I would be interested what part of the constitution affirms
this.

Legitimately? This would require a quote of the constitution.

Is this all called the Noring's amendment? :-)

You have defined your own laws and now attempt to demonstrate
that the Bavarian state conform to this law.

I don't think the Bavarian clause is making mention that
Scientologist can or can't get the job. They only require for
anyone to answer questions as to whether they are associated
with an organization using LRH technology. They have no rights
to do this, since the clear purpose of it to deny you from a
post on the basis of crimes you ~may~ commit based on your
allegiance to an organized belief system.

When it comes to this question, we always receive a barratry of
Scientology crimes by those who defend this position. This is
irrelevant, IMO. Did the ~individual~ who apply for th epost
commit these crimes? If not, why should he be punished in
advance for something he didn't do and may never do, when he
otherwise can fulfill the job perfectly and when he may not be a
Scientologist forever.?

Every right under what part of the constitution? Under what part
of International Charter of Human Rights?

I believe this alleged distinction between belief and action is
often just a facade. That's the argument of anti-cult groups:
"we don't attack beliefs, we attack action". Then the next thing
you know is that they are deprogramming or exit-counseling them,
based on what? Their belief. And how many time in this newsgroup
the belief of Scientologist are not attacked? The assertion that
it is all crap, the distortions and discoursing?

this being said, the only fair way in this field for anyone to
base on the action of others is according to the law and the
democratic principles. If Scientologists have perpetrated
illegal actions, they should be sued. If they perpetrated
unethical acts, then these should be informed to others through
the press and free expression. But they can't be legally
punished for unethical actions other than actions against the
law, at which point it becomes an illegal action. And the people
who perpetrated those actions should be punished, not others who
didn't commit them.

So what illegal action did the Bavarian citizen commit to be
denied fair access to a job? Did he commit the crime to believe
in Scientology technology? To put all Scientologists in the same
bag and treat them all as criminals for acts perpetrated by
other Scientologists is a profound injustice. This of course
applies to any other class as well.

The belonging to an hated group is the real cause, not the
actions. There is no direct link between actions perpetrated  10
years ago by other people and the genuine intention of a
Bavarian citizen to feed his family and serve his country. He
momentarily happen to hold certain belief, practice certain
techniques and belong to a certain group. Where is the alleged
crimes? On what action of his is he denied normal rights enjoyed
by others who may happen to have much wider beliefs, actions and
allegiances?

~If~ members of the COS, or of any other group, are proven to
have pursued infiltration and destruction of the very social
order, then ~these~ individual should be punished, and maybe
those who enticed them in this direction. Until then, the
presumption of innocence should be granted to them as per every
judiciary systems and international laws.

If this balance is not accomplished according to constitutional
guidelines and international declaration of rights, then it is
left to the arbitrary of those who hold power. It is
unacceptable in any democratic society.

The US have one of the best constitution in the world in this
respect. Probably because it was made by people who fled
persecution and discrimination from Europe. What you say above
would directly violate the US principles of separation of Church
and States, as well as the 1st amendment. The principle is
simple: congress shall make no law... regarding beliefs, and
actions should be punished solely through the established
judicial system for proven infringement of the constitution.
Unethical acts are dealt with through free speech, ~not~ through
the constitution, and the ~presumption~ of misconduct cannot be
used against the citizen.

Does it make it any better? Should we reintroduce McCarthism?

It isn't really me who is saying those things. They are basic
democratic principles, and I do believe that there are reasons
behind them and that these reason have been confirmed over the
years over and over again.

Let me also ask you a question, Jon. Do you think that the past
abuses against minority groups weren't supported by a philosophy
of their own? Don't you think that those perpetrating these
abuses didn't believe that they were really in the right? That
they were justified in exceptionally bending the rules they
otherwise asked others to apply to them?

The current hysteria is not without analogy at all with past
historical occurrences. First you demonize the "other". Then you
start by admitting small infringement to basic principles, than
a little bit bigger. At the end you are left with nothing but
your eyes to cry over the disaster the whole thing engendered.

It is.

It isn't, because you can't prove the link between the two. you
are confounding the right of the individual and the law. If, as
an individual, I don't like your religion, your race, your sex,
the fact that your are Hitler's third cousin by alliance, or I
just don't like you, I do have a certain flexibility for
decision in the area that is my prerogative. This could be
discussed because it may not really apply to the person's
ability to fill up the job and I believe there are even some law
that may be applied here for discrimination. But I certainly
can't make it into an ~official~ law that is being applied to
all those in my area or other areas. As official representative
or agency, you should represent ~all~ citizens depending on you
and you should not favor subjective or controversial personal
issue over another. For a State to enact its prejudices and the
presumption of illegal conduct into its own rule is a serious
violation of the basic democratic principles.

We agree on the principle, but not on the definition of the
actions and the scope of what was done by whom and when, that
would lead to infer a prejudiciable presumption of guilt.

I don't think that the Federal Government in Germany or German
Constitutional instances agree to what the Bavarian authorities
are doing. I don't think the International Institutions will
agree with it either. I believe that the COS may even,
eventually, ask for compensation of the damage done, like what
probably happened with the IRS. Then what will you have gained
through all this? It is the most silly way to protest against
the actions of the COS and the most counter-productive on the
long run. It diverts from actual attention on the COS and focus
attention on its enemies. German libertarians and libertarians
around the world will have to side with the COS on this issue,
even though they may abhor the COS with all their guts. I am
quite sure the COS leader ~love~ it. They can't expect better to
defend their cause. And all those who do not put enough thoughts
in this issue and are reactively supporting this infraction of
civil rights are actually playing the COS game without even
realizing it.

---------
Bernie

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