal
>organization they are affiliated with. They still bear some responsibility for
>they ought to have investigated a bit more thoroughly to what they have got
>connected. So -- you are going to have to define "bad" for me.

Nope. I'd like *you* to define what you mean by bad in your sentence
"But for some groups, all the members *are* bad."

>>
>>>Unfair you say!The identifying characteristic of the group used in my example
>>>is a horrendous act. Italian-Americans are not defined by such an act!
>>>
>>>True. So I agree with you that Italian-Americans ought not to be tarred with
>>>the "mafia" brush, unless they have sworn a blood-oath to be one of the
>>>particular "family" brotherhood or have comitted some unlawful act that
>>>is characteristic of the mafia.
>>>
>>>Scientology is like the mafia. To be a scientologist, you have to follow the
>>>criminal precepts of L. Ron Hubbard.
>>
>>There are plenty of public Scientologists[tm] who have minimal contact
>>with the CoS. Think of all those names on CoS mailing lists. Are you
>>willing to lump these people into one group and label that group
>
>Some portion of those individuals are "lumpable," apart from the
>characteristics which make them individual.

How does the investigating governmental agency separate the
"unlumpable" from the "lumpable"? Wouldn't that require a rather
invasive check on the actions and beliefs of a rather large number of
individuals? Would you approve of a government organization
investigating that many citizens because of a purported association
with the CoS? How does that differ from what was done during the
McCarthy era? How do we insure the government doesn't overstep its
authority in such investigations?

>Whether what they have in common
>with each other and the criminal cult of scientology makes them "bad" again
>depends upon what you mean by "bad." I do believe that ALL members of
>scientology bear some culpability for the criminal activity of the cult.

Does that mean you believe that ALL members of the CoS should be
subjected to investigation by a government agency? Must they be only
current members, or are past members "lumpable" too? Or are you going
to "re-lump" past members into "past members who still follow
Hubbard's teachings" and allow them to be investigated and "past
members who have disavowed Hubbard's teachings" who won't be
investigated?

>Most evil-doers remark with the utterest banality that they were ignorant of
>the abuses of their leaders. I think this ought to *never* excuse a person
>from some level of responsibility.

Who gets to determine the level of responsibility attributible to what
CoS member or ex-member? The government agency doing the
investigations?

>>
>>What do you mean by core beliefs? The core beliefs of the CoS are
>>utter bullshit about the ARC triangle and reactive minds. Why do you
>
>Uhhh.... I would call the core beliefs Hubbard's scriptural "Xenu" and the
>galactic soap opera. I call a "core belief" is those beliefs which are the
>essential source of the rest of the creed. Hubbard -> three cracks, cherubs
>-> immortal thetans, Xenu -> BTs -> volcanos -> reactive mind, etc.

You ignore the fact that the vast majority of Scientologists[tm] are
not given access to these "beliefs." I'm sure you've read the
estimates of the small number of CoS members who have taken the OT
levels. Are members of the CoS who have not been exposed to these
"beliefs" excused of responsibility? How does the government agency
investigating Scientologists[tm] determine whether an individual has
taken any OT levels or not? A sec-check, maybe? :-)

>But it ultimately comes back to the cult of the individual Hubbard.

In case you've forgotten, Hubbard's dead.

>>consider these totalitarian? What do you mean by anti-moral? It
>>looks like bad pop psychology to me.
>
>It is totalitarian because L. Ron Hubbard (through "Rear" Admiral David
>Miscavige has exactly one more vote that everyone else in the organization.
>He is the total source of authority in the group.

So does the Pope. Do you believe that all Roman Catholics should be
investigated by a government agency because they are members of a
totalitarian organization?

>Contrast to a democratic organization with one member one vote.
>Scientology is totalitarian. It is immoral because it teaches that one ought
>to harm others rather than seek their society.

What vote do Roman Catholic laypersons have in their organization?

As to harming others rather than seeking their society, I'm sure one
could make the same argument about any number of other organizations,
both religious and secular. Should all organizations that don't "seek
others' society" be investigated by the government?

>>>At least as much as one ought to keep an eye out for
>>>skin-head behavior or other neo-Nazi groups. Do you think investigation is the
>>>same as active prejudice?
>>
>>Placing an "S" next to the name of any business owned by a
>>Scientologist[tm] is not an investigation. It is prejudice. I have
>
>I would agree with you that, if true, the "S" designation goes farther than
>a simple investigation or keeping a wary eye out for cult mischief.

That's what was being discussed in the parent thread.

>>no problem with Germans passing whatever laws they like to govern
>>their own country, as long as they admit that what they're doing is
>>the same sort of thing that was done in the U.S. when HUAC reigned
>>supreme and blacklists ruled.
>>
>>>To make it more personal let's put it this way. While it may be annoying,
>>>*legal* investigation of me by Eugene Martin Ingram or his ilk is perfectly
>>>*fine* with me. They can investigate as much as they want.
>>>
>>>What I object to is the *unlawful* acts that *always* seem to accompany the
>>>scientology investigation. Lying to my publisher to tortiously interfere with
>>>my business, lying to my phone company to obtain records, lying to my mother
>>>to obtain photos of my children, lying to my bank to obtain my wife's records,
>>>the on-record lying of cocksucker Thomas R. Hogan, the criminal acts of
>>>Helena Kobrin to suppress this newsgroup.
>>
>>I fail to see how Ingram's actions against you are similar to what a
>>state in Germany is doing by labeling businesses with an "S". That's
>>not investigation, it's labeling.
>>
>>>Not to keep an eye on scientology -- as long as it doesn't devolve to mindless
>>>unlawful discrimination -- is perfectly prudent. Wiith their pro-AUM nature
>>>it is demanded of us as thinking beings.
>>
>>Do you believe that similar steps should be taken by the U.S.
>>government? Should all businesses owned by Scientologists[tm] be
>>labeled and prospective employees warned? What makes this different
>
>No, I don't. However I guess we both also agree that we ought to keep lawfully
>investigating this criminal cult for the mischief that is an organic part of
>their nature.

Investigating an organization is not equal to investigating
individuals who happen to belong to the organization. The government
can investigate individuals who belong to the Mafia if those
individuals are suspected of criminal activity. The same goes for
Scientologists[tm]. What the U.S. government cannot do is to label
pejoratively all individuals who belong to a group, whether that group
is the Mafia or the CoS.

Diane Richardson
ref...@bway.net

Tilman Hausherr

unread,
Oct 12, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/12/97
to

In <343ff5ec...@snews.zippo.com>, ref...@bway.net (Diane
Richardson) wrote:

>>One such group was actually founded by a mafia boss, Joeseph "Joe"
>>Colombo (1923 - 1978). This behaviour is similar to scientology starting
>>various "grassroots" groups for their own good.
>>
>>One such "italian-american" group (no idea if it was the one of Joe
>>Colombo) was successful in getting the words "mafia" and "cosa nostra"
>>deleted from the screenplay of "Godfather".
>
>Do you believe that all Italian-Americans are connected to the Mafia,
>Tilman? Do you think it's fair to label all Italian-Americans with
>the Mafia label because of their ethnic identity?

No; No.

>>>Besides, I think individuals are far more capable of determining for
>>>themselves who they're willing to work for. Some individuals find
>>

>>Not if the group does not highlight its ties to organised crime. That's
>>why it is a good idea to have the "S" tag for scientology enterprises.
>>THEN people can decide if they want to work for scientology.
>
>Do you believe that all Italian-American owned businesses should be
>labeled with an "M" for Mafia enterprises?

No.

> The same corporations that
>own some of the casinos own non-gambling-related businesses as well.
>Few people are aware of the connection. Do you believe people should
>be made aware of this connection? How do you determine whether a
>business is Mafia-related or not?


There cannot be an analogy in this case. The mafia is not an actual
registered organisation, it is more a concept. Scientology exists. What
could be done is to warn job applicants whether the owners have already
been convicted for organised crimes.

Let's discuss scientology now.

Message has been deleted

Diane Richardson

unread,
Oct 12, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/12/97
to

On Sun, 12 Oct 1997 10:28:43 +0200, jens...@imaginet.fr (Jens
Tingleff) wrote:

>> On Fri, 10 Oct 1997 10:34:57 -0700, Paul <pauldb@REMOVE_ME.seanet.com>
>> wrote:

>[..]


>>
>> Labeling all members of a group as "bad," whether that group happens
>> to be Scientologists[tm], Italian-Americans, or Arab-Americans, just
>> isn't going to happen in the U.S. The U.S. tried that once and came
>> up with McCarthyism. It's not going to happen here again.
>>
>

> -1 What labelling ar we talking about? Please be specific...

I refer you back to the original thread. Tilman confirmed that
businesses owned by Scientologists[tm] are labeled in government-
owned and operated computer systems used to refer prospective
employees to businesses hiring workers.
________________________________________________.

Message-ID: <3443be6e...@news.snafu.de>

True is only that scientology businesses are registered in the
computer. The job seeker can then make an informed decision if he
wants to work for scientology or not.

_________________________________________________

> -2 the groups you mentioned don't seem to me to have identical properties.

I did not suggest the analogy. It was brought up as a defense of the
government's practice by Paul <pauldb@REMOVE_ME.seanet.com>.

>
>Nice rant, though

Thank you. I believe the McCarthy "witch hunt" for Communists in the
U.S. back in the 1950s is a good example of how officially sanctioned
programs to label individuals for their associations can go badly
awry. I'm astounded that fewer U.S. citizens participating on this
newsgroup can't see the parallels between what our government did back
then and what some German state government officials are attempting to
do now.

Perhaps the worst result of such an effort is the tendency for many to
romanticize the cause for which individuals are being stigmatized.
Giving the CoS reason to cry that they are being persecuted for their
religious beliefs is playing right into OSA PR hands.


Diane Richardson
ref...@bway.net

Tilman Hausherr

unread,
Oct 12, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/12/97
to

In <3440c32e...@snews.zippo.com>, ref...@bway.net (Diane
Richardson) wrote:

>I refer you back to the original thread. Tilman confirmed that
>businesses owned by Scientologists[tm] are labeled in government-
>owned and operated computer systems used to refer prospective
>employees to businesses hiring workers.
>________________________________________________.
>
>Message-ID: <3443be6e...@news.snafu.de>
>
>True is only that scientology businesses are registered in the
>computer. The job seeker can then make an informed decision if he
>wants to work for scientology or not.

No. I said "scientology businesses" not "scientologist businesses". I
have no information that businesses of individual scientologists will
get the "S".

Tilman

Paul

unread,
Oct 12, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/12/97
to

Diane Richardson wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Oct 1997 10:34:57 -0700, Paul <pauldb@REMOVE_ME.seanet.com>
> wrote:
> >Bernie wrote:
> >
> >> The "reasons" why discriminative and criminal acts are
> >> taken against a group of people are not important, since there
> >> are *no* valid reasons for these.
> >
> >I beg to differ. Replace "Scientology businesses" with "Mafia
> >businesses" or "terrorist businesses" and suddenly the picture looks
> >completely different. Now you may wish to argue that the Church of
> >Scientology[tm] is not like the Mafia nor like a terrorist organization,
> >but that's a different topic.
>
> OK, let's take a look at your comparison of the CoS with the Mafia,
> and a government's right to label an organization controlled by either
> the CoS or the Mafia.

Diane, please read a bit more carefully. I did not compare the Church
of Scientology[tm] to the Mafia. I was responding to Bernie's sentence,
posted above, in which he claimed that there were "*no* valid reasons."
My argument is that, yes, there can be a valid reason, depending on the
nature of the organization. For example, there is very clearly a valid
reason to discriminate against a Mafia protection racket.

I purposely left open the question about whether the Church of
Scientology[tm] in any way resembles the Mafia. It's not an argument I
choose to make or defend.

-Paul

jbwebb

unread,
Oct 12, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/12/97
to

Diane Richardson wrote:


A group that calls itself "Applied Scholastics" applies for a charter
school without revealing they are a front group for COS and is almost
given the charter because no one on the school board was informed of this
connection by Applied Scholastics.


A group of dentists sign up for a business enhancement course called
Sterling Management without being told they are about to be hit by the
classic bait and switch.

I think these two cases illustrate what Germany is trying to do.

Now, if I want to buy software that was made by a company owned by a
private scieno, according to Tilman, I would do so without being informed
by my country of this.
Take care
Joni

jbwebb

unread,
Oct 12, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/12/97
to

Diane Richardson wrote:
>
>
> Do you believe that similar steps should be taken by the U.S.
> government? Should all businesses owned by Scientologists[tm] be
> labeled and prospective employees warned? What makes this different
> than doing the same thing for businesses owned by Catholics, or
> businesses run by African-Americans, or businesses run by Freemasons?

Well, I suppose a difference here could be that there are many people and
countries (including Germany) who don't consider COS a religion, but a
company. Now, if you believe that COS is money-making company that
borders on fraud, deceit, scam, whatever you want to call it - wouldn't
you want to know if you are about to be snookered by one of their front
groups? I would.

But, of course, you are right about the labeling. It can't be done here
where our government considers COS a religion. On the one hand - as a
COS critic - I appalaud Germany for what it's doing, but on the "moral"
side of my brain, I concede it's probably "wrong."

I just don't believe you can open a for-profit business or scam and then
in mid stream decide you want to call yourself a religion, a label that
you can hide behind and profit from. Since I believe COS is basically a
scam, I think my government does have some obligation to protect or
inform its citizens of this scam. Of course, MY government doesn't agree
with me. They agree with COS - it's a religion.

Take care
Joni

Tilman Hausherr

unread,
Oct 12, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/12/97
to

In <61ps3g$vch$4...@news02.btx.dtag.de>, Thomas...@t-online.de (Thomas
Michel) wrote:

>>It seems that some people around the PR-department at the

>Are these official German Government sources?

No, of course not. One is scientology itself, the other is fed by
scientology.

Cornelius Krasel

unread,
Oct 12, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/12/97
to

Diane Richardson (ref...@bway.net) wrote:
> OK, let's take a look at your comparison of the CoS with the Mafia,
> and a government's right to label an organization controlled by either
> the CoS or the Mafia.

[assuming for the moment that "CoS" may be equal to "mafia"]

> A rather large group of Italian-Americans has battled for years to end
> what they consider the misrepresentation of all Italian-Americans as
> criminals.

Are/Were all Italian-Americans members of the "mafia"?

Are/Were all Scientologists members of the "CoS"?

If you answer "no" to the latter question and think of Freezoners, is
there any evidence that freezoners are being "persecuted" in Germany?

[Rest of strawman argumentation snipped.]

Frank Prechtel

unread,
Oct 13, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/13/97
to

First, I got to mention that I'm a German.
Since many people discussing this topic don't know anything about the
real situation in Germany, I write this article, hoping that this
discussion is getting more factual.
When I say "Scientology homepage", I usually mean the "Hatewatch
Homepage", but nobody can deny that they belong to Scientology.

1. General Situation concerning laws

At the moment Scientology is treated as a society (it is not treated as
religion). Every society in Germany, their aims and their methods must
not be in contradiction to the constitution and the laws. Otherwise,
this society can be forbidden. There exists a German governmental group,
the "Verfassungsschutz" (translated "Protector of Constitution"), which
checks if a society offends against this rules. Actually, the
"Verfassungsschutz" examines Scientology, and since some of the aims of
Scientology (its true aims are meant, not the ones Scientology
officially has) are in contradiction to German laws, it is possible that
it will be forbidden (it is possible that Scientology becomes a church,
but I'm certain that this won't happen). But at the moment, the status
of Scientology is that of society, which probably has illegal aims.

II. The problem of the status of Scientologists
In Germany, belonging to a illegal society is illegal and can be
punished. But Scientology is NOT illegal, and therefore Scientologists
can not be and are not punished. Like in every other democratic nation
Germany has the right of free speech and the right of religios freedom.
But this does not mean that a society has the right of becoming a
religion (and a church) by having some philosophic aspects. Of course,
the right of free speech still exists (although the Homepage of
Scientology tells the opposite). So every Scientologist can say what he
wants without being hurt in anyway.
But the status of Scientology is, as mentioned above, not certain, since
it is likely that it will be forbidden. What this means I explain in the
next section.

3. Scientologists - the situation in the economic system
Since Scientology often mentions the case of "losing or not getting a
job because of being Scientologist" in Germany, I have to say even more
about German laws.

Case 1: For example a teacher losing his job because of belonging to
Scientology
This is true, but not because of the fact that a person belongs to
Scientology, but by a different meaning. Every person that works for the
government (including politicians, teacher, etc.) has to declare that he
agrees and supports the basic democratic rules. But by belonging to a
society (in this case Scientology) that does not agree to this rules, he
government can dismiss this person. In the case of a teacher, the
employment of a person who denies democratic rules it is clear - nobody
would employ a terrorist or radical nationalist to teach children.

Case 2: A business belonging to, owned by or ruled by Scientology;
A business owned by a Scientologist
In this case the government can refuse to take offers for public works,
for example the built of a road, since such businesses can be
anti-democratic. But this applies only to governmental issues - public
business is completely unaffected.

Case 3: A person who works for a private business and is dismissed
because of belonging to Scientology
I don't know any case where this happened, but I mention it anyway. If a
person who works for a private business belongs to Scientology, he or
she can be fired because of either
a) It's possible that this person tries to infiltrate the business or
b) The person belongs to a society with illegal aims (Since the status
of Scientology is NOT illegal, this will only apply in the future in the
case that it is forbidden)
c) The person did something that hurts the business because of
activities related to Scientology (e.g. using the computer to obtain
personal data about other persons)

4. Other minorities a political groups
On the Scientology homepage, there are two things that are a kind of
silly:
1. Scientologists and Jews
Scientology must be in despair by mentioning this. It is a shame.
Comparing the death of millions of humans with the Scientologists today?
Don't believe anyone who tells this. No person who belongs to
Scientology has less rights than others or is discriminated. The warning
of the government to keep a sharp eye on anti-democratic societies is
useful, and has nothing to do with discrimination. The lies about
Germany are just bad propaganda.

2. Other minorities and organizations
They also mention the case of the Jehova's Witnesses. Jehova's Witnesses
are acknowlegded as religion and suffer no discrimination. All other
minorities also have full rights.

5. Last Words
Overall, what Scientology says about their situation in Germany is
false. It is a lie. In my opinion, it is a criminal organisation and I
hope that it will be forbidden. Everybody has the right to chose and
practise his religion, but I wouldn't stretch the term "religion" to a
point where Scientology would be called a religion. Unfortunately, in
the U.S.A. they managed to claim the status as a church.


--
-----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----
Version: 2.6.3i

mQCNAzQTb1wAAAEEAOi490dCwGK587M2NCHR5uq+A7wXfzAE6jhe/52NwMx4nP5e
eN1n1m04rzjPhPRODr8HAPHb2fqw3tm0hzqVqPItBaWI+CSfBjy1w7eGcDdxoUss
YUtfkG5ATvDsIuzcjupGeUnFWY4p2TVY/H5SRqj2DozvOOxsff8rmUzBtQ8ZAAUR
tCtGcmFuayBQcmVjaHRlbCA8ZnJhbmsucHJlY2h0ZWxAbWV0cm9uZXQuZGU+iQCV
AwUQNBNvXP8rmUzBtQ8ZAQFeSQQA0ONeQnphpRwu+qglKAEMslQVWC703ZyDnbhk
kx6LfTmvh1zsmhJwGx9tvwWgWubJWxrQr0P/lfI3jiWQPSZI6ae/mvNlk1p6WxaR
zYGXThb/fsCqL3IgsECGFXBRfVGW1kpj3YTeNaEhND3rWVfhBqbYoD0dpuAHpCTD
M2tqJ/0=
=Xy2u
-----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----


Diane Richardson

unread,
Oct 13, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/13/97
to

On Sun, 12 Oct 1997 02:44:41 -0700, jbwebb <jbw...@gramercy.ios.com>
wrote:

>Diane Richardson wrote:
>>
>>
>> Do you believe that similar steps should be taken by the U.S.
>> government? Should all businesses owned by Scientologists[tm] be
>> labeled and prospective employees warned? What makes this different
>> than doing the same thing for businesses owned by Catholics, or
>> businesses run by African-Americans, or businesses run by Freemasons?
>
>Well, I suppose a difference here could be that there are many people and
>countries (including Germany) who don't consider COS a religion, but a
>company. Now, if you believe that COS is money-making company that
>borders on fraud, deceit, scam, whatever you want to call it - wouldn't
>you want to know if you are about to be snookered by one of their front
>groups? I would.

Do you believe that all money-making companies who have ties to the
Mafia should be labeled as such by the government? They aren't, in
case you don't know that.

Do you think that all decent people should refuse to patronize Las
Vegas casinos because many of them are owned by companies known to
have ties to Mafioso? Do you think the government should require
these casinos to publicly announce any ties to the Mafia to anyone who
enters one of their establishments?

What about health spa chains? There are a couple of those owned by
companies with well-known ties to the Mafia. Should these health spas
also be required to warn potential customers of these ties? I could
go on, but I think you get my point.

Is it somehow wrong for the government to allow someone to be
snookered into a CoS front-group but right for the government to allow
someone to be snookered in a Mafia front-group?

>But, of course, you are right about the labeling. It can't be done here
>where our government considers COS a religion. On the one hand - as a
>COS critic - I appalaud Germany for what it's doing, but on the "moral"
>side of my brain, I concede it's probably "wrong."

The government can't do it for non-religious groups, either. In case
you've forgotten, it is *individuals* who commit crimes. To label
individuals as criminal just because they belong to the same
organizations as others who have committed crimes is blatantly
discriminatory. In case you've forgotten, individuals in this country
are considered innocent until they've been proven guilty. Would you
have this basic precept change just for the CoS?

>I just don't believe you can open a for-profit business or scam and then
>in mid stream decide you want to call yourself a religion, a label that
>you can hide behind and profit from. Since I believe COS is basically a
>scam, I think my government does have some obligation to protect or
>inform its citizens of this scam. Of course, MY government doesn't agree
>with me. They agree with COS - it's a religion.

YOUR government doesn't consider the Mafia a religion, yet they do not
warn citizens of Las Vegas casinos that have ties to Mafioso. I guess
the government figures people can decide for themselves what
organizations they choose to patronize.

Diane Richardson
ref...@bway.net

Christer Lindström

unread,
Oct 13, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/13/97
to

Diane Richardson wrote:
>
> A rather large group of Italian-Americans has battled for years to end
> what they consider the misrepresentation of all Italian-Americans as
> criminals.

Very true. Now, if you have come this far, why not go all the way?
Please go and do your homework on the background for this "group",
their leaders, motives, financing etc. For me (italian native)
this group is an embarassement, and actually does as much harm
as the mafia sometimes.

> Arab-Americans have done the same. They now actively protest
> portrayals of *all* Arab-Americans as terrorists just because *some*
> Arabs are members of terrorist organizations. They point with
> justification to the automatic assumption by many members of the press
> and law enforcement officials that the Oklahoma City bombing was the
> work of Arab terrorists.

I have said it before, and will repeat it:

Any scientologist of higher rank will be considered by me as a
major threat to my society. I fully endorse the german campaign,
as it is done with respect for human values, without violence,
in an open and fair manner. All of these attributes are lacking
in the scientology organisation, where the art of scam,
intimidation, threat and greed runs the entire org.
I actively do all I can to make sure we will have a good
defense against similar people in this country, regardless if
they are neo-nazis, left/right wing extremists, heavy criminals
or active scientologists.

The main core of scientology is criminal in all countries. It has
been proven in courts all over the world, many times, and your
country is no exception. The very second you understand that
this is a fact, you might understand why most people find it
important to monitor the leaders. You might even understand why
I, and many more, also consider the "small people" a potential
threat. Unfortunately, leaders tend to send out trained
soldiers against their enemies, not officers. So the little
scientologist is actually double scamed, ripped of in success,
and sent out as bait in hardship. I pity them, but definitely
consider them dangerous anyway. And this view does not in
any way imply that I consider them less worth, or with less
rights than anyone else. They are basically nice people.


Regards,

Christer L.

PS. Hamas is a very social, powerful organisation who are doing
lots of good things in Palestine, like schools, health care etc.
Unfortunately, they tend to blow up a shopping mall now and then too.
Would you consider monitoring of their leaders to be a threat to
US interests, or a proof of violation of personal rights?

Juergen Hubert

unread,
Oct 13, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/13/97
to

Bernie wrote:
>
> >Uh, Bernie, Scientologists cannot hold government jobs in certain German
> >states. You are overgeneralizing to say that they cannot hold any jobs.
>
> Where did you read that I say they can't hold *any* jobs?
> You know very well what I am refering to. From Tilman's faq:
>
> "The suitability for work in the public sector would be
> doubtful for officials and employees with connections to
> Scientology in the light of the organization's claims to
> abolutism and the total orientation towards its goals, which
> could give rise to a conflict of interests with the duties of
> public service. In such a case, applicants will be given the
> opportunity to clear any doubts about their suitability, in a
> conversation where they will be confronted with goals of the
> cult. Applicants who fail to distance themselves from these
> goals in satisfactory or credible manner, cannot be hired."
>
> Even though this is written in the most acceptable possible
> way, by a fanatical anti-Scientologist, it clearly shows that
> the State is telling the individual what he is allowed to
> believe or not. There are other similar cases to be find in the
> URL I provided.

The same restrictions apply to people who are members in certain
right-wing extremist or left-wing extremist groups.

--
Juergen Hubert
HUB...@gawein.physik.uni-erlangen.de

"Sometimes I do stupid stuff, and I don't even know why...
...as if my body were controlled by some demented, sadistic
puppet-master..."
-- Bernard Bernoulli
"Well, we all feel that way sometimes."
-- Weird Ed Edison
in: "Day of the Tentacle"

yvind Seland

unread,
Oct 13, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/13/97
to

Diane Richardson wrote:

>Do you believe that all Italian-American owned businesses should be
>labeled with an "M" for Mafia enterprises?

No, but I knew that at least until a few years ago, you would have had
problems getting a tourist visa into the US if you were member of a
communist organization.


Řyvind Seland

Jens Tingleff

unread,
Oct 13, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/13/97
to

> On Sun, 12 Oct 1997 10:28:43 +0200, jens...@imaginet.fr (Jens
> Tingleff) wrote:
>
> >In article <343f9093...@snews.zippo.com>, ref...@bway.net wrote:
> >

> >> On Fri, 10 Oct 1997 10:34:57 -0700, Paul <pauldb@REMOVE_ME.seanet.com>
> >> wrote:

[..]


> > -1 What labelling ar we talking about? Please be specific...
>

> I refer you back to the original thread.

Tilman wrote back on that one.

Seems pretty mild to me. I would have gone for labelling any business who
is owned/controlled by members of WISE (recruiters for the Sea Org who did
such sterling work[1] in improving Lisa McPherson's health). This is - of
course - impractical, since WISE is perfectly capable of adapting to local
regulation, but I think I've made my point...

And, of course, anyone contributing to the income of a $cientologist is
contributing to the money which go to pay laywers to send nasty-grams to
people like me ( http://www.imaginet.fr/~jensting/muslinger/RTC_yaks.htm ).
Furthermore, one can never know what a $cientologist is trying to find out
about everyone (ref. letter sent to French $cientologists encouraging them
to spy for OSA - reported in Serge Faubert's "Une Secte au coeur de la
Repulique")

[..]


>
> > -2 the groups you mentioned don't seem to me to have identical properties.
>
> I did not suggest the analogy. It was brought up as a defense of the
> government's practice by Paul <pauldb@REMOVE_ME.seanet.com>.

You still wrote the note which started this thread...

>
> >
> >Nice rant, though
>
> Thank you. I believe the McCarthy "witch hunt" for Communists in the
> U.S. back in the 1950s is a good example of how officially sanctioned
> programs to label individuals for their associations can go badly
> awry. I'm astounded that fewer U.S. citizens participating on this
> newsgroup can't see the parallels between what our government did back
> then and what some German state government officials are attempting to
> do now.
>

Not speaking for the US citizens, I can see parallels *and* differences.
The WISE recruitment drive mentioned aove has been discussed. If anyone is
interested, I can dig up a copy of S Faubert's book and do my usual
mock-translation of the notes about the letter sent to French
$cientologists.

> Perhaps the worst result of such an effort is the tendency for many to
> romanticize the cause for which individuals are being stigmatized.
> Giving the CoS reason to cry that they are being persecuted for their
> religious beliefs is playing right into OSA PR hands.

100% agreed. On the other hand, only time will tell where this leads. If
the German prosecutors manage to put legal weight behind the assumptions of
the politicians, we might observe that no-one in Germany will be inclined
to give the clams the benefit of the doubt.

Jens

[1] As sad as the case is, this was sarcasm...

Michael Reuss

unread,
Oct 13, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/13/97
to

>Stefan Blandow <ste...@stuttgart.netsurf.de> wrote:
>> DeoMorto wrote:

>> I remember a time when the CofS infiltrated the BND.

...[snip]...

>1) You show no taste and no feeling for order of magnitude. In a society
>that corrupt and bigot politicians precede, it is not immoral to try to get
>insider information from its secret service. In fact, intelligence activity was,
>though also quite bigot, never really considered criminal in societies. They
>often can get away with murder, because it is considered a kind of a silent war.
>So do not tell me, it would be reprehensible, to infiltrate these group of
>perverted guys,

...[snip]...

So, you admit you Scientologists broke the laws in Germany, but now want
to claim a defense of "justified breaking and entering, and theft due to
the government's perversion?" Thanks, Stefan, thanks for giving us a
little real Scientology.

Chilling.


>It is shit, if someone lies, in order to get money from a bank,


Hey! Stefan has a cog! Now, please have another. It's shit and the Co$
promoted this shit. They still promote this shit.


>Just some 150 years ago, there were women, somehow specially bright,
>just burned up, puhfs, just like that, in the middle of the marketplace,
>some twenty miles from here!

Men, women and children were burned at the stake. That came about
because the church was stupid, pig-headed, criminal (by today's
standards). Now when I think of stupid, pig-headed, criminal churches of
today, surprise, I think of Scientology and other cult groups.


>You know, one can make the masses make believe almost everything.

And when that thing you make them believe is untrue and destructive, I
call it brainwashing.


>And that you did not make it in the CoS so far, does not mean it
>is bad.

No, Co$ doing bad things is what makes the Co$ bad.


> [to DeoMorto:] you are lost.

Stefan, it is you who is lost in a fog of Scientology lies and deceit.


--
Michael Reuss (remove nospam from address to reply by e-mail)
Honorary Kid

Ingo Zoller

unread,
Oct 13, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/13/97
to

Bernie wrote:
> Get a clue yourself, Perry. The clerk is clueless because he
> doesn't know the informatin that is posted on two sites and what
> Tilman confirmed himself, or do you now say that Tilman is
> lying?

A) The information is copied from one site to the other.
B) The second one (which you refer to later) even states that this
information comes from the Scientology-maintained hatewatch-pages.

> Maybe you should better try to ascertain if the information
> is true or not, before launching in ridiculous mind-boggling

This is something you should do! Check, where your information comes
from. Strangely it only relies on Scientology-resources or resources
copied directly from Scientology-resources.


>
> Even though this is written in the most acceptable possible
> way, by a fanatical anti-Scientologist, it clearly shows that
> the State is telling the individual what he is allowed to
> believe or not. There are other similar cases to be find in the
> URL I provided.

The state doesn't tell you what to believe and what not. But the state
cannot employ members of organisations which are working against the
state. No business would employ members of their enemies, so why should
the state do so?

> >Again I ask, "Why were Scientologists withholding their business's
> >affiliation during recruiting?" If I were applying for a job, I would
> >want to know if another business (or church) controlled it.
>
> Ah yea? So do you go to the State and ask for the personal
> beliefs of the person holding a business before accepting a job?
> Boy, are you weird.

He is not asking for the beliefs of the person holding a business. He is
asking for whom he is going to work. And that's a reasonable question,
which has to be answered. If I would know that I was going to work for a
Scientology firm, I wouldn't do it. Nor would I work for an IRA firm, or
a nazi-controlled firm.

> http://www.religioustolerance.org/scie_neg.htm :
The list you copied from there is a direct copy from the
Scientology-maintained hatewatch page. They even state it. Give
independent resources!
Ingo

--

Ingo Zoller
Department of Physics and Astronomy
EC Stoner Building
University of Leeds
Leeds LS2 9JT UK
http://www.stoner.leeds.ac.uk/students/iz.htm

Diane Richardson

unread,
Oct 13, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/13/97
to

On 13 Oct 1997 09:21:24 GMT, oyvi...@ulrik.uio.no (\yvind Seland)
wrote:

That's when the U.S. government learned its lesson about the problems
engendered when a government tries to attach labels to individuals and
then denies them rights because of the label it has attached. It took
a long time for the U.S. government to learn that lesson.

It's a pity that the Germans appear intent upon repeating history
instead of learning from it. A lot of innocent people were
discriminated against because of McCarthy-era regulations.


Diane Richardson
ref...@bway.net

Diane Richardson

unread,
Oct 13, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/13/97
to

On Sun, 12 Oct 1997 14:09:38 +0200,
kra...@wpxx02.toxi.uni-wuerzburg.de (Cornelius Krasel) wrote:

>Diane Richardson (ref...@bway.net) wrote:
>> OK, let's take a look at your comparison of the CoS with the Mafia,
>> and a government's right to label an organization controlled by either
>> the CoS or the Mafia.
>
>[assuming for the moment that "CoS" may be equal to "mafia"]
>

>> A rather large group of Italian-Americans has battled for years to end
>> what they consider the misrepresentation of all Italian-Americans as
>> criminals.
>

>Are/Were all Italian-Americans members of the "mafia"?

Of course not.

>Are/Were all Scientologists members of the "CoS"?

From personal knowledge, yes. I don't know of anyone who calls
himself a Scientologist[tm] or ex-Scientologist without once having
been affiliated with the CoS. Perhaps there's someone out there with
some sort of persecution complex who would do so, but I don't believe
I've ever seen it. Have you?

>If you answer "no" to the latter question and think of Freezoners, is
>there any evidence that freezoners are being "persecuted" in Germany?

Are there any freezoners who were never affiliated with the CoS?
Perhaps there are some "illegal PCs" who were denied auditing by the
CoS who joined the freezone without first joining the CoS.

What happens if a WISE business owner leaves the CoS and resigns his
affiliation with WISE? Will the state do its own investigation to
insure that the individual isn't lying about ending his affiliation?
Will the "S" be removed only on the assurance that the connection has
been severed? Will the state depend upon the CoS to provide them with
records of who is and isn't a Scientologist[tm]? Has anyone seen the
regulations?

What about Freezoners who apply Hubbard's management tech to their
businesses without being members of the CoS? I'm not sure if the
government objects to the management tech alone or if it objects to
the management tech only when it is practiced by WISE members. What's
to keep a group of Freezoners from engaging in exactly the same
business practices CoS members are accused of doing?

>[Rest of strawman argumentation snipped.]

I'm not so sure it's a straw man.


Diane Richardson
ref...@bway.net

Diane Richardson

unread,
Oct 13, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/13/97
to

On Mon, 13 Oct 1997 10:08:32 +0200, jens...@imaginet.fr (Jens
Tingleff) wrote:

>In article <3440c32e...@snews.zippo.com>, ref...@bway.net wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 12 Oct 1997 10:28:43 +0200, jens...@imaginet.fr (Jens
>> Tingleff) wrote:
>>
>> >In article <343f9093...@snews.zippo.com>, ref...@bway.net wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Fri, 10 Oct 1997 10:34:57 -0700, Paul <pauldb@REMOVE_ME.seanet.com>
>> >> wrote:
>[..]
>> > -1 What labelling ar we talking about? Please be specific...
>>
>> I refer you back to the original thread.
>
>Tilman wrote back on that one.
>
>Seems pretty mild to me. I would have gone for labelling any business who
>is owned/controlled by members of WISE (recruiters for the Sea Org who did
>such sterling work[1] in improving Lisa McPherson's health). This is - of
>course - impractical, since WISE is perfectly capable of adapting to local
>regulation, but I think I've made my point...

What point have you made? If you believe all members of WISE are
recruiters for the Sea Org, I'd suggest you present evidence of your
claim. It's just that sort of unsubstantiated blanket accusation that
leads to McCarthy-era tactics like pejoratively labeling every member
of an organization because of the actions of just a few.

>And, of course, anyone contributing to the income of a $cientologist is
>contributing to the money which go to pay laywers to send nasty-grams to
>people like me ( http://www.imaginet.fr/~jensting/muslinger/RTC_yaks.htm ).
>Furthermore, one can never know what a $cientologist is trying to find out
>about everyone (ref. letter sent to French $cientologists encouraging them
>to spy for OSA - reported in Serge Faubert's "Une Secte au coeur de la
>Repulique")

You think that *all* Scientologists[tm] should be labeled just
because, as you say, "you can never know what a $cientologist is
trying to find out about everyone." That's calling someone guilty of
something before he's committed a crime. Do you also believe that all
Arabs should be labeled just because you never know which one is a
terrorist?

>[..]
>>
>> > -2 the groups you mentioned don't seem to me to have identical properties.
>>
>> I did not suggest the analogy. It was brought up as a defense of the
>> government's practice by Paul <pauldb@REMOVE_ME.seanet.com>.
>
>You still wrote the note which started this thread...
>
>>
>> >
>> >Nice rant, though
>>
>> Thank you. I believe the McCarthy "witch hunt" for Communists in the
>> U.S. back in the 1950s is a good example of how officially sanctioned
>> programs to label individuals for their associations can go badly
>> awry. I'm astounded that fewer U.S. citizens participating on this
>> newsgroup can't see the parallels between what our government did back
>> then and what some German state government officials are attempting to
>> do now.
>>
>
>Not speaking for the US citizens, I can see parallels *and* differences.
>The WISE recruitment drive mentioned aove has been discussed. If anyone is
>interested, I can dig up a copy of S Faubert's book and do my usual
>mock-translation of the notes about the letter sent to French
>$cientologists.

I'm sure we could find similar letters written by other organizatons
to all its members. Does such a letter justify condemning all members
of a group as criminals, even though not every member of the group has
committed a crime?

>> Perhaps the worst result of such an effort is the tendency for many to
>> romanticize the cause for which individuals are being stigmatized.
>> Giving the CoS reason to cry that they are being persecuted for their
>> religious beliefs is playing right into OSA PR hands.
>
>100% agreed. On the other hand, only time will tell where this leads. If
>the German prosecutors manage to put legal weight behind the assumptions of
>the politicians, we might observe that no-one in Germany will be inclined
>to give the clams the benefit of the doubt.

Yep, time will tell. What it won't tell is how many innocent people
will be hurt by being forced to bear a government-imposed stigma.
If the U.S. government had done the same thing twenty years ago, I
wonder how many of the ex-Scientologists[tm] who post here might still
be Scientologists[tm], proud to defend their "religion" against
state-sanctioned persecution?


Diane Richardson
ref...@bway.net

Diane Richardson

unread,
Oct 13, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/13/97
to

On Mon, 13 Oct 1997 08:42:08 +0100, "Christer Lindström"
<cl...@carasoft.se> wrote:

[snip]

>PS. Hamas is a very social, powerful organisation who are doing
>lots of good things in Palestine, like schools, health care etc.
>Unfortunately, they tend to blow up a shopping mall now and then too.
>Would you consider monitoring of their leaders to be a threat to
>US interests, or a proof of violation of personal rights?

What CoS "leaders" are being monitored? What action has the German
government taken to insure that only CoS "leaders" are labeled without
labeling CoS members who haven't committed any criminal acts?

If the German government engaged in "monitoring CoS leaders," rather
than labeling any business owned by a CoS member, I'd have nothing to
criticize. From what I've read, that's not what's happening.

Diane Richardson
ref...@bway.net


Perry Scott

unread,
Oct 13, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/13/97
to

[the flamefest continues....]

Bernie (be...@arcadis.be) wrote:
: >What a nice "Church" the German Government has taken on.

: Get a clue yourself, Perry. The clerk is clueless because he


: doesn't know the informatin that is posted on two sites and what
: Tilman confirmed himself, or do you now say that Tilman is
: lying?

How often do you beat your wife, Bernie? :)

Apparently, the information can be seen on two websites. What has not
been shown is that the websites are truly independent. Indeed, there is
material on one that is on the other.

: I am not saying that the ministry "has false information in
: its files" nor that they are "insane and criminal", even though
: discrimination and the manufacture of fear and paranoia, such as
: the one you just displayed here above, could lead to serious
: crimes on the part of those acting out of the irrational and
: hysterical reaction created thereby.

"such as the one you just displayed here above". Are you referring
to Hubbard's OSA Network Order, or was it something I said?

I can see how you may think the German Government may be
"manufactur[ing] fear and paranoia". My view is that Co$ has shown
itself to possibly be against the rules for German society. I think
Frank Prechtel's article summed it up rather well.

: As for a "conspiracy theory" and calling those who disagree
: with you insane, I observe that you and Tilman have no better
: arguments against the points I am making than doing just that.
: Are you that desperate?

Sorry, Bernie. It was Hubbard's words, not mine. My words are
in [brackets], Hubbard's are preceded by a double quote mark.


: The clerck at the PR-department of the ministry should be
: the first to know about this information, so either the
: information isn't true or he is clueless. Since everything
: indicates that it is true, he is quite obviously clueless.

On point one, that the clerk should know the information, I don't follow
- why is a government employee required to read web pages, especially if
they may be viewed as Co$-inspired propaganda?

On point 2, I don't think you have proven that the points on the web
page are "true". According to Frank Prechtel's article (which I
understand to be similar to the German Government's position),
Scientology is viewed as a society that may have objectives contrary to
society's objectives. As such, it is Scientology which must prove
itself, not the other way around.


: Maybe you should better try to ascertain if the information


: is true or not, before launching in ridiculous mind-boggling

: paranoid theories and the type of propaganda to be found in
: virtually every anti-Scientology sites to justify totalitarian
: tactics to purportedly fight totalitarian tactics.

Indeed! Perhaps you should, Bernie.

: Totalitarian, discriminative and hysterical reaction is
: *not* an adequate answer to the same type of behavior, even the
: way you present the situation is true. In doing so, *you* are
: the one who is being dishonest and dangerous.

Me? Dangerous? I haven't killed anyone with 100% Standard Tek lately.
I haven't been involved in shady real-estate dealings. I haven't hidden
my true objectives when hiring people. Calling the German Government's
actions "totalitarian, discriminative, and hysterical" is hyperbole. In
fact, the German Government has documented its reasons for their
response to Scientology, and I find them more reasonable than the
actions of the US Government.


: My question "are you in favor of the post censoring mail" is
: a sensical question that can be answered with a yes or no, it
: has nothing to do with a "do you often beat your wife" question.

While my grasp of German constitutional law is limited, I suspect that
the government is not allowed to do this under normal conditions. Could
it again be that Scientology has been declared a "society" that MAY be
working against democratic principles? What did Scientology do to
attain this dishonor?

: Do you sometimes think before typing something or are you
: just writing from the top of your head based on the most
: rehashed cliché, whether it applies or no? (now that's a bit of
: a tricky question ;-)

Nobody is in control over here. It's my finger Body Thetans. (s.c.g.
readers are referred to http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/NOTs/ if they wish to
learn more about Scientology's theology regarding murdered space
aliens.)


: >: Ah? So depriving people of their job because of their beliefs is
: >: not "really a problem of discrimination" for German? Marking
: >: them in the *State* computer with a big S is not a problem? I
: >: would have thought so...

: >Uh, Bernie, Scientologists cannot hold government jobs in certain German


: >states. You are overgeneralizing to say that they cannot hold any jobs.

: Where did you read that I say they can't hold *any* jobs?
: You know very well what I am refering to. From Tilman's faq:

You wrote "So depriving people of their job because of their beliefs",
without qualifying "people" as Scientologists, and without qualifying
"job" as "government job".

With all respect to Tilman, his FAQ is not a source document, so it's
rather pointless to debate it. If you want, quote news articles or
German Government position statements. Unfortunately, the net has
a short memory, so maybe web it and provide references by URL.


: "The suitability for work in the public sector would be


: doubtful for officials and employees with connections to
: Scientology in the light of the organization's claims to
: abolutism and the total orientation towards its goals, which
: could give rise to a conflict of interests with the duties of
: public service. In such a case, applicants will be given the
: opportunity to clear any doubts about their suitability, in a
: conversation where they will be confronted with goals of the
: cult. Applicants who fail to distance themselves from these
: goals in satisfactory or credible manner, cannot be hired."

: Even though this is written in the most acceptable possible


: way, by a fanatical anti-Scientologist, it clearly shows that
: the State is telling the individual what he is allowed to
: believe or not. There are other similar cases to be find in the
: URL I provided.

What is clear to me is that the State is requiring its employees to
renounce the goals of Scientology, which appear to be a conflict of
interest with the goals of the State.

I see no employer wanting to hire someone with an allegiance to a
competitor. What part of this do you dispute?


: >By ElronTek, Suppressive Persons generalize to suit their purposes.
: >Your protest has origins in the Church of Scientology, Office of Special
: >Affairs. Is the Church of Scientology Suppressive?

: My protest has origin in the obvious abuses of civil rights
: that is going right now in Germany. It's as simple as that,
: whatever your crazy rationalizations may be.

Nice ad-hominem, Bernie. Calling my thoughts "crazy". When was the
last time I attacked you as a person? Debate the facts, not the man.

My "crazy" rationalizations are documented by the German Government and
in Frank Prechtel's article. Their explanation (Scientology is a
potentially dangerous society) seems reasonable. Thus, the actions of
the German Government seem reasonable


: >I'm marked by a big "M" (male) in my State's computer. Can I complain
: >of gender discrimination?
:
: You obviously don't know what discrimination is.

In the US, there is this thing called "Affirmative Action". It is meant
to redress past discrimination. Men before me (but not me) apparently
discriminated against women. Strangely enough, these men currently
occupy the Chief Executive Officer position.

The rationale is this: since females tend to have lower-paying jobs and
positions, they must have been discriminated against. To correct that,
policies are in place that prefer women instead of men. So, having a
big "M" by your name in the State's computer could mean that I am less
eligible for a job. I am also less eligible for promotion.


: >Again I ask, "Why were Scientologists withholding their business's


: >affiliation during recruiting?" If I were applying for a job, I would
: >want to know if another business (or church) controlled it.
:
: Ah yea? So do you go to the State and ask for the personal
: beliefs of the person holding a business before accepting a job?
: Boy, are you weird.

You misunderstood. I want to know what organization controls the
organization for which I work. The personal beliefs of management are
somewhat irrelevant in the US. If they start pushing their beliefs on
me, I tell them to stop. If they don't stop, I sue them for religious
harrassment. And win. Pretty straightforward.


: >: What in the reports that are posted is a lie?

: >You repeated one of the lies, Bernie - overgeneralization causes it.

: What lie? You are the one making me say something I didn't
: say. Straw man.

You generalized that "people" are denied "jobs". I already addressed
this point above.

: >Scientologists are not denied employment. They are denied jobs in some
: >state governments.

: Your two sentences contradict themselves. It is only you who
: interpret my statement that the State is "depriving people of
: their job because of their beliefs" as to mean that it applies
: to every job.

Gosh, Bernie. Could it be because it's what you said? Look around
line 100 where I quote you.


: >With Scientology's history of infiltration in the
: >US, I think Germany's actions are prudent.
:
: It isn't "prudent" to deprive its citizens of their rights.
: It is a downright paranoid reaction based on disinformation and
: propaganda.

In your mind, it's disinformation and propaganda. Apparently, I am but
a puppet of Germany in this matter. Could it be that a majority of
people don't see it your way?


: >: It would be if it was really crap. It isn't. It puts your
: >: country in a really bad light internationally. I suggest that at
: >: least this time German citizens react against such abuses.

: >Here is an example of ElronTek. The German people have overts (sins)
: >against the Jews. Scientology and Bernie are trying to "cave in"
: >(introvert) the Germans by making them focus on their past overts and
: >not on Scientology. It's one of Elron's "look over there" techniques.

: But I am criticizing Scientology just as well. I just speak
: against discrimination from whatever camp it comes.
:
: What you do, however, is to pretend to oppose the CoS
: abuses, but endorse the same type of abuses when it is against
: the CoS. That's plain dishonesty.

Rather than "dishonesty", I would call it "poetic justice". :)

I think we need to back up to the point of departure - you evaluate the
data (ElronTek babble) and see a government promoting discrimination. I
evaluate the data and see a government taking precautionary steps
against a suspected totalitarian organization.


: >In my opinion, Germany has fully atoned for WWII. As part of their
: >pennance, they are now the world's leader in recognizing fascist
: >organizations.

: They are the world's leader of being pointed at
: internationally as making the same mistake they did in the past.

Still trying to "cave in" the Germans, eh?

: There is *no* justification for the state to police the thoughts
: of its citizens and tell them what they have to believe or not.
: That's ugly, and you make yourself an accomplice of this abuse.

The German Government is against the Organization of Scientology.
Individual beliefs are OK, provided that those beliefs do not involve
ideas contrary to the agreed-upon laws of the Germany. One cannot
wrap totalitarianism in the cloak of religion and claim "religious
discrimination" when the government enforces its law.

I think the fundamental disagreement between us boils down to this.


: The sympathy towards the CoS is growing around the world as
: a result of the injustices that is being committed in Germany.

Heh. "Scientology is expanding. In the past decade, we have grown
from 8 million to 8 million."


: Here is the list taken from
: http://www.religioustolerance.org/scie_neg.htm :

[Scientology-inspired propaganda (and I do mean propaganda) snipped.]

This material has been discussed before and found wanting. The material
deals in overgeneralization and half-truth. If you want specific
examples, I can comment. So called "discrimination" against individual
Scientologists has been on the basis of their allegance to a suspected
totalitarian organization:

1) Germany is against societies that support undemocratic principles.

2) The Organization of Scientology is suspected of harboring
undemocratic principles.

3) The Organization of Scientology is not the same as individual
Scientologists.

4) Individually, Scientologists are being required to renounce the
undemocratic principles apparently forwarded by the OoS before
being allowed in sensitive government jobs.


What www.religioustolerance.org fails to show is that the Organization
of Scientology is not totalitarian. There is also some question whether
a self-help movement with no concept of God or the supernatural can be
classified as a religion. If they can refute the massive data to the
contrary, they have my vote.


Personally, I can't wait until Germany finds out about the degrading RPF
(concentration camps), the grey rags (the Star of David), the salutes
(hip, hip, hooray for Ron), their elite "SS"ea Org with the billion year
contract. Why is there razor wire, surveillance, and security guards
around Scientology's Hemet, California RELIGIOUS RETREAT? Scientology
has a lot to hide.

Does Germany have grounds for considering Scientology to be against
democratic principles?


: Bernie

Perry Scott
Co$ Escapee

jbwebb

unread,
Oct 13, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/13/97
to

>
> If the German government engaged in "monitoring CoS leaders," rather
> than labeling any business owned by a CoS member, I'd have nothing to
> criticize. From what I've read, that's not what's happening.

That's NOT what Tilman said! He said COS OWNED companies, not privately
held companies. Right? Or am I wrong about this too?

Take care
Joni

jbwebb

unread,
Oct 13, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/13/97
to

Diane Richardson wrote:
>
> Do you believe that all money-making companies who have ties to the
> Mafia should be labeled as such by the government? They aren't, in
> case you don't know that.

Well, the government does go to extraordinary lengths and expense to
convict Mafia, along with owners and employees of telephone telemarketing
scams, pyramid schemes, etc. What's the difference? Many times, the
DA's office will alert the public via newspaper or TV to beware of a
certain scam that is going on in the state, county, city, or country.
What's the difference? Most of the time, the people responsible for
perpertrating the fraud aren't even under indictment or even known.



> Do you think that all decent people should refuse to patronize Las
> Vegas casinos because many of them are owned by companies known to
> have ties to Mafioso? Do you think the government should require
> these casinos to publicly announce any ties to the Mafia to anyone who
> enters one of their establishments?

Diane, MANY people refuse to frequent casinos for many reasons, one being
that some are crime run. The states that outlaw gambling always cite the
criminal element as a primary reason for doing so. I don't understand
what the Mafia has to do with COS? Are you saying that COS shouldn't
publically announce to their customers who their front groups are? As
some protection to the buyer beware - our government does require that
COS report all of their front groups in accordance with their tax
exemption.

>
> What about health spa chains? There are a couple of those owned by
> companies with well-known ties to the Mafia. Should these health spas
> also be required to warn potential customers of these ties? I could
> go on, but I think you get my point.

No, I'm not sure that I do. If the DA's office thinks a health spa is
criminally run, usually you'll hear about it on TV or in the newspaper.
Who told you - the mob?

COS is being told by Germany that they have to inform the public of the
companies they own. I didn't think that any company in the USA could
legally hide it's ownership because that would be IRS fraud. If the USA
could prove the "mafia" owned a health club chain, I'm sure they would
prosecute if they violated any laws. Just as some DA could bring suit
against a COS front group for bait and switch if he thought he had a
case.
>

> The government can't do it for non-religious groups, either. In case
> you've forgotten, it is *individuals* who commit crimes. To label
> individuals as criminal just because they belong to the same
> organizations as others who have committed crimes is blatantly
> discriminatory.

Who did?

In case you've forgotten, individuals in this country
> are considered innocent until they've been proven guilty. Would you
> have this basic precept change just for the CoS?

No, of course not. But, isn't it legal for the government to demand to
know ownership of a corporation via IRS reporting? Wouldn't this be
obtainable under Freedom of Information? In what way is Germany doing
anything different? Where will this labeling be? In the phone books?
Not sure about this point. In advertisments? Do you know - Tilman -
what is the extent of this proposed labeling going to be? You said it
would not be for privately held companies.
>

> YOUR government doesn't consider the Mafia a religion, yet they do not
> warn citizens of Las Vegas casinos that have ties to Mafioso. I guess
> the government figures people can decide for themselves what
> organizations they choose to patronize.

Well, how DID you find that out? Take it WAY back, and the information
most probably first came from the government vis a vis police arresting
mob gangs in LV. The trials. Then came the books, the movies, etc.

Take care
Joni

DeoMorto

unread,
Oct 13, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/13/97
to

Diane Posted:>>I wonder how many of the ex-Scientologists[tm] who post here

might still be Scientologists[tm], proud to defend their "religion" against
state-sanctioned persecution?<<

First off I agree with some of your points about governments and religions. I
may not think that scientology is worthy of the apellation "church" but I also
do not think that I want any government crashing around a set of beliefs
making pronouncements.
However your paragraph above, IMHO, shows that you do not have a subjective
reality on the scientology mindset. As far as most of the people I know in the
SO, in upper management etc believe (and as I myself believed when I was in)
they already think they are under siege in the USA. I know from personal
conversations that DM, Yager and Guillaume think (or at least I should say,
thought) that way.
You have to bear in mind that Hubbard said there was a world wide conspiracy
of (IIRC) 13 people out to get scientology. The fact that the church has
successfully used the laws of the USA to fend off one avenue of attack merely
means that management will expect it to come from some other direction.

Dave Bird---St Hippo of Augustine

unread,
Oct 13, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/13/97
to

In article <344170d3...@snews.zippo.com>, WhtatsHerName:

>Do you think that all decent people should refuse to patronize Las
>Vegas casinos because many of them are owned by companies known to
>have ties to Mafioso? Do you think the government should require
>these casinos to publicly announce any ties to the Mafia to anyone who
>enters one of their establishments?
Yes

>What about health spa chains? There are a couple of those owned by
>companies with well-known ties to the Mafia. Should these health spas
>also be required to warn potential customers of these ties?
Yes

>Is it somehow wrong for the government to allow someone to be
>snookered into a CoS front-group but right for the government to allow
>someone to be snookered in a Mafia front-group?

The difficulty is to identify that they are owned by a criminal
organisation---"show that they are owned by it, show that it states
or carries out criminal aims, if so then why don't you prosecute it?"


Tilman Hausherr <til...@berlin.snafu.de> writes:
>WhatsHerName waffles:


>>Do you believe that all Italian-American owned businesses should be
>>labeled with an "M" for Mafia enterprises?

No, silly, only the mafia owned ones.

|~/ |~/
~~|;'^';-._.-;'^';-._.-;'^';-._.-;'^';-._.-;||';-._.-;'^';||_.-;'^'0-|~~
P | Woof Woof, Glug Glug ||____________|| 0 | P
O | Who Drowned the Judge's Dog? | . . . . . . . '----. 0 | O
O | answers on *---|_______________ @__o0 | O
L |{a href="news:alt.religion.scientology"}{/a}_____________|/_______| L
and{a href="http://www.xemu.demon.co.uk/clam/lynx/q0.html"}{/a}XemuSP4(:)


Bernie

unread,
Oct 13, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/13/97
to

Paul <pauldb@REMOVE_ME.seanet.com> wrote in article
<3440FCDC.1751@REMOVE_ME.seanet.com> (alt.religion.scientology):

>Diane Richardson wrote:

>> On Fri, 10 Oct 1997 10:34:57 -0700, Paul <pauldb@REMOVE_ME.seanet.com>
>> wrote:

>> >Bernie wrote:

>> >> The "reasons" why discriminative and criminal acts are
>> >> taken against a group of people are not important, since there
>> >> are *no* valid reasons for these.

>> >I beg to differ. Replace "Scientology businesses" with "Mafia
>> >businesses" or "terrorist businesses" and suddenly the picture looks
>> >completely different. Now you may wish to argue that the Church of
>> >Scientology[tm] is not like the Mafia nor like a terrorist organization,
>> >but that's a different topic.

>> OK, let's take a look at your comparison of the CoS with the Mafia,
>> and a government's right to label an organization controlled by either
>> the CoS or the Mafia.

>Diane, please read a bit more carefully. I did not compare the Church


>of Scientology[tm] to the Mafia.

No. You only *implied* that they were one and the same. Much more
efficient, and you can always say after "I didn't say that".

>I was responding to Bernie's sentence,
>posted above, in which he claimed that there were "*no* valid reasons."

There is no valid reasons. Diane demonstrated that just as well
with the mafia.

Even for them, they need to be *proven* guilty of the crimes they
are accused. For Scientologists, apparently, not. To be a
Scientologist is enough.

>My argument is that, yes, there can be a valid reason, depending on the
>nature of the organization.

You didn't read Diane's post carefully enough.

>For example, there is very clearly a valid
>reason to discriminate against a Mafia protection racket.

This statement is ridiculous and shows that you have no idea what
discrimination is.

Here is Diane's post again.
___________________________________________________

OK, let's take a look at your comparison of the CoS with the Mafia,
and a government's right to label an organization controlled by either
the CoS or the Mafia.

I don't know the laws in Germany, but in the United States it's not a
crime to belong to a group called the Mafia (although I don't think
there's an organization that actually calls itself by this name).
It's not a violation of the law for an individual to belong to a group
called the "Church" of Scientology[tm], either.

A rather large group of Italian-Americans has battled for years to end
what they consider the misrepresentation of all Italian-Americans as

criminals. They point out the tendency of the entertainment industry,
news media, and the like, to portray Italian-Americans as criminals,
just because the Mafia was originally Italian-based. The group
objects to the portrayal of *all* Italian-Americans as criminals,
just because *some* Italian-Americans have been convicted of crimes.
They think it's unfair and discriminatory to label an entire ethnic
group with a pejorative label just because of the actions of a few
members of the ethnic group to which they belong.

Arab-Americans have done the same. They now actively protest
portrayals of *all* Arab-Americans as terrorists just because *some*
Arabs are members of terrorist organizations. They point with
justification to the automatic assumption by many members of the press
and law enforcement officials that the Oklahoma City bombing was the
work of Arab terrorists.

Would the United States be justified in officially labeling businesses
owned by Italian-Americans as Mafia-related? No. Would the U.S.
government be justified in officially labeling businesses owned by
Arab-Americans as terrorist-related? No.

Let's be more specific. Would the U.S. government be justified in
questioning Italian-American businessmen on their ties with organized
crime and officially labeling businesses run by those with ties to
organized crime Mafia-related? What sort of ties would justify that
label?

If an Italian-American was a member of an Italian-American fraternal
organization (like the Sons of Italy), would that qualify his business
as Mafia-related? If an Italian-American was a social acquaintance of
a well-known Mafia figure would that qualify his business as
Mafia-related? If an Italian-American man was married to a woman
whose family was known to have ties with the Mafia would that qualify
his business as Mafia-related?

The U.S. government made some serious mistakes back in the McCarthy
era when it was willing to look for a "pinko" if not a downright "Red"
behind every tree. It took a long time for the government to learn
the lessons this experience taught. There are still plenty of U.S.
citizens, some of whom are government officials, who have yet to
understand the importance of those lessons.

Whatever the case, you're not going to find the U.S. government
officially identifying certain businesses as Mafia-related and warning
prospective employees of this fact. If a business *is* Mafia-related,
the government can prosecute the owners of the business for any
violations of the law that the business commits. The RICO statute
even allows the government to prosecute for conspiracy to commit
crimes as part of an organized group.

Does the government have an obligation to warn its citizens that a
prospective employer is Mafia-related? I don't think so. I think the
problems involved in the government making such determinations far
outweigh any benefit the warning might provide to citizens.

Besides, I think individuals are far more capable of determining for
themselves who they're willing to work for. Some individuals find
ties with organized crime much more objectionable than others do.
I've heard enough to be wary of anything owned by some corporations,
but it doesn't seem to bother the vast majority of U.S. citizens
enough to keep them from patronizing businesses owned by those
corporations. Is Las Vegas a ghost town? Hardly. Do the casinos
have a hard time finding people willing to work for them? Not by a
long shot.

Labeling all members of a group as "bad," whether that group happens
to be Scientologists[tm], Italian-Americans, or Arab-Americans, just
isn't going to happen in the U.S. The U.S. tried that once and came
up with McCarthyism. It's not going to happen here again.

Some day, perhaps, some German states will see the folly of attempting
to do the same thing the U.S. attempted during the height of the Cold
War.


Diane Richardson
ref...@bway.net
___________________________________________________

Bernie


Bernie

unread,
Oct 13, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/13/97
to

Thomas...@t-online.de (Thomas Michel) wrote in article
<61ps3g$vch$4...@news02.btx.dtag.de> (alt.religion.scientology):

>Bernie wrote:

>>It seems that some people around the PR-department at the
>>ministry are rather clueless. The information is at
>>http://www.religioustolerance.org/scie_neg.htm, and at
>>http://hatewatch.freedommag.org/press/eng/gen/dscr/page05.htm,

>Are these official German Government sources?

No. http://hatewatch.freedommag.org/press/eng/gen/dscr/page05.htm
is the report put together by the Scientologists, while
http://www.religioustolerance.org/scie_neg.htm is the site maintained
by independent scholars.

The CoS site needs to be read with all due cautions, but it
*does* contain a lot of facts.

The second one is definitely more reliable, but not as detailed.

If there is an official German Government site in English, let us
know :-)

Bernie


jbwebb

unread,
Oct 13, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/13/97
to

Diane Richardson wrote:
>
> But the Bavarian government isn't worried about whether or not these
> businesses are violating laws. The mere fact that these businesses
> are owned by Scientologists[tm] is enough to have them labeled.
>
> Do you think that's ok? Or do you think it stinks of discrimination?

No, I don't think its ok. Yes, it's discrimination. I agree.
The job of notifying the public of looming bait and switch scam cults is
better left up to the media, at least here in the US where we obviously
have very different laws than Germany. (Thank God for that small favor
during WWII).
BUT......., can't say I don't admire Germany for standing up to COS and
denying them the ability to call themselves a religion. Let's see how
long Germany resists the pressure to do so.

Take care
Joni

Bernie

unread,
Oct 14, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/14/97
to

Juergen Hubert <HUB...@gawein.physik.uni-erlangen.de> wrote in article
<3441F761...@gawein.physik.uni-erlangen.de>
(alt.religion.scientology):

>The same restrictions apply to people who are members in certain
>right-wing extremist or left-wing extremist groups.

That's very specific to Germany, for historical reasons. It isn't
so in other countries where all opinions are open, even extreme-right
or extreme-left ones. Some countries even have legal political parties
whose armed factions are perpetrating terrorist acts.

In the U.S.A., the American Civil Liberties Union defended the
right of neo-Nazi to demonstrate in the street. Not because they
approve of their opinions, but for reasons that are deeply grounded in
the American 1st amendment.

I would say that, today, even the German rules applied to the
right-wing extremist or left-wing extremist groups is disputable and,
IMO, should be lifted in favor of a more democratic system.

What happens currently is that groups are labeled, associated,
with extremist groups just for the purpose to get the same rules
applied to them. This is precisely why it is anti-democratic even for
the extremist groups to be banned. The line between what is and what
isn't an extremist group can be sometimes subjective, so to ban some
is a good excuse to bundle other groups with them and justify
discrimination.

My opinion is that governments have no business deciding what
opinions are valid or not, even if these are extremist opinions.
Exceptions to democratic principles open the door to wider and wider
exceptions, that end up harming genuine beliefs and people. I don't
need the seal of approval of governments for what I believe. This is
an outrageous intrusion.

Bernie


Cornelius Krasel

unread,
Oct 14, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/14/97
to

Diane Richardson (ref...@bway.net) wrote:
> On Sun, 12 Oct 1997 14:09:38 +0200,
> kra...@wpxx02.toxi.uni-wuerzburg.de (Cornelius Krasel) wrote:

[stuff on which we agree snipped]

> >If you answer "no" to the latter question and think of Freezoners, is
> >there any evidence that freezoners are being "persecuted" in Germany?
>
> Are there any freezoners who were never affiliated with the CoS?
> Perhaps there are some "illegal PCs" who were denied auditing by the
> CoS who joined the freezone without first joining the CoS.

I have no idea. I consider it possible. Maybe one of the Freezone persons
could tell us more (Ralph, OldTimer ?). Then we can still investigate
this - at the present hypothetical - situation.

> What happens if a WISE business owner leaves the CoS and resigns his
> affiliation with WISE? Will the state do its own investigation to
> insure that the individual isn't lying about ending his affiliation?
> Will the "S" be removed only on the assurance that the connection has
> been severed? Will the state depend upon the CoS to provide them with
> records of who is and isn't a Scientologist[tm]? Has anyone seen the
> regulations?

I have not seen the regulations. All I know about the "S" is from press
reports.

The only case I know where a former WISE member was forced to leave the
CoS is that of Tom Voltz who had a company in Switzerland. His relation-
ship to the CoS has been discussed numerous times, so I will only give
a brief abstract if you can't recall. While the situation of a Swiss
company doesn't directly relate to the current German situation, Tom
didn't report any investigation by officials of any sort (governmental
or otherwise).

When Norbert Potthof, a German former SO member, left the CoS and went
to his former "enemy", cult counselor Ralf (?) Mucha, Mucha didn't
trust him first (because the CoS had formerly tried to infiltrate
his organization). However, when Mucha asked Potthof to testify before
a group of journalists and Potthof agreed, Mucha knew that Potthof
really had broken with the church. (This according to Potthof's
description in his book.)

> What about Freezoners who apply Hubbard's management tech to their
> businesses without being members of the CoS? I'm not sure if the
> government objects to the management tech alone or if it objects to
> the management tech only when it is practiced by WISE members.

Looking at the ruling from the Federal Labour court it appears that
the court objected not against the CoS as an organization but against
the use of Hubbard management tech (which results in 5% monthly price
increases, persons working in unbearable conditions etc.). Tilman's
summary of the ruling is fairly good. (Maybe we should get an
"official translator" who translates the ruling in English legalese.
Do you know how much this would cost? It would certainly clear up a
few things.)

Sassie10

unread,
Oct 14, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/14/97
to

On Fri, 10 Oct 1997 10:34:57 -0700, Paul <pauldb@REMOVE_ME.seanet.com> wrote:

<snip>

>I beg to differ. Replace "Scientology businesses"
>with "Mafia businesses" or "terrorist businesses" and
>suddenly the picture looks completely different. Now
>you may wish to argue that the Church of Scientology[tm]
>is not like the Mafia nor like a terrorist organization,
>but that's a different topic.

Let's see some real courage then. Step up to the plate and propose newsgroup:

alt.binaries.pictures.mafia.hitmen


>-Paul

Ingo Zoller

unread,
Oct 14, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/14/97
to

Bernie wrote:
>
> http://hatewatch.freedommag.org/press/eng/gen/dscr/page05.htm
> is the report put together by the Scientologists, while
> http://www.religioustolerance.org/scie_neg.htm is the site maintained
> by independent scholars.

The second one is a reissue of the first one, relying on only two
sources: a) a letter written by 34 people to the government, which is
publicised on the Scientology-server, and b) the report it wants to
confirm. There is no hint for this report being independent.

> The CoS site needs to be read with all due cautions, but it
> *does* contain a lot of facts.

which still need to be proved.


>
> The second one is definitely more reliable, but not as detailed.

How could it be more reliable if it doesn't contain any information from
non-Scientology sources?

whoc...@sowhat.com

unread,
Oct 14, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/14/97
to

NNTP-Posting-Host: cp007.rapidnet.net
On Tue, 14 Oct 1997 05:43:00 GMT, arms...@ntonline.com (gerry armstrong)---->
threw some stones from his hideout across the border.

<snip>


>Gerry


RapidNet Technologies (RAPIDNET2-DOM)
#3-31018 Peardonville
Abbotsford, B.C. V2S 5W6
CA

Domain Name: RAPIDNET.NET

Administrative Contact:
Legg, David (DL1290) da...@RAPIDNET.NET
604-855-7638 (FAX) 604-855-7456
Technical Contact, Zone Contact:
Latimer, Craig (CL869) clat...@RAPIDNET.NET
+1(604)855-7638

Record last updated on 24-Oct-96.
Record created on 05-May-96.
Database last updated on 13-Oct-97 05:03:04 EDT.

Domain servers in listed order:

MAIN.RAPIDNET.NET 207.102.150.2
PICO.BCTEL.NET 204.174.65.1

Diane Richardson

unread,
Oct 14, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/14/97
to

On Mon, 13 Oct 1997 00:36:22 -0700, jbwebb <jbw...@gramercy.ios.com>
wrote:

>Diane Richardson wrote:
>>
>> Do you believe that all money-making companies who have ties to the
>> Mafia should be labeled as such by the government? They aren't, in
>> case you don't know that.
>
>Well, the government does go to extraordinary lengths and expense to
>convict Mafia, along with owners and employees of telephone telemarketing
>scams, pyramid schemes, etc. What's the difference?

There's a great deal of difference. In the instances you cite, crimes
have already been committed. In the Bavarian situation, individual
businesses are labeled *before* any crimes have been committed.

See the difference? Remember that bit about "innocent until proven
guilty"?

> Many times, the
>DA's office will alert the public via newspaper or TV to beware of a
>certain scam that is going on in the state, county, city, or country.
>What's the difference?

In the example you raise, criminal acts have already been committed.
In the Bavarian situation, organizations are being labeled as unsavory
*not* because they have broken the law, but only because the
government believes that they might be prone to break the law.

See the difference? Remember that bit about "innocent until proven
guilty"?

>Most of the time, the people responsible for
>perpertrating the fraud aren't even under indictment or even known.

Most of what time? Are the television stations in Houston so
desperate for news that they issue warnings that someone, somewhere
just might be doing something criminal, so you'd better watch out?
Hardly breaking news, joni. :-)


>
>> Do you think that all decent people should refuse to patronize Las
>> Vegas casinos because many of them are owned by companies known to
>> have ties to Mafioso? Do you think the government should require
>> these casinos to publicly announce any ties to the Mafia to anyone who
>> enters one of their establishments?
>

>Diane, MANY people refuse to frequent casinos for many reasons, one being
>that some are crime run. The states that outlaw gambling always cite the
>criminal element as a primary reason for doing so.

But the government does not officially label casinos as being
"Mafia-related." The government doesn't place special symbols warning
people that a particular business has Mafia ties. That's what they're
doing in Bavaria.

>I don't understand what the Mafia has to do with COS?

The discussion deals with the Bavarian government's use of a special
mark on its employment office computers to label businesses that are
Scientology[tm] related.

When someone claimed that such practice was religious discrimination,
the point was raised that the CoS was not a religion but an organized
criminal enterprise like the Mafia.

> Are you saying that COS shouldn't
>publically announce to their customers who their front groups are?

No, I'm saying that the U.S. government cannot announce what
businesses are run by Scientologists[tm]. The action being taken in
Bavaria is an official government action, not the government's
requiring Scientologists[tm] to announce their affiliation.

>As
>some protection to the buyer beware - our government does require that
>COS report all of their front groups in accordance with their tax
>exemption.

As far as I know, the U.S. government does not require
Scientologists[tm] who own businesses to reveal their religious
affiliation to every customer or every job applicant. Do you believe
that the U.S. government should force Scientologists[tm] to reveal
their religious affiliation to all customers and job applicants?

>> What about health spa chains? There are a couple of those owned by
>> companies with well-known ties to the Mafia. Should these health spas

>> also be required to warn potential customers of these ties? I could
>> go on, but I think you get my point.
>
>No, I'm not sure that I do. If the DA's office thinks a health spa is
>criminally run, usually you'll hear about it on TV or in the newspaper.
>Who told you - the mob?

Nope. The media. For your information, the news media in the U.S. is
not a branch of the federal government. Do you believe that all
business owners should be legally required to identify their
religious, fraternal, social, and all other affiliations to job
applicants?

The Bavarian state government isn't requiring everyone to do it, just
Scientologists[tm]. That's discrimination. That's what I'm talking
about. It's frighteningly reminiscent of Bavaria of the 1930s.

> COS is being told by Germany that they have to inform the public of the
>companies they own.

No, the Bavarian government is doing that itself. They're not
requiring the businesses to inform people, the government is doing the
informing. Just like they did back in the 1930s.

>I didn't think that any company in the USA could
>legally hide it's ownership because that would be IRS fraud. If the USA
>could prove the "mafia" owned a health club chain, I'm sure they would
>prosecute if they violated any laws.

But the Bavarian government isn't worried about whether or not these


businesses are violating laws. The mere fact that these businesses
are owned by Scientologists[tm] is enough to have them labeled.

Do you think that's ok? Or do you think it stinks of discrimination?

>Just as some DA could bring suit
>against a COS front group for bait and switch if he thought he had a
>case.

Yep. But the Bavarian government isn't waiting around for bait and
switch to occur. It's taking pre-emptive action and labeling *all*
Scientologist[tm]-owned companies, whether they've broken any laws or
not.

>> The government can't do it for non-religious groups, either. In case
>> you've forgotten, it is *individuals* who commit crimes. To label
>> individuals as criminal just because they belong to the same
>> organizations as others who have committed crimes is blatantly
>> discriminatory.
>
>Who did?

The Bavarian government is coming pretty damn close to making it a
reality, joni.

> In case you've forgotten, individuals in this country
>> are considered innocent until they've been proven guilty. Would you
>> have this basic precept change just for the CoS?
>
>No, of course not. But, isn't it legal for the government to demand to
>know ownership of a corporation via IRS reporting?

That's not what the Bavarian government is doing. They are placing a
special mark on the computer files of any business that is owned by a
Scientologist[tm]. These computer files are used by the public to
find employment.

>Wouldn't this be obtainable under Freedom of Information?

Of course it is.

> In what way is Germany doing anything different? Where will this labeling be?
> In the phone books?

In government employment office computer files.
Scientologist[tm]-owned businesses will be specially marked so that
any job-hunters will be told if a business is Scientology[tm]-related.

>Not sure about this point. In advertisments? Do you know - Tilman -
>what is the extent of this proposed labeling going to be? You said it
>would not be for privately held companies.
>>
>
>> YOUR government doesn't consider the Mafia a religion, yet they do not
>> warn citizens of Las Vegas casinos that have ties to Mafioso. I guess
>> the government figures people can decide for themselves what
>> organizations they choose to patronize.
>
>Well, how DID you find that out? Take it WAY back, and the information
>most probably first came from the government vis a vis police arresting
>mob gangs in LV. The trials. Then came the books, the movies, etc.

Nope. It came from the news media, which isn't run by the government
in this country. The government doesn't do anything to "warn"
citizens about patronizing mob-affiliated casinos.


Diane Richardson
ref...@bway.net

>Joni


Diane Richardson

unread,
Oct 14, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/14/97
to

On 13 Oct 1997 16:21:24 GMT, deom...@aol.com (DeoMorto) wrote:

>Diane Posted:>>I wonder how many of the ex-Scientologists[tm] who post here
> might still be Scientologists[tm], proud to defend their "religion" against
> state-sanctioned persecution?<<
>
> First off I agree with some of your points about governments and religions. I
> may not think that scientology is worthy of the apellation "church" but I also
> do not think that I want any government crashing around a set of beliefs
> making pronouncements.
> However your paragraph above, IMHO, shows that you do not have a subjective
> reality on the scientology mindset. As far as most of the people I know in the
> SO, in upper management etc believe (and as I myself believed when I was in)
> they already think they are under siege in the USA. I know from personal
> conversations that DM, Yager and Guillaume think (or at least I should say,
> thought) that way.

That's what I was trying to point out. The paranoia already exists.
How many members might not have blown if Miscavige et al. could point
to a discriminatory regulation and say, "See, that *proves* what we've
been telling you. We're right -- they're out to suppress us."

> You have to bear in mind that Hubbard said there was a world wide conspiracy
> of (IIRC) 13 people out to get scientology. The fact that the church has
> successfully used the laws of the USA to fend off one avenue of attack merely
> means that management will expect it to come from some other direction.

Yep. I think *anything* the government attempts to do to regulate the
CoS will backfire. It will just reinforce the paranoid beliefs of
those already in the cult and will create a lot of sympathy among many
who never even knew about it before the news coverage.

The CoS surely must consider the German governments' actions as a PR
blessing, and it comes at a time when they desperately need
sympathetic news coverage.


Diane Richardson
ref...@bway.net
>


Jens Tingleff

unread,
Oct 14, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/14/97
to

In article <3441fe05...@snews.zippo.com>, ref...@bway.net wrote:

[..]


> What happens if a WISE business owner leaves the CoS and resigns his
> affiliation with WISE? Will the state do its own investigation to
> insure that the individual isn't lying about ending his affiliation?
> Will the "S" be removed only on the assurance that the connection has
> been severed? Will the state depend upon the CoS to provide them with
> records of who is and isn't a Scientologist[tm]? Has anyone seen the
> regulations?
>

Strawman!

I refer you back to Tilman's clarification ;-)

The labelling of businesses owned by WISE members was an idea I aired, not
(confirmed) German policy.

Jens

Jens Tingleff

unread,
Oct 14, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/14/97
to

> On Mon, 13 Oct 1997 10:08:32 +0200, jens...@imaginet.fr (Jens
> Tingleff) wrote:
>

[..]


> >Seems pretty mild to me. I would have gone for labelling any business who
> >is owned/controlled by members of WISE (recruiters for the Sea Org who did
> >such sterling work[1] in improving Lisa McPherson's health). This is - of
> >course - impractical, since WISE is perfectly capable of adapting to local
> >regulation, but I think I've made my point...
>
> What point have you made? If you believe all members of WISE are
> recruiters for the Sea Org, I'd suggest you present evidence of your
> claim.

No, I *know* that WISE (the organisation) sent out a flyer (to its members)
encouraging people to join the SO. Therefore I sonsider it a possibility
that WISE members are recruiting for the SO.

Anyway, as much as I'd like to, I don't get to determine German government
policies ;-) ;-)

[..]


> >Furthermore, one can never know what a $cientologist is trying to find out
> >about everyone (ref. letter sent to French $cientologists encouraging them
> >to spy for OSA - reported in Serge Faubert's "Une Secte au coeur de la
> >Repulique")
>
> You think that *all* Scientologists[tm] should be labeled just
> because, as you say, "you can never know what a $cientologist is
> trying to find out about everyone." That's calling someone guilty of
> something before he's committed a crime. Do you also believe that all
> Arabs should be labeled just because you never know which one is a
> terrorist?
>

If all "Arabs" got a letter telling them to spy, then maybe. Since I don't
know about "Arabs" getting any such letters, I can't really tell... Having
worked and studied with people who could reasonably be described as
"Arabs", I have a lot of respect for the individuality and diversity within
that (losely defined) group. I consider "members in good standing" of the
Co$ to be much more uniform.

Of course, one is free to assume that $cientologists do not follow the
suggestions and recruitment drives they receive. I'll just point to the
existence of Ethics Officers (with absolute powers over each and every
member, certainly to the extent of being able to revoke the "member in good
standing" status).

[..]


> >Not speaking for the US citizens, I can see parallels *and* differences.
> >The WISE recruitment drive mentioned aove has been discussed. If anyone is
> >interested, I can dig up a copy of S Faubert's book and do my usual
> >mock-translation of the notes about the letter sent to French
> >$cientologists.
>
> I'm sure we could find similar letters written by other organizatons
> to all its members. Does such a letter justify condemning all members
> of a group as criminals, even though not every member of the group has
> committed a crime?

I have not condemned them as a group of criminals... I consider it likely
that they are under preasure to collect data for OSA.

I am not convinced that the parallels concerning organisation/members is
the same for the other "groups" you have discussed (were/are all
"communists" under threat of instant denial of access to political
discussions? Are all "Italian-Americans" under threat of being unable to
buy pasta[1] if they displease their local mafia dons?).

[..]


> Yep, time will tell. What it won't tell is how many innocent people
> will be hurt by being forced to bear a government-imposed stigma.

If the labelling is for $cientology businesses (rather than $cientolgist
businesses) I think there isn't *that* much cause for worry, just yet.
Trends are worthy of notice, but it's - IMHO - unlikely that the German
government(s) will take Roland's (trolling) suggestions seriously just yet.

Anyway, Germany has an independent court system, so time will tell how much
of this holds up in court.

Jens

[1] JOKE !!!

Diane Richardson

unread,
Oct 14, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/14/97
to

On Tue, 14 Oct 1997 05:43:00 GMT, arms...@ntonline.com (gerry
armstrong) wrote:

[snip]

>Yes, the US can, does and should. "Gang member" is a pejorative.

Where does the U.S. officially designate someone a "gang member"?
Is it stamped on an individual's driver's license? His passport?
Where would you have Scientologists[tm] labeled? Do you agree with
Roland that Scientologists[tm] should be branded on their foreheads?

>So is"convicted fellon."

What felony does an individual commit when he joins the CoS?

> So is a member of the "Cultists Dedicated to the
>Destruction of Sanity for Our Leaders' Own Pernicious Purposes." The
>US uses such labels in its legal briefs and other public statements.

The Bavarian government, however, isn't limiting itself to that.
They're putting the official pejorative where the public can see it,
whether crimes have been committed by a specific business or not.

>Scientologists, to be Scientologists, must do exactly what they're
>told to do by the cult's leadership. That fact should be used by the
>US in its legal public statements concerning Scientology, or
>Scientologists acting for Scientology. The leadership of Scientology
>is involved in a mafia-like criminal enterprise: fraud, extortion,
>human rights abuses, etc. When the leadership eliminates all such
>criminal practices from its operations the US would then be justified
>in removing the pejorative label "Scientologist" from its legal public
>statements concerning Scientology or Scientologists acting for
>Scientology.

We're not talking about the CoS, we're talking about individual
Scientologists[tm]. You know, Gerry, the raw meat. All those folks
you and others like you suckered into joining the cult back when you
were a true believer. Are they criminals just because they fell for
your deception when you were recruiting for the criminals?
Do *they* deserve to be labeled any more than *you* deserve to be
labeled?

>Any country is completely justified in calling Scientologists
>"Scientologists" and treating them as if they are under the domination
>of a cabal of criminals dedicated to the destruction of sanity in that
>country's citizens and institutions for the cabal's own pernicious
>purposes, because that is what Scientologists are. It has almost
>nothing to do with the Scientologists' "beliefs" about the "tech,"
>"ARC," or Xenu, etc., etc. Those things are just part of
>Scientologists doing what they're told to do: believe this, believe
>that, don't believe this or that, read this, say that, do this, don't
>do that, tell this lie, hurt that guy. All for the leaders' own
>pernicious purposes. That's the danger that people in governments have
>come face to face with. Germany has apparently said, "This is not
>right." The US has apparently said, "Wow, what a great idea."
>
>But the US is wrong. It isn't a great idea. It isn't right.

Stay in Canada then and see if you can get your Parliament to adopt
Roland's proposal to brand all Scientologists[tm] on the forehead.


Diane Richardson
ref...@bway.net


T. Devon Sharkey

unread,
Oct 14, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/14/97
to

On 13 Oct 1997 17:23:30 GMT, pe...@fc.hp.com (Perry Scott) wrote:


This has been driving me nuts:


>
>How often do you beat your wife, Bernie? :)
>

To which he can say "never.."

I think you mean:

"Bernie, have you stopped beating your wife?"

DeoMorto

unread,
Oct 14, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/14/97
to

>Perhaps the tactic is to lie, get the lies repeated in other locations,
>repeat them back, get them into articles and then into books, to build a
>"library of public opinion." Spread a story around so it looks like it
>comes from multiple sources, and that makes it more easily accepted as
>truth.
>
>It's just my personal guess. After all, L. Ron Hubbard, dead founder of
>the thriving cult of greed and power, taught about this type of tactic in
>the cult sacred scripture:
>
>++++++++++++ SACRED CULT SCRIPTURE +++++++++++++
>
>The enemy propaganda tactic is to print bad things, repeat them in another
>country, repeat them back, get them into articles and then into books.
>This builds a background of ill repute. This builds a "library of public
>opinion". This has happened to us.
>
> -- L. Ron Hubbard
> 2 Dec 69, INTELLIGENCE ACTIONS, COVERT INTELLIGENCE, DATA COLLECTION

that is exactly the tactic that is being used.
You should note that Hubbard got this "breakthrough" idea from the
Disinformation that was waged by the KGB.
Of course OSA thinks its brilliant work by Hubbard.
Amazing how the KGB "tech" slides so well into a scientology framework..

Mike O'Connor

unread,
Oct 14, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/14/97
to

In article <34439D...@phy.leeds.ac.uk>, ph...@phy.leeds.ac.uk (Ingo
Zoller) wrote:

> Bernie wrote:
> >
> > http://hatewatch.freedommag.org/press/eng/gen/dscr/page05.htm
> > is the report put together by the Scientologists, while
> > http://www.religioustolerance.org/scie_neg.htm is the site maintained
> > by independent scholars.
>
> The second one is a reissue of the first one, relying on only two
> sources: a) a letter written by 34 people to the government, which is
> publicised on the Scientology-server, and b) the report it wants to
> confirm. There is no hint for this report being independent.
>
> > The CoS site needs to be read with all due cautions, but it
> > *does* contain a lot of facts.
>
> which still need to be proved.
> >
> > The second one is definitely more reliable, but not as detailed.
>
> How could it be more reliable if it doesn't contain any information from
> non-Scientology sources?

Perhaps the tactic is to lie, get the lies repeated in other locations,


repeat them back, get them into articles and then into books, to build a
"library of public opinion." Spread a story around so it looks like it
comes from multiple sources, and that makes it more easily accepted as
truth.

It's just my personal guess. After all, L. Ron Hubbard, dead founder of
the thriving cult of greed and power, taught about this type of tactic in
the cult sacred scripture:

++++++++++++ SACRED CULT SCRIPTURE +++++++++++++

The enemy propaganda tactic is to print bad things, repeat them in another
country, repeat them back, get them into articles and then into books.
This builds a background of ill repute. This builds a "library of public
opinion". This has happened to us.

-- L. Ron Hubbard
2 Dec 69, INTELLIGENCE ACTIONS, COVERT INTELLIGENCE, DATA COLLECTION

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Here is another segment of cult sacred scripture which teaches that enough
repetition of your own definition of something can alter public opinion so
that your redefinition is accepted:

++++++++++++ SACRED CULT SCRIPTURE +++++++++++++

PR Series 12
PROPAGANDA BY REDEFINITION OF WORDS

[...]
Many instances of this exist. They are not "natural" changes in
language. They are propaganda changes, carefully planned and campaigned
in order to obtain a public opinion advantage for the group doing the
propaganda.

Given enough repetition of the redefinition public opinion can be altered
by altering the meaning of a word.

The technique is good or bad depending on the ultimate objective of the
propagandist.

"Psychiatry" and "psychiatrist" are easily redefined to mean "an
anti-social enemy of the people". This takes the kill crazy psychiatrist
off the preferred list of professions. This is a good use of the
technique as for a century the psychiatrist has been setting an all time
record for inhumanity to man.
[...]

The way to redefine a word is to get the new *definition* repeated as
often as possible.

Thus it is necessary to redefine medicine, psychiatry, and psychology
downward and define Dianetics and Scientology upwards.

This, so for as words are concerned, is the public opinion battle for
belief in *your* definitions, and not those of the opposition.

A consistent, repeated effort is the key to any success with this
technique of propaganda.

One must know how to do it.

-- L. Ron Hubbard
HCOPL of Oct. 5, 1971

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
-Mike

gerry armstrong

unread,
Oct 14, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/14/97
to

On Sun, 12 Oct 1997 04:07:54 GMT, ref...@bway.net (Diane Richardson)
wrote:

>On Sun, 12 Oct 1997 01:09:47 GMT, gr...@tidepool.com (Grady Ward)
>wrote:
>


>>>
>>>Do you believe that similar steps should be taken by the U.S.
>>>government? Should all businesses owned by Scientologists[tm] be
>>>labeled and prospective employees warned? What makes this different
>>
>>No, I don't. However I guess we both also agree that we ought to keep lawfully
>>investigating this criminal cult for the mischief that is an organic part of
>>their nature.
>
>Investigating an organization is not equal to investigating
>individuals who happen to belong to the organization. The government
>can investigate individuals who belong to the Mafia if those
>individuals are suspected of criminal activity. The same goes for
>Scientologists[tm]. What the U.S. government cannot do is to label
>pejoratively all individuals who belong to a group, whether that group
>is the Mafia or the CoS.
>
>Diane Richardson
>ref...@bway.net
>
>

Yes, the US can, does and should. "Gang member" is a pejorative. So is
"convicted fellon." So is a member of the "Cultists Dedicated to the


Destruction of Sanity for Our Leaders' Own Pernicious Purposes." The
US uses such labels in its legal briefs and other public statements.

Scientologists, to be Scientologists, must do exactly what they're


told to do by the cult's leadership. That fact should be used by the
US in its legal public statements concerning Scientology, or
Scientologists acting for Scientology. The leadership of Scientology
is involved in a mafia-like criminal enterprise: fraud, extortion,
human rights abuses, etc. When the leadership eliminates all such
criminal practices from its operations the US would then be justified
in removing the pejorative label "Scientologist" from its legal public
statements concerning Scientology or Scientologists acting for
Scientology.

Any country is completely justified in calling Scientologists


"Scientologists" and treating them as if they are under the domination
of a cabal of criminals dedicated to the destruction of sanity in that
country's citizens and institutions for the cabal's own pernicious
purposes, because that is what Scientologists are. It has almost
nothing to do with the Scientologists' "beliefs" about the "tech,"
"ARC," or Xenu, etc., etc. Those things are just part of
Scientologists doing what they're told to do: believe this, believe
that, don't believe this or that, read this, say that, do this, don't
do that, tell this lie, hurt that guy. All for the leaders' own
pernicious purposes. That's the danger that people in governments have
come face to face with. Germany has apparently said, "This is not
right." The US has apparently said, "Wow, what a great idea."

But the US is wrong. It isn't a great idea. It isn't right.

Gerry


Paul

unread,
Oct 14, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/14/97
to

Bernie wrote:
> Paul <pauldb@REMOVE_ME.seanet.com> wrote in article
> >Diane, please read a bit more carefully. I did not compare the Church
> >of Scientology[tm] to the Mafia.
>
> No. You only *implied* that they were one and the same. Much more
> efficient, and you can always say after "I didn't say that".

No, I didn't even do that, Bernie. I know exactly what I wrote, Bernie,
and I wrote it very carefully. I can't help it that neither you nor
Diane seems capable of reading it equally carefully.

I can say that I didn't compare the Church of Scientology[tm] to the
Mafia because I didn't, in fact, compare the Church of Scientology[tm]
to the Mafia. Is this too difficult to understand?

> >I was responding to Bernie's sentence,
> >posted above, in which he claimed that there were "*no* valid reasons."
>
> There is no valid reasons. Diane demonstrated that just as well
> with the mafia.

Sorry, Bernie, but I disagree with both of those statements.

> >My argument is that, yes, there can be a valid reason, depending on the
> >nature of the organization.
>
> You didn't read Diane's post carefully enough.

Actually, I did. She was responding to a point that I didn't make. I
stand by my statement above: "there can be a valid reason [for
discrimination or government action], *depending on the nature of the
organization*" [emphasis added, since it appears that there are those
who have problems with reading comprehension].

> >For example, there is very clearly a valid
> >reason to discriminate against a Mafia protection racket.
>
> This statement is ridiculous and shows that you have no idea what
> discrimination is.

Actually, I know exactly what discrimination is. I'd ask you to show me
just why you consider that statement ridiculous, but, frankly, I don't
care.

-Paul

CL

unread,
Oct 14, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/14/97
to

Diane Richardson wrote:<What CoS "leaders" are being monitored? What

action has the German
<government taken to insure that only CoS "leaders" are labeled without
<labeling CoS members who haven't committed any criminal acts?
<If the German government engaged in "monitoring CoS leaders," rather
<than labeling any business owned by a CoS member, I'd have nothing to
<criticize. From what I've read, that's not what's happening.

I have been very impressed by your former posts in the length you are
ready to go to find answers and facts. It must be rather obvious to
someone
with your capacity of critical thinking that "what you read" is not
always
a fact. It also should be rather obvious for you that it is highly
unlikely that
the german authorities will be monitoring the soldiers, instead of the
generals.

I am surprised that you not instead of asking these questions, seek the
answers. You have the stamina, brains and means to do it. Or are
your research selective?

Regards,

Christer Lindstrom
cl...@carasoft.se

Christian Bau

unread,
Oct 14, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/14/97
to

In article <344270...@phy.leeds.ac.uk>, ph...@phy.leeds.ac.uk (Ingo
Zoller) wrote:

> He is not asking for the beliefs of the person holding a business. He is
> asking for whom he is going to work. And that's a reasonable question,
> which has to be answered. If I would know that I was going to work for a
> Scientology firm, I wouldn't do it. Nor would I work for an IRA firm, or
> a nazi-controlled firm.

In a similar situation, if you try to buy or sell a house or a flat
through an estate agent, you would want to know if that estate agent is a
person that you can trust (because any mistake there could cost you a lot
of money). I wouldnt want to do business with an estate agent who is a
scientologist.

Keith Henson

unread,
Oct 14, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/14/97
to

T. Devon Sharkey (tde...@mindspring.com) wrote:

snip

: "Bernie, have you stopped beating your wife?"

A related question is: "Did Standard tech kill Lisa McPherson?"

From the scientologist point of view, there is no good answer. They are
not going to say "Yes," though in fact, that is what happened. If they
say "No," then the alternative is that Lisa was killed by squirrel tech--
at Flag no less. Keith Henson

PS, actually, the best answer is that her thetan did not die, but only
went over to a nearby hospital and picked up a new body. But if they say
that, they really look like nuts to most people.

William Barwell

unread,
Oct 14, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/14/97
to

In article <34435e5b...@snews.zippo.com>,

Diane Richardson <ref...@bway.net> wrote:
>On Tue, 14 Oct 1997 05:43:00 GMT, arms...@ntonline.com (gerry
>armstrong) wrote:
>
>[snip]
>
>>Yes, the US can, does and should. "Gang member" is a pejorative.
>
>Where does the U.S. officially designate someone a "gang member"?
>Is it stamped on an individual's driver's license? His passport?
>Where would you have Scientologists[tm] labeled? Do you agree with
>Roland that Scientologists[tm] should be branded on their foreheads?

That happens at the state level. Numerous police departments do just that.
Often gang members and suspected gang members are entered into computer
systems that can be accessed state wide. California for example does
this.
The feds are not involved but don't complain either.
The FBI has it's own records.

As for Scientologists, considering their penchant for infiltrating
government agencies and private organizations, would you support a
Scientologist holding a position where they had access to sensative
records? Say at the IRS, the Justice Department. How about where
they might have acces to sensitive records they could access on behalf of
OSA for PI's like Ingram?

Should a private organization such as a mental health organization be
allowed to exclude Scientologists from employment where they could access
records that might be abused on behalf of Scientology? Consider
Scientology's past history of these abuses.
If you are unaware of any, do some rersearch. You are supposed to be a
hot shot researcher, yes? Now there is some research we could use.

How many bites at the apple does a cult get before it is declared trouble
and untrustworthy and a society or nation has a right to deal with the
problem?

Scientology attempted some infiltration stunts in Germany.
Not to mention Greece. Why do you think they should be allowed
to be given the benefit of a doubt in such matters?


Pope Charles
SubGenius Pope Of Houston
Slack!


Bernie

unread,
Oct 14, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/14/97
to

pe...@fc.hp.com (Perry Scott) wrote in article
<61tlei$m...@fcnews.fc.hp.com> (alt.religion.scientology):

>[the flamefest continues....]

I don't see a flamefest, unless you consider contradictory
opinion as "'flame".

>Bernie (be...@arcadis.be) wrote:

>Apparently, the information can be seen on two websites. What has not
>been shown is that the websites are truly independent. Indeed, there is
>material on one that is on the other.

So that is a proof for you that the site is dependent to the CoS?
Could it be that it is on both because the facts it state are true?
Which parts of the *facts* are you disputing?

>"such as the one you just displayed here above". Are you referring
>to Hubbard's OSA Network Order, or was it something I said?

You displayed a clear example of trying to induce fear and
paranoia as part of your "argument", rather than addressing the
arguments themselves.

>I can see how you may think the German Government may be
>"manufactur[ing] fear and paranoia".

Where did I say that the German Government manufacture fear and
paranoia? The German government react on the same type of propaganda
that you react yourself.

>My view is that Co$ has shown
>itself to possibly be against the rules for German society. I think
>Frank Prechtel's article summed it up rather well.

The post of Frank Prechtel was extremely weak and only perpetrate
illogical generalizations. The fact that for you it "summed it up
rather well" only shows that you are willing to uncritically accept
information that goes along the line of your own prejudices and
disregard other information.

>Sorry, Bernie. It was Hubbard's words, not mine. My words are
>in [brackets], Hubbard's are preceded by a double quote mark.

Here are your own words in brackets (which additionally shows the
way you try to foment fear and paranoia):

[The German Government is now being confronted by Scientology. Note
that the Holy Tek of Elron states that the German Government will now
"cool down". The part about "fear disclosure" means that Scientology
will be investigating the Government as well as Government officials
for crimes. The crimes need not relate to their official job. By
Elron Tek, anyone against Scientology is insane and a criminal. How
will German Government officials react to Scientology attempting to
dig up dirt on its employees in an effort to intimidate them?]

Tilman Hausherr have repeatedly labeled me as "insane", for no
better reasons that I hold opinions he doesn't like. That's exactly
what you accuse LRH of doing.

I also observe that you try to impugn motive, shred discredit,
make me say things I didn't say and foment an irrational reaction
based on fear. That all qualify for me what you accuse Scn of doing.

>On point one, that the clerk should know the information, I don't follow
>- why is a government employee required to read web pages,

In a PR-department of the ministry, I would expect employee to
know the current rules, not that he should read web page. The fact
that he doesn't know the information that is in two web page and has
been indirectly confirmed by Tilman Hausherr means either that (1) the
information isn't true (2) that he is clueless or (3) that the person
phoned the wrong department.

From what I understand, it also isn't just any government
employee, like you try to imply, but one that is in charge of
answering questions of the PR-department of the ministry.

What you did, rather than trying to ascertain whether the
information was true of not, is to build up a whole paranoid theory to
the effect that my statement that the employee was clueless was a
deliberate plan to follow some OSA policy saying that all governments
are evil. I do nothing of the sort. I address specific points. You are
the one who seem content to make large and unsubstantiated
allegations.

>especially if they may be viewed as Co$-inspired propaganda?

I am not saying that they should take their information from the
web pages. I am taking it from there because I have no other mean. I
also don't have the time, nor the motivation, to start making
long-distance call to Germany (with my somewhat shabby German). From
the information I have, I hold it as true as long as I don't see any
convincing proof to the contrary. Maybe German people themselves have
better mean to confirm/infirm the information. I was suggesting that
since the clerk doesn't seem to believe it, they should check the web
page to put a complain if the information is false or enquire higher
up to confirm/infirm it.

>On point 2, I don't think you have proven that the points on the web
>page are "true".

I am not here to prove or disprove anything. I have read the
information, I personally hold it as true as long as I don't see
evidence to the contrary. You are only trying to be a revisionist "it
doesn't happen". You are just closing your eyes to the facts, or even
the possible facts. I have little doubt that once the fact is
confirmed, you will start justifying it, like you already do now, as a
matter of fact.

>According to Frank Prechtel's article (which I
>understand to be similar to the German Government's position),
>Scientology is viewed as a society that may have objectives contrary to
>society's objectives.

We are discussing the fact of whether the German government is in
the process of branding Scientologist through its computer. You are
challenging the fact whether the information displayed on the webpage
is a proof, and as a counter-proof you are bringing the argument that
"Scientology is viewed as a society that may have objectives contrary
to society's objectives". It doesn't address the point in question in
the least. The statement by Frank doesn't address the question as to
whether the information is true or not. As a matter of fact, he
completely ignored this information, *and* ignored the Bavarian rules
about state job. Your argument is inconclusive, irrelevant and
illogical.

>As such, it is Scientology which must prove
>itself, not the other way around.

You are challenging an information of whether the German
government is in the process of branding business held by
Scientologists by the argument that Scn must prove itself. It is
neither here nor there. Your argument is plainly incoherent.

>: Maybe you should better try to ascertain if the information
>: is true or not, before launching in ridiculous mind-boggling
>: paranoid theories and the type of propaganda to be found in
>: virtually every anti-Scientology sites to justify totalitarian
>: tactics to purportedly fight totalitarian tactics.

>Indeed! Perhaps you should, Bernie.

I have ascertained the information by the means I have in a
sufficiently reasonable way to believe it to be true. You have done
nothing of the sort, except trying to dismiss the source of the
information, come up with paranoid theories, trying to divert the
issue into a general discussion, etc.

>: Totalitarian, discriminative and hysterical reaction is
>: *not* an adequate answer to the same type of behavior, even the
>: way you present the situation is true. In doing so, *you* are
>: the one who is being dishonest and dangerous.

>Me? Dangerous?

I consider people promoting disinformation and an hysterical reaction
as dangerous, yes.

>I haven't killed anyone with 100% Standard Tek lately.
>I haven't been involved in shady real-estate dealings. I haven't hidden
>my true objectives when hiring people. Calling the German Government's
>actions "totalitarian, discriminative, and hysterical" is hyperbole.

I don't know what an hyperbole is. I call banning people for
reason of their belief totalitarian and discriminative. I call acting
from information based on propaganda as hysterical and irresponsible,
yes.

>In fact, the German Government has documented its reasons for their
>response to Scientology, and I find them more reasonable than the
>actions of the US Government.

The US Government hold, rightly, that whatever crazy beliefs
groups have, it is their right to hold such belief, and that they can
be punished only for *proven* crimes. This is what is reasonable and
democratic, and the true role of a responsible government that does
not spit on basic principles of freedom of belief.

If the German government "documented" any actual abuses from the
CoS, then they should prosecute it according to the law in the same
term as any other organizations. The fact that they feel the need to
use discriminative actions against individual Scientologists proves
that they have nothing substantial in their hand and that they largely
overreact based on classical cult phobia hysteria.

>: My question "are you in favor of the post censoring mail" is
>: a sensical question that can be answered with a yes or no, it
>: has nothing to do with a "do you often beat your wife" question.

>While my grasp of German constitutional law is limited, I suspect that
>the government is not allowed to do this under normal conditions. Could
>it again be that Scientology has been declared a "society" that MAY be
>working against democratic principles? What did Scientology do to
>attain this dishonor?

So you are in favor of the post censoring mail. The distance
between what you claim to defend and what you actually promote
continues to grow.

>Nobody is in control over here. It's my finger Body Thetans. (s.c.g.
>readers are referred to http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/NOTs/ if they wish to
>learn more about Scientology's theology regarding murdered space
>aliens.)

More of your bigoted attack against unusual beliefs. You could
just as well mock people eating the flesh of their savior and drinking
its blood.

>You wrote "So depriving people of their job because of their beliefs",
>without qualifying "people" as Scientologists, and without qualifying
>"job" as "government job".

But you knew very well to what I was referring to. You just chose
to turn it into a generalization yourself in an effort to deflect
discussing the issue.

>With all respect to Tilman, his FAQ is not a source document, so it's
>rather pointless to debate it.

What is to be debated about? Are you contesting that the Bavarian
rules have been passed or not? Apparently, you are willing to discuss
largely generalized allegation from Frank's post, but not specific and
hardly contested issues.

>If you want, quote news articles or
>German Government position statements.

Like a revisionist, your are going to avoid any discussions on
things that actually happens, claiming that there isn't enough "proof"
that they exist. Your tactic is rather lame.

>Unfortunately, the net has
>a short memory, so maybe web it and provide references by URL.

I suggest you do the research yourself. From the information I
have, including what is contained in Tilman's faq, I have sufficient
and reasonable evidences that it is something that actually happens.
Your attempt to dismiss the information is even more lame since
yourself have shown that you know exactly what it is about, since you
write:

"What is clear to me is that the State is requiring its employees
to renounce the goals of Scientology, which appear to be a conflict of
interest with the goals of the State."

>What is clear to me is that the State is requiring its employees to
>renounce the goals of Scientology, which appear to be a conflict of
>interest with the goals of the State.

The state has no business telling its citizens what to believe or
not. Citizens should be judged upon their acts with the same rule as
used for others. It is not the business of the state to sit at a table
and convince anyone to renounce at whatever private belief they hold
as a condition to be hired or not. Now read you statement in a
different context and see how ridiculous and totalitarian you sound.
For example:

"What is clear to me is that the State is requiring its employees
to renounce the goals of the Capitalist society, which appear to be a
conflict of interest with the goals of the State."

>I see no employer wanting to hire someone with an allegiance to a
>competitor. What part of this do you dispute?

The fact that it is the *state* and not just an "employer", and
the fact that it is *private beliefs* in which the state has no right
to interfere.

>: >By ElronTek, Suppressive Persons generalize to suit their purposes.
>: >Your protest has origins in the Church of Scientology, Office of Special
>: >Affairs. Is the Church of Scientology Suppressive?

>: My protest has origin in the obvious abuses of civil rights
>: that is going right now in Germany. It's as simple as that,
>: whatever your crazy rationalizations may be.

>Nice ad-hominem, Bernie. Calling my thoughts "crazy".

I call your whole rationalization that the fact I am calling an
employee clueless with good reasons this is a "tactic of Bernie" which
is "direct from secret OSA Network Order 19" and your statement above
that my protest "has origins in the Church of Scientology, Office of
Special Affairs". That's a crazy rationalization, and to state this
is certainly less ad-hominem than what you are trying to impugn.

>When was the
>last time I attacked you as a person? Debate the facts, not the man.

I *am* debating the facts, something you obviously don't do
yourself. I advice you follow your own advice first.

>My "crazy" rationalizations are documented by the German Government and
>in Frank Prechtel's article.

If Frank Prechtel's article is what you call a "document", then I
can see on what basis you hold something as true. But, of course, when
someone quotes actuals and specific fast, then he needs "proof" that
is true, etc.

>Their explanation (Scientology is a
>potentially dangerous society) seems reasonable. Thus, the actions of
>the German Government seem reasonable.

That's where you have it wrong and where you make a dangerous
faith leap. The fact that Scientology is a potentially dangerous
society may be reasonable, but it doesn't ensue from that, that
discriminative actions by the government is reasonable.

>In the US, there is this thing called "Affirmative Action". It is meant
>to redress past discrimination. Men before me (but not me) apparently
>discriminated against women. Strangely enough, these men currently
>occupy the Chief Executive Officer position.

>The rationale is this: since females tend to have lower-paying jobs and
>positions, they must have been discriminated against. To correct that,
>policies are in place that prefer women instead of men. So, having a
>big "M" by your name in the State's computer could mean that I am less
>eligible for a job. I am also less eligible for promotion.

The simple fact of an M being in the computer is not
discrimination. It is not a controversial subjective issue (just an
assumption) and it applies to *everybody*. If you are discriminate
based on this information, you may have reason to file a complain, but
the information in the computer, as such, is not discriminatory.

As I said, if there was a big G (gay) in the computer, *then* the
information itself being in the computer would represent
discrimination and an infringement to your private life. I am not
speaking, of course, of *proven* criminal offenses that are recorded
in the judicial system according to strict rules. I am speaking about
private information (your sexual or religious preferences, etc) that
are being recorded as a result of you being a member of an hated
class.

The same goes with the big S. The state does not record uniformly the
private beliefs of every persons holding a business. This would be
viewed as a gross violation of civil rights. It feels entitled to do
so, however, with Scientologists because they are member of an hated
class. That's all. It absolutely is discrimination and is in no way
better than branding Scientologists on the head, something you claimed
you would never defend. Maybe next thing would be for you to defend
the idea for Scientologists to wear badges so that people can be sure
they don't associate themselves with those who "support a criminal
cult".

>You misunderstood. I want to know what organization controls the
>organization for which I work. The personal beliefs of management are
>somewhat irrelevant in the US. If they start pushing their beliefs on
>me, I tell them to stop. If they don't stop, I sue them for religious
>harrassment. And win. Pretty straightforward.

*Exactly*! And I encourage you to do that. If, for example, you
are hired by a firm held by Scientologist, a Christian, a Muslim,
whatever, and they start to make pressure on you as a mean to force
you to accept their tenets, then you may have a very good case of
religious harassment indeed.

I would even go further. If you are paranoid to the point of
absolutely not wanting to be hired by someone who may be
Scientologist, Christian, gay, whatever, then you are at liberty to
make your own research about this the persons to whom the firm
belongs. But for the *state* to use its power and prerogative to
"warn" people "attention, this person is a Scientologist, is Jew, is
gay", whatever, then *this* is a gross violation of civil rights and
such a blatant case of discrimination that it is really amazing that
people can be so blinded by demonization and propaganda that they
don't see it.

>: >: What in the reports that are posted is a lie?

>: >You repeated one of the lies, Bernie - overgeneralization causes it.

>: What lie? You are the one making me say something I didn't
>: say. Straw man.

>You generalized that "people" are denied "jobs". I already addressed
>this point above.

You are trying to deflect the issue and know very well what I am
talking about, and you still didn't answer the question: what in the
reports that are posted is a lie?

>In your mind, it's disinformation and propaganda. Apparently, I am but
>a puppet of Germany in this matter.

I don't think the propaganda comes from the German government. On
the contrary, I think that the German government buys into the
anti-Scientology and anti-cult propaganda that is being propagated
through the net.

I also am *not* saying that the Scientology policies are not
totalitarian themselves, nor that some Scientologists are innocent and
don't have their role in provoking the situation. I am saying that the
whole thing is overblown and overdramatized. The German government is
overreacting and is clearly trespassing the limits within which it
should constrain itself.

>Could it be that a majority of people don't see it your way?

It is a common claim of yours that the "majority" is on your
side. To start with, we don't know if this is true or not. I am never
using such a shaggy argument. Secondly, I don't care whether the
majority see my way or not. The majority of Outous in Rwanda, excited
by months of demonization against the Tootsies through the radio, saw
fit to exterminate and commit atrocities on thousands of Tootsies.
That doesn't make them right.

>I think we need to back up to the point of departure - you evaluate the
>data (ElronTek babble) and see a government promoting discrimination. I
>evaluate the data and see a government taking precautionary steps
>against a suspected totalitarian organization.

I see the *acts* and you see the "reasons". I say the act is
wrong. I don't care whatever the reasons are for acts that are wrong,
and I trust humans to make up enough good reasons to justify their
acts. That's what happened down history, and don't think for a second
that inquisitors, Communists, Nazis, didn't actually *believed* that
the crimes they committed weren't perfectly justified. That's why
these acts are being brought into existence in the first place,
sustained by a framework of justification in which the other is always
demonized and dehumanized. That's the way the human mind works when it
follows a pattern of discrimination. It happened dozens or hundreds of
times down history, and apparently some people *still* didn't learn
their lessons.

Now you may say that the CoS is following a similar pattern as
well, in addition to their psycho-spiritual teachings, and I would
agree. That's what I call the cultic mindset, in which one ends up
doing the very thing he accuses the other of doing, or ends up doing
the worst crimes all the while thinking he is doing the greatest good.


What you don't realize, however, is that you are being enthralled
in the very same cultic mindset, as does everyone being caught up in
the web of hatred against others. And indeed you are promoting the
worst type of discrimination all the while thinking you are being
absolutely right. I would say that you are in an even worsen situation
than Scientologists, because you don't even try to construct something
like the Scientologist do. Your aim is only to destroy, without even
addressing the existential questions that cults try to (falsely)
resolve. It is so easy to destroy...

The state should know better than to answer totalitarism with
totalitarism. State intervention in this area, sustained by the type
of disinformation and hysteria of the anti-cult movement have been
dramatic so far. Jonestown and Waco are rather good examples of states
agencies being pushed into hysterical reaction against cults.

>The German Government is against the Organization of Scientology.
>Individual beliefs are OK, provided that those beliefs do not involve
>ideas contrary to the agreed-upon laws of the Germany.

Ah! Now that's a new one. Please provide examples of "ideas
contrary to the agreed-upon laws of Germany". I am waiting...

Your own train of thought in trying to justify the unjustifiable,
leads you increasingly further into the absurd. You are in favor of
the post office to censor mail, and now you are in favor of a thought
police!

>One cannot
>wrap totalitarianism in the cloak of religion and claim "religious
>discrimination" when the government enforces its law.

What law? What is the law saying that one cannot have "ideas
contrary to the agreed-upon laws of Germany".

>I think the fundamental disagreement between us boils down to this.

Probably. I am opposed to any law trying to police the thoughts
of its citizens. Apparently, you are in favor of this.

>: The sympathy towards the CoS is growing around the world as
>: a result of the injustices that is being committed in Germany.
>
>Heh. "Scientology is expanding. In the past decade, we have grown
>from 8 million to 8 million."

I have made no such claim. It seems certain to me that if it
keeps in this direction, Germany will be more and more criticized for
serious abuses of civil rights, and, as a result, Scientology will
receive an increasing international recognition. In your blindness,
you also don't realize that you are giving Scientology a tremendous
boost by supporting laws that are obviously against human and civil
rights. If for you the aim of Scientology is to bring about
infringement of human rights, then you are actually working *for*
Scientology in helping to bring these about. This certainly is the
most ironic twist of fate of the whole story.

>: Here is the list taken from
>: http://www.religioustolerance.org/scie_neg.htm :

>[Scientology-inspired propaganda (and I do mean propaganda) snipped.]

>This material has been discussed before and found wanting.

What material and where has it been found wanting? Facts that
contradict your prejudices are obviously just "propaganda".

>The material
>deals in overgeneralization and half-truth.

Be specific. What overgeneralization and what half-truth?

>If you want specific
>examples, I can comment.

Please do.

>So called "discrimination" against individual
>Scientologists has been on the basis of their allegance to a suspected
>totalitarian organization:

>1) Germany is against societies that support undemocratic principles.

>2) The Organization of Scientology is suspected of harboring
> undemocratic principles.

>3) The Organization of Scientology is not the same as individual
> Scientologists.

>4) Individually, Scientologists are being required to renounce the
> undemocratic principles apparently forwarded by the OoS before
> being allowed in sensitive government jobs.

Sorry. This is *not* a comment on specific point. This is only a
reiteration of your fallacious arguments you expanded above. Please
quote the material and state where is the "overgeneralization and what
half-truth".

>What www.religioustolerance.org fails to show is that the Organization
>of Scientology is not totalitarian. There is also some question whether
>a self-help movement with no concept of God or the supernatural can be
>classified as a religion. If they can refute the massive data to the
>contrary, they have my vote.

The Ontario Consultants for Religious Tolerance is a group of
scholars following different religions. They study and summarize 63 of
them in their site. They are concerned about religious intolerance,
which is exactly what is happening in Germany. The OCRT *also* has a
page on the anti-cult movement
(http://www.religioustolerance.org/acm.htm), something that this
newsgroup is apparently blind to and promotes the tenets of.. They
certainly are outside of the controversy and you can dismiss them as
you like, independent sociologists, scholars, civil libertarians, and
other independent, are those to whom authorities will end up listening
to in the long run, not to the bunch of ignorant and angry bigots that
are largely populating alt.religion.scientology.

>Personally, I can't wait until Germany finds out about the degrading RPF
>(concentration camps), the grey rags (the Star of David), the salutes
>(hip, hip, hooray for Ron), their elite "SS"ea Org with the billion year
>contract. Why is there razor wire, surveillance, and security guards
>around Scientology's Hemet, California RELIGIOUS RETREAT? Scientology
>has a lot to hide.

You can keep on with presenting a distorted and emotive picture,
fomenting fear, paranoia and an hysterical, irrational, reaction.
These are only the kind of things that will do yourself and what you
defend in.

>Does Germany have grounds for considering Scientology to be against
>democratic principles?

Once more: Germany may have grounds for considering Scientology
to be against democratic principles, but it has *no* grounds
implementing its *own* form of anti-democratic society as a mean to
fight what is a largely demonized picture of what really is happening.

Bernie


Paul

unread,
Oct 14, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/14/97
to

Bernie wrote:
>
> pe...@fc.hp.com (Perry Scott) wrote in article
> <61tlei$m...@fcnews.fc.hp.com> (alt.religion.scientology):
> >Apparently, the information can be seen on two websites. What has not
> >been shown is that the websites are truly independent. Indeed, there is
> >material on one that is on the other.
>
> So that is a proof for you that the site is dependent to the CoS?
> Could it be that it is on both because the facts it state are true?
> Which parts of the *facts* are you disputing?

The *fact* of omission, Bernie. I found, in one sitting, about 23 major
points that they had failed to mention, let alone cover in any kind of
detail. I listed those in another posting to demonstrate why that site
is not exactly the neutral site that you'd like us to think it is.

Is it a Scientology[tm] site? I doubt it. But their bias against
"anti-cult cults" is so strong that it distorts everything on their
site. Since you possess this same bias, it's not surprising that you
like the site.

-Paul

Diane Richardson

unread,
Oct 14, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/14/97
to

On Tue, 14 Oct 1997 22:46:21 +0100, CL <cl...@carasoft.se> wrote:

>Diane Richardson wrote:<What CoS "leaders" are being monitored? What
>action has the German
><government taken to insure that only CoS "leaders" are labeled without
><labeling CoS members who haven't committed any criminal acts?
><If the German government engaged in "monitoring CoS leaders," rather
><than labeling any business owned by a CoS member, I'd have nothing to
><criticize. From what I've read, that's not what's happening.
>
>I have been very impressed by your former posts in the length you are
>ready to go to find answers and facts. It must be rather obvious to
>someone
>with your capacity of critical thinking that "what you read" is not
>always
>a fact. It also should be rather obvious for you that it is highly
>unlikely that
>the german authorities will be monitoring the soldiers, instead of the
>generals.

I'd suggest you review what's being done in Bavaria. The government
there doesn't seem to be concerned with separating out CoS leaders
from casual members.

>I am surprised that you not instead of asking these questions, seek the
>answers. You have the stamina, brains and means to do it. Or are
>your research selective?

I do not have the time to do it, what with a full-time job and
university classes. Additionally, I am not interested in interfering
with the internal regulations of another country. Germany is a
republic. If the German people don't wish to repeat the errors of the
past, they will let their officials know about it.


Diane Richardson
ref...@bway.net

Paul

unread,
Oct 14, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/14/97
to

And that would demonstrate courage in exactly what way? Hell, do you
honestly think anyone would care about a newsgroup like that--even Mafia
hitmen?

Did you have a point to make, Sassie?

-Paul

Martin Hunt

unread,
Oct 14, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/14/97
to

In article <61v7tr$f...@drn.zippo.com>, whoc...@sowhat.com wrote:

>NNTP-Posting-Host: cp007.rapidnet.net
>On Tue, 14 Oct 1997 05:43:00 GMT, arms...@ntonline.com (gerry armstrong)---->
>threw some stones from his hideout across the border.

[outing snipped]

Fuck off and die, shithead.

--
Cogito, ergo sum. Use "Xenu" in Subject: line of email.

Tilman Hausherr

unread,
Oct 14, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/14/97
to

In <0k8v16...@wpxx02.toxi.uni-wuerzburg.de>,
kra...@wpxx02.toxi.uni-wuerzburg.de (Cornelius Krasel) wrote:

>Looking at the ruling from the Federal Labour court it appears that
>the court objected not against the CoS as an organization but against
>the use of Hubbard management tech (which results in 5% monthly price
>increases, persons working in unbearable conditions etc.). Tilman's
>summary of the ruling is fairly good. (Maybe we should get an
>"official translator" who translates the ruling in English legalese.
>Do you know how much this would cost? It would certainly clear up a
>few things.)

Legal translations are incredibly expensive. It costs more than $1 per
line. But there are two sources you can get it for free:

1. Scientology itself. I am sure that they translate every court
decision, as the germans (including Kurt) play no role in the management
here. Ask for the decision in discovery of a litigation.

2. The german embassy might have it, as appendix to their submissions to
the UN. Someone in the US should write them a polite letter asking if
they have it.

Tilman


--
Tilman Hausherr [KoX, SP4]
til...@berlin.snafu.de http://www.snafu.de/~tilman/#cos

Resistance is futile. You will be enturbulated. Xenu always prevails.

Find broken links on your web site with "Xenu's Link Sleuth":
http://www.snafu.de/~tilman/xenulink.html

Frank Prechtel

unread,
Oct 15, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/15/97
to

Bernie wrote:
>
> The post of Frank Prechtel was extremely weak and only perpetrate
> illogical generalizations. The fact that for you it "summed it up
> rather well" only shows that you are willing to uncritically accept
> information that goes along the line of your own prejudices and
> disregard other information.

In my article, I only mentioned the general situation of the situation
of Scientology in relation to German laws. I didn't want to touch any
"facts", from which I don't know whether they are true or not. And by
the way, I also know a few Scientologists, and none of them complained
about their situation (of course, a few people aren't representative,
but this is an example from the people I know). And as I mentioned at
the beginning of my article, I wanted to discribe the GENERAL situation.

> >According to Frank Prechtel's article (which I
> >understand to be similar to the German Government's position),
> >Scientology is viewed as a society that may have objectives contrary to
> >society's objectives.
>
> We are discussing the fact of whether the German government is in
> the process of branding Scientologist through its computer. You are
> challenging the fact whether the information displayed on the webpage
> is a proof, and as a counter-proof you are bringing the argument that
> "Scientology is viewed as a society that may have objectives contrary
> to society's objectives". It doesn't address the point in question in
> the least. The statement by Frank doesn't address the question as to
> whether the information is true or not. As a matter of fact, he
> completely ignored this information, *and* ignored the Bavarian rules
> about state job. Your argument is inconclusive, irrelevant and
> illogical.
>

I don't know whether the "branding Scientologist through its computer"
is true or not. A to this point, I found no evidence (only in the
newspaper, where Scientologists claim that being right). And if you want
me to say something about that, OK:
I think, if this is true, it's good. Until the status of Scientology is
decided, the "brandmarking" is OK (in my opinion). Scientology has to be
checked now, not later. If Scientology will be forbidden, it could go
through all juristical instances, but then it would about in 2003, when
it's decided. And if Scientology is a real danger, then it would be to
late.
The Bavarian rules are not different from other states. In Bavaria, they
are only used more often (because of the CSU, the party which has the
majority in the "Landtag", the institution which rules Bavaria. These
rules depend on the German Constitution, the "Grundgesetz". But you have
to know that the CSU is a VERY conservative party.

> If the German government "documented" any actual abuses from the
> CoS, then they should prosecute it according to the law in the same
> term as any other organizations. The fact that they feel the need to
> use discriminative actions against individual Scientologists proves
> that they have nothing substantial in their hand and that they largely
> overreact based on classical cult phobia hysteria.

You have to distinguish between "governmental actions" and "private
actions". If someone feels threatened by a Scientologist and does an
"individual discrimination", like dismissing it, that's one case. But
that has nothing to do with governmental actions.
And Germany learned from his history. For example, as Hitler abolished
the "Weimarer Republik", he committed no crime, it was completely LEGAL.
So Germany is aware of any danger to its democratic system. And you
shouldn't forget that the German constitution was, when it was written
1949, heavily influenced by the Allies (therefore USA, France, Great
Britain). That's why it is not as tolerant to extreme groups as in the
USA, but that's perhaps better.

> So you are in favor of the post censoring mail. The distance
> between what you claim to defend and what you actually promote
> continues to grow.

There is no post censoring in Germany. The "Verfassungsschutz" doesn't
even read the mail of Scientologists. Only in case of a juristical
search of a house, approved by a judge (I don't know the correct formal
expression for this), then reading it is allowed. But until today, this
didn't happen.



> >You wrote "So depriving people of their job because of their beliefs",
> >without qualifying "people" as Scientologists, and without qualifying
> >"job" as "government job".

A person in a governmental position can do more damage to a democratic
system than

>
> But you knew very well to what I was referring to. You just chose
> to turn it into a generalization yourself in an effort to deflect
> discussing the issue.
>
> >With all respect to Tilman, his FAQ is not a source document, so it's
> >rather pointless to debate it.
>
> What is to be debated about? Are you contesting that the Bavarian
> rules have been passed or not? Apparently, you are willing to discuss
> largely generalized allegation from Frank's post, but not specific and
> hardly contested issues.
>
> >If you want, quote news articles or
> >German Government position statements.
>
> Like a revisionist, your are going to avoid any discussions on
> things that actually happens, claiming that there isn't enough "proof"
> that they exist. Your tactic is rather lame.

That's good. Here my proposal: You tell us one case (should be very
actual), where "discrimination" occured and mention links where we can
find information (from both sides). Then we can discuss this one case.



> The fact that it is the *state* and not just an "employer", and
> the fact that it is *private beliefs* in which the state has no right
> to interfere.

I think a free democratic society is preferable to a pseudo-religious
organisation, which has (at least I know) no democratic aspects. In
Germany, every organisation, even the smallest sports club, chooses his
leaders.
And, what if these *private beliefs* endangers the others. There has to
be protection of minorities, but putting the interest of minorities, if
they are harmful to the whole society, is not acceptable.



> >My "crazy" rationalizations are documented by the German Government and
> >in Frank Prechtel's article.
>
> If Frank Prechtel's article is what you call a "document", then I
> can see on what basis you hold something as true. But, of course, when
> someone quotes actuals and specific fast, then he needs "proof" that
> is true, etc.

If i would proof you everything I told in my article, it would take
endless time. But I assure you, that my description of the juristical
situation is right and objective. And I think I showed clearly the parts
of my article which represent my opinion. And since I am living in
Germany, I know the situation probably better than you.



> >Their explanation (Scientology is a
> >potentially dangerous society) seems reasonable. Thus, the actions of
> >the German Government seem reasonable.
>
> That's where you have it wrong and where you make a dangerous
> faith leap. The fact that Scientology is a potentially dangerous
> society may be reasonable, but it doesn't ensue from that, that
> discriminative actions by the government is reasonable.

These "discriminations", probably you mean the jobs in the government,
is only TEMPORARY. When the status of Scientology is decided, then it's
clear. Then belonging to Scientology is either illegal or legal.



> The simple fact of an M being in the computer is not
> discrimination. It is not a controversial subjective issue (just an
> assumption) and it applies to *everybody*. If you are discriminate
> based on this information, you may have reason to file a complain, but
> the information in the computer, as such, is not discriminatory.
>
> As I said, if there was a big G (gay) in the computer, *then* the
> information itself being in the computer would represent
> discrimination and an infringement to your private life. I am not
> speaking, of course, of *proven* criminal offenses that are recorded
> in the judicial system according to strict rules. I am speaking about
> private information (your sexual or religious preferences, etc) that
> are being recorded as a result of you being a member of an hated
> class.

I agree by the "M" not being discrimination. "G" for gay it is
discrimination, of course. But in Germany belonging to a church (in this
case the roman-catholic and luth.-prot., I don't know about other
churches, because they are usually very small), is usually directly paid
to the church, since this depends on the salary. But you are NOT forced
to tell your employer (or the government) which religion or religious
preferences you have. But in Germany, about 90% of the population belong
to one of the two churches I mentioned above.


> The same goes with the big S. The state does not record uniformly the
> private beliefs of every persons holding a business. This would be
> viewed as a gross violation of civil rights. It feels entitled to do
> so, however, with Scientologists because they are member of an hated
> class. That's all. It absolutely is discrimination and is in no way
> better than branding Scientologists on the head, something you claimed
> you would never defend. Maybe next thing would be for you to defend
> the idea for Scientologists to wear badges so that people can be sure
> they don't associate themselves with those who "support a criminal
> cult".

Since Scientology can become illegal, and there is much "strange" with
this organisation, you can't really mean that the state allows belonging
to illegal organisations. To show you the difference: A person can say
"I think using bomb-terror is good", but he or she can not say "Let's
use bombs" or belong to an organisation who supports bomb-terror or uses
bomb-terror. As you see, the right of individual freedom is guaranteed,
but also the right of the "rest" of the people to remain unharmed.



> I would even go further. If you are paranoid to the point of
> absolutely not wanting to be hired by someone who may be
> Scientologist, Christian, gay, whatever, then you are at liberty to
> make your own research about this the persons to whom the firm
> belongs. But for the *state* to use its power and prerogative to
> "warn" people "attention, this person is a Scientologist, is Jew, is
> gay", whatever, then *this* is a gross violation of civil rights and
> such a blatant case of discrimination that it is really amazing that
> people can be so blinded by demonization and propaganda that they
> don't see it.

If you are afraid of being discriminated, you don't have to tell that
you are gay or that you are a Jew. Nobody forces you. To my impression,
Germany is (in general) more liberal to gays than the USA. But you
should be more realistic. If you continue, you can say "the employed
shouldn't know who their boss is, because his name could indicate his
origin or religion. So this would be a discrimination." You see, there
must be a compromise.
There a difference: A gay or a Jew is no danger for the whole society.
But a person who supports and takes part in an organization which
threatens the whole society is a criminal. Tolerance must be, but only
to the point where no others are harmed.



> I don't think the propaganda comes from the German government. On
> the contrary, I think that the German government buys into the
> anti-Scientology and anti-cult propaganda that is being propagated
> through the net.

Tell us one organisation, please, only one that is bought by the German
government.

> I also am *not* saying that the Scientology policies are not
> totalitarian themselves, nor that some Scientologists are innocent and
> don't have their role in provoking the situation. I am saying that the
> whole thing is overblown and overdramatized. The German government is
> overreacting and is clearly trespassing the limits within which it
> should constrain itself.

As I mentioned above, the German people don't take this a uncomplicated
as you do it.

> >Could it be that a majority of people don't see it your way?
>
> It is a common claim of yours that the "majority" is on your
> side. To start with, we don't know if this is true or not. I am never
> using such a shaggy argument. Secondly, I don't care whether the
> majority see my way or not. The majority of Outous in Rwanda, excited
> by months of demonization against the Tootsies through the radio, saw
> fit to exterminate and commit atrocities on thousands of Tootsies.
> That doesn't make them right.

Of course, the majority isn't always right. But if all many people
around me think different, I would rethink my position. That doesn't
mean I would change it, but I would rethink it.

> The state should know better than to answer totalitarism with
> totalitarism. State intervention in this area, sustained by the type
> of disinformation and hysteria of the anti-cult movement have been
> dramatic so far. Jonestown and Waco are rather good examples of states
> agencies being pushed into hysterical reaction against cults.

"answer totalitarism with totalitarism", interesting phrase, yes. But is
acting in any way totalitarism? Should Germany you look if they are
threatened? No.



> >The German Government is against the Organization of Scientology.
> >Individual beliefs are OK, provided that those beliefs do not involve
> >ideas contrary to the agreed-upon laws of the Germany.
>
> Ah! Now that's a new one. Please provide examples of "ideas
> contrary to the agreed-upon laws of Germany". I am waiting...

Wait a moment. I belief that a democratic system is actually the best
governmental form (who knows what future brings!). And Scientology
violates democratic principles. Again, I have to say that there has to
be balance between the rights of the individual and the rights of the
whole society. You shouldn't fall into extremes.



> Probably. I am opposed to any law trying to police the thoughts
> of its citizens. Apparently, you are in favor of this.

And what do you think about violations against democracy and human
rights?



> >Personally, I can't wait until Germany finds out about the degrading RPF
> >(concentration camps), the grey rags (the Star of David), the salutes
> >(hip, hip, hooray for Ron), their elite "SS"ea Org with the billion year
> >contract. Why is there razor wire, surveillance, and security guards
> >around Scientology's Hemet, California RELIGIOUS RETREAT? Scientology
> >has a lot to hide.
>
> You can keep on with presenting a distorted and emotive picture,
> fomenting fear, paranoia and an hysterical, irrational, reaction.
> These are only the kind of things that will do yourself and what you
> defend in.

How can an undemocratic society claim to be protected by democratic
rights?



> >Does Germany have grounds for considering Scientology to be against
> >democratic principles?
>
> Once more: Germany may have grounds for considering Scientology
> to be against democratic principles, but it has *no* grounds
> implementing its *own* form of anti-democratic society as a mean to
> fight what is a largely demonized picture of what really is happening.

That a democratic country is rouled by someone, is not anti-democratic.
It is neccessary. Both the Us-American and the German democracies are
indirect. There exists no direct democracy, although it would be better.

--
-----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----
Version: 2.6.3i

mQCNAzQTb1wAAAEEAOi490dCwGK587M2NCHR5uq+A7wXfzAE6jhe/52NwMx4nP5e
eN1n1m04rzjPhPRODr8HAPHb2fqw3tm0hzqVqPItBaWI+CSfBjy1w7eGcDdxoUss
YUtfkG5ATvDsIuzcjupGeUnFWY4p2TVY/H5SRqj2DozvOOxsff8rmUzBtQ8ZAAUR
tCtGcmFuayBQcmVjaHRlbCA8ZnJhbmsucHJlY2h0ZWxAbWV0cm9uZXQuZGU+iQCV
AwUQNBNvXP8rmUzBtQ8ZAQFeSQQA0ONeQnphpRwu+qglKAEMslQVWC703ZyDnbhk
kx6LfTmvh1zsmhJwGx9tvwWgWubJWxrQr0P/lfI3jiWQPSZI6ae/mvNlk1p6WxaR
zYGXThb/fsCqL3IgsECGFXBRfVGW1kpj3YTeNaEhND3rWVfhBqbYoD0dpuAHpCTD
M2tqJ/0=
=Xy2u
-----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----


It is loading more messages.
0 new messages