Church of Scientology asks Bonn to intervene in Bavaria
Jon Noring
In article be...@arcadis.be (Bernie) writes:
>Joe Harrington <joe...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>I think the data the German govt has available clearly illustrates
>>the potential threat that overzealous Scientologists in strategic
>>areas of govt can pose, and they have a right, and a duty, to
>>put in place just and reasonable safeguards.
>Except that the safeguards are anything but just and reasonable.
>
>Even though you still haven't really answered the question, I
>have to conclude at this point that you agree with the fact that
>it is OK for the state to deny job application on the basis of
>one's belief.
You're oversimplifying a much more complex issue, and you neglect that there
can be other positions/conclusions.
In essence, I believe the "state" can deny job applications in its employ
under certain circumstances, and this includes belief structure. If an
organized group shows years of government infiltration, compromise, blackmail,
extortion, etc., etc., then the government can legitimately restrict civil
service employment to people of that organized group (or who hold any type of
allegiance to that organization -- note the word "allegiance") *if* (1) the
government makes it clear *in public* that they are doing this (so the people
know about it and if they want to change it or oppose it, can do so via the
democratic process and so allow public oversight), (2) limit it to the
minimum required to guarantee effectiveness of safeguarding the government,
and (3) base it not simply on belief alone, but on a documented history of
actual attempts at spying, infiltration, document theft, and other crimes
against the government by that organization.
In the case of Bavaria, they are being public about it, and I believe they
are minimizing it as much as they can but still be effective for its
intended purpose. A Scientologist can still get a civil service job I believe,
but are not eligible for all jobs (if I'm wrong here, please do correct me.)
So Bavaria looks like they're doing only the minimum necessary. And there's
so much evidence of actual infiltration by Scientology of government bodies
all around the world, as well as millions of pages of seized documents
outlining such infiltration, and conspiracy to do such, that at this stage I
don't think anybody can argue that there's not enough evidence to conclude
that Scientology wants to infiltrate and destabilize the German government as
any foreign enemy would during a time of war.
I recall reading recently that a few years ago the German government seized
thousands of pages of documents from a raid on a Scientology office or
something (I hope somebody here can fill in the details) where they got first
hand glimpse of intelligence information on the immensity of the actual and
planned penetration of the German government. I believe they saw the danger
this group poses to their national security, and they have every right to
take action to safeguard the integrity of the government. I believe it was
at that time they started considering stronger action.
[Note the very important distinction that Bavaria, and Germany in general, is
not focusing on the belief system of Scientology and "discriminating" against
it because of belief, but because Scientology has a well-documented history
of infiltration and other criminal acts in governments all over the world.
This is a very important distinction, Bernie, and I don't think you realize
it. We as a society should do as much as we can not to "discriminate" against
*individuals* based on beliefs they hold, but society also has the right to
protect itself from organizations that will use society's abhorence to
discrimination as a shield to pursue the infiltration and destruction of the
very social order there to protect our religious freedoms! What I outline
above is reasonable and pragmatic action to balance between these two very
important needs.]
To give a U.S. example, a person can be denied certain government jobs if
they believe in the forcible overthrow of the U.S. Government, and there
certainly are "religions" that believe in this goal (I'm not saying
Scientology does, but I know there are religious and philosophical belief
systems that believe this). Also, until recently, a person professing belief
in Communism, which is in itself a philosophical belief system not unlike
that of many religions, could be denied a security clearance as well, and
this is still in effect I believe. Are you saying that it is totally wrong
for the U.S. government to deny high-level security clearances to individuals
professing allegiance to Communism or Fascism because they believe these
things, which include the forcible overthrow of the U.S. government and the
elimination of religious tolerance?
One last point: is it possible that an organization can use the "shield"
of religion in a bogus way in order to try to avoid scrutiny? If this is
possible (and I say the answer is *yes*) then it is, and should be, in the
power of the people (through our elected officials) to deny certain government
positions to those individuals who profess allegiance to any organization when
there's strong documented evidence that the organization is trying to
infiltrate and destabilize governments.
To close, Bernie and others, you have to differentiate between religious
belief of individuals and the *actions* of an organization claiming to
represent that religious belief. They are NOT the same, and thus the
arguments we use for one cannot be automatically used for the other.
Jon Noring
--
OmniMedia Electronic Books | URL: http://www.awa.com/library/omnimedia
9671 S. 1600 West St. | Anonymous FTP:
South Jordan, UT 84095 | ftp.awa.com /pub/softlock/pc/products/OmniMedia
801-253-4037 | E-mail: omni...@netcom.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Join the Electronic Books Mailing List (EBOOK-List) Today! Just send e-mail
to majo...@aros.net, and put the following line in the body of the message:
subscribe ebook-list
Hoyos
In alt.religion.scientology Jon Noring <nor...@netcom.com> wrote:
: Bernie writes:
: >Except that the safeguards are anything but just and reasonable.
: >
: >Even though you still haven't really answered the question, I
: >have to conclude at this point that you agree with the fact that
: >it is OK for the state to deny job application on the basis of
: >one's belief.
: You're oversimplifying a much more complex issue, and you neglect that there
: can be other positions/conclusions.
: In essence, I believe the "state" can deny job applications in its employ
: under certain circumstances, and this includes belief structure. If an
Well, I'm sure the Federal Government of Germany is relieved to know that
Jon Noring, drawing on his obviously vast knowledge of the Grundgesetz
and German Constitutional law, has stated that the individual German
states can ban Scientologists from state employment. I'll pass it along
to Kohl.
The fact is Jon, unless I'm missing something, you probably have very
little knowledge of German Constitutional law so you're not qualified to
determine what the Bavarian Government can or cannot do.
[massive clip of Jon justifying a German law using nothing more than his
own logic]
: outlining such infiltration, and conspiracy to do such, that at this stage I
: don't think anybody can argue that there's not enough evidence to conclude
: that Scientology wants to infiltrate and destabilize the German government as
: any foreign enemy would during a time of war.
Be careful when invoking war-time clauses for situations which resemble
in NO WAY a war.
: this is still in effect I believe. Are you saying that it is totally wrong
: for the U.S. government to deny high-level security clearances to individuals
: professing allegiance to Communism or Fascism because they believe these
: things, which include the forcible overthrow of the U.S. government and the
: elimination of religious tolerance?
Applying American law to German situations is absurd.
: To close, Bernie and others, you have to differentiate between religious
: belief of individuals and the *actions* of an organization claiming to
: represent that religious belief. They are NOT the same, and thus the
: arguments we use for one cannot be automatically used for the other.
To close, Jon, you have to stop assuming that Germany works the way the
United States does. Your entire post displays the lack of rigorous
analysis I've come to expect. You might occassionally reach the same
conclusions that I do, as you happen to in this post, but it's by sheer
accident (or force of will) rather than anything approaching careful
reasoning and logic.
Jon Noring
In article anon...@nyx.cs.du.edu (Hoyos) writes:
>In alt.religion.scientology Jon Noring <nor...@netcom.com> wrote:
>Well, I'm sure the Federal Government of Germany is relieved to know that
>Jon Noring, drawing on his obviously vast knowledge of the Grundgesetz
>and German Constitutional law, has stated that the individual German
>states can ban Scientologists from state employment. I'll pass it along
>to Kohl.
>The fact is Jon, unless I'm missing something, you probably have very
>little knowledge of German Constitutional law so you're not qualified to
>determine what the Bavarian Government can or cannot do.
Of course I don't know much about the German Constitution, but you totally
misread what I wrote. I was being general in principle, but I stand by the
three general principles (until someone can argue they are incorrect).
>[massive clip of Jon justifying a German law using nothing more than his
>own logic]
I am being general.
>: this is still in effect I believe. Are you saying that it is totally wrong
>: for the U.S. government to deny high-level security clearances to individuals
>: professing allegiance to Communism or Fascism because they believe these
>: things, which include the forcible overthrow of the U.S. government and the
>: elimination of religious tolerance?
>Applying American law to German situations is absurd.
But I use it to illustrate principles which transcend any one country.
After all, the U.S. is a republican form of government, similar in some
respects to that of Germany.
>: To close, Bernie and others, you have to differentiate between religious
>: belief of individuals and the *actions* of an organization claiming to
>: represent that religious belief. They are NOT the same, and thus the
>: arguments we use for one cannot be automatically used for the other.
>To close, Jon, you have to stop assuming that Germany works the way the
>United States does. Your entire post displays the lack of rigorous
>analysis I've come to expect. You might occassionally reach the same
>conclusions that I do, as you happen to in this post, but it's by sheer
>accident (or force of will) rather than anything approaching careful
>reasoning and logic.
You misread what I wrote, wherein I give 3 actual principles by which the
Bavarian and any government could be justified in denying employment for
certain government positions to people holding certain beliefs. These are
specific and debatable, yet you glossed over them.
Tilman Hausherr
>Well, I'm sure the Federal Government of Germany is relieved to know that
>Jon Noring, drawing on his obviously vast knowledge of the Grundgesetz
>and German Constitutional law, has stated that the individual German
>states can ban Scientologists from state employment. I'll pass it along
>to Kohl.
Grundgesetz available here:
http://www.jura.uni-sb.de/law/GG/gg0.htm
Jon Noring
In article be...@arcadis.be (Bernie) writes:
>The questions asked by the Bavarians are:
>
>1. Do you have relationships with organisations using the
>technology of LRH?
>2. Are you under the command of an organisation that uses the
>technology of LRH?
>3. Did you, in the last 12 months, or do you take courses by
>organisations using the technology of LRH?
>4. Do you support these organisations financially or "ideally"?
>5. Do you work according to the technology of LRH or were you
>instructed in the technology of LRH?
Notice the use of the word 'organization', and not religious belief. From
this point alone, plus the fact that the *organization* of Scientology has
a proven history (with evidence it is still ongoing) of infiltrating
governments and stealing government documents, these are valid questions,
even in societies that value freedom of religion and the right to privacy.
My other recent posts of this go into further detail my reasons for making
this statement.
But I do see that Free Zoner's (for our s.c.g. friends, believers in the
religion of Scientology, but who cannot or do not support the current
Scientology organization) would have to say yes to some of these. However,
I'm also under the understanding that saying yes to any of these questions
does not automatically deny the person the job -- they have to be interviewed
to explain their answers. In addition, in a practical sense, the number
of Free Zoners in Germany is probably very small in relation to those with
allegiance to the organization of Scientology, so the number of people
unjustly denied a job because the questions and criterion are not perfect
based on the intent would be near zero, if not exactly zero.
>The simple act for an official organization to put down these
>questions and make it a prerequisite for job application imply
>that one is "guilty" of applying a technology of his choice.
I take it that a government *never* has any reason to ask about the allegiance
to organizations with a proven history of infiltrating and stealing government
documents? What about sensitive positions? Governments, even in democracies,
*routinely* have done this throughout history *because* there are organizations
that want to take away the freedoms you and I so cherish. So long as the
public knows about it, and can use the power of the ballot box to change it
(as they can in both Germany and the U.S.), there's no problem provided there
is a clear and demonstratable danger. In the U.S., there's been virtually no
controversy about denying sensitive government jobs to non-citizens and to
people with allegiances to certain organizations and philosophies (such as
the overthrow of the government). The questions Bavaria is asking are actually
quite benign compared to many of the questions asked by many U.S. government
agencies.
Bernie, you have yet to answer any of my posts on this subject.
>The questions asked by the Bavarian government won't stop
>illegal acts any more than it will stop a murderer filling in
>the US questionnaire. In Bavaria, it will only stop those honest
>enough to answer the question, who may not be Scientologist next
>week, who may never commit any unethical or illegal act, and who
>may be otherwise perfectly fit for the job.
We can certainly argue about this, but there are very good reasons to ask
these things as I've outlined in other posts. First, it simply gives another
law (e.g. perjury) to go after the individual should they be found having
such an allegiance to the dangerous organization (even if they haven't been
caught in the act of stealing documents or gathering intelligence data).
The most important thing is to protect the integrity of the duly-elected
government from organizations bent on taking away the rights of the people.
Second, it is a public statement that the government is worried about the
organization in question. And you forget that so long as the ban of placing
those with allegiance to the Scientology *organization* in sensitive jobs in
government is publicly known and publicly debated in Bavaria, the people can
certainly be convinced it is wrong and by the ballot box get it changed (or
do you think Bavaria is a dictatorship as you seem to imply?) It's not as if
this is something etched in stone forever. The focus by both you and the
Scientology organization is to convince the *people* of Bavaria to pressure
their government to change their policy. If the people aren't convinced, and
the courts don't rule it unconstitutional or something, on what basis do you
have left to say it is wrong other than it is your personal opinion it is
wrong? I don't see any.
I still greatly appecriate your posts to a.r.s. Though we often may disagree,
we can do so in an atmosphere of rationality and cordiality.
Bernie
>You're oversimplifying a much more complex issue, and you neglect that there
>can be other positions/conclusions.
>In essence, I believe the "state" can deny job applications in its employ
>under certain circumstances, and this includes belief structure.
I would be interested what part of the constitution affirms
this.
>If an
>organized group shows years of government infiltration, compromise, blackmail,
>extortion, etc., etc., then the government can legitimately restrict civil
>service employment to people of that organized group (or who hold any type of
>allegiance to that organization -- note the word "allegiance") *if*
Legitimately? This would require a quote of the constitution.
>(1) the
>government makes it clear *in public* that they are doing this (so the people
>know about it and if they want to change it or oppose it, can do so via the
>democratic process and so allow public oversight), (2) limit it to the
>minimum required to guarantee effectiveness of safeguarding the government,
>and (3) base it not simply on belief alone, but on a documented history of
>actual attempts at spying, infiltration, document theft, and other crimes
>against the government by that organization.
Is this all called the Noring's amendment? :-)
>In the case of Bavaria, they are being public about it, and I believe they
>are minimizing it as much as they can but still be effective for its
>intended purpose.
You have defined your own laws and now attempt to demonstrate
that the Bavarian state conform to this law.
>A Scientologist can still get a civil service job I believe,
>but are not eligible for all jobs (if I'm wrong here, please do correct me.)
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.
>So Bavaria looks like they're doing only the minimum necessary. And there's
>so much evidence of actual infiltration by Scientology of government bodies
>all around the world, as well as millions of pages of seized documents
>outlining such infiltration, and conspiracy to do such, that at this stage I
>don't think anybody can argue that there's not enough evidence to conclude
>that Scientology wants to infiltrate and destabilize the German government as
>any foreign enemy would during a time of war.
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.?
>I recall reading recently that a few years ago the German government seized
>thousands of pages of documents from a raid on a Scientology office or
>something (I hope somebody here can fill in the details) where they got first
>hand glimpse of intelligence information on the immensity of the actual and
>planned penetration of the German government. I believe they saw the danger
>this group poses to their national security, and they have every right to
>take action to safeguard the integrity of the government.
Every right under what part of the constitution? Under what part
of International Charter of Human Rights?
>I believe it was
>at that time they started considering stronger action.
>[Note the very important distinction that Bavaria, and Germany in general, is
>not focusing on the belief system of Scientology and "discriminating" against
>it because of belief, but because Scientology has a well-documented history
>of infiltration and other criminal acts in governments all over the world.
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.
>This is a very important distinction, Bernie, and I don't think you realize
>it.
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?
>We as a society should do as much as we can not to "discriminate" against
>*individuals* based on beliefs they hold, but society also has the right to
>protect itself from organizations that will use society's abhorence to
>discrimination as a shield to pursue the infiltration and destruction of the
>very social order there to protect our religious freedoms!
~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.
>What I outline
>above is reasonable and pragmatic action to balance between these two very
>important needs.]
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.
>To give a U.S. example, a person can be denied certain government jobs if
>they believe in the forcible overthrow of the U.S. Government, and there
>certainly are "religions" that believe in this goal
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.
>(I'm not saying
>Scientology does, but I know there are religious and philosophical belief
>systems that believe this). Also, until recently, a person professing belief
>in Communism, which is in itself a philosophical belief system not unlike
>that of many religions, could be denied a security clearance as well, and
>this is still in effect I believe.
Does it make it any better? Should we reintroduce McCarthism?
>Are you saying that it is totally wrong
>for the U.S. government to deny high-level security clearances to individuals
>professing allegiance to Communism or Fascism because they believe these
>things, which include the forcible overthrow of the U.S. government and the
>elimination of religious tolerance?
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.
>One last point: is it possible that an organization can use the "shield"
>of religion in a bogus way in order to try to avoid scrutiny?
It is.
>If this is
>possible (and I say the answer is *yes*) then it is, and should be, in the
>power of the people (through our elected officials) to deny certain government
>positions to those individuals who profess allegiance to any organization when
>there's strong documented evidence that the organization is trying to
>infiltrate and destabilize governments.
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.
>To close, Bernie and others, you have to differentiate between religious
>belief of individuals and the *actions* of an organization claiming to
>represent that religious belief. They are NOT the same, and thus the
>arguments we use for one cannot be automatically used for the other.
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)
Brian O'Grady
Bernie says
----------------------------------------------------------------
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.?
While I see the attempted logic of your position consider this...
In a war, you don't hold off from shooting a soldier who is coming
at you just because they haven't yet committed any act of aggression
against your comrades or yourself.
You don't say "Oh well, he won't be a soldier forever so I should
wait and see whether he's friendly or not."
I don't accept your assumed retort that this is not a war...
in many ways the Scientologists are fighting against the established
status of the world and attempting to change it.
Also I don't accept the argument that one can be a government official
and a Scientologist and keep one's loyalties apart. There is much
evidence to suggest that a Scientologist will always be loyal first and
foremost to the Cult and that any attempt by them to acquire a position
of power will be motivated by a wish to benefit the Cult and not the
people they are meant to( since by Scieno logic, the Cult's aim is to
help the world so helping the Cult _is_ helping the people they govern, judge,
administer for etc).
It is a very confused issue since one always gets a bad feeling from
judging someone from a label they have. However, when dealing with
people who abuse freedom. one always ends up taking a little bit of
everyones freedom away, it's the best of two evils though.
If you have any other points other than the ones I refute above, I'd love
to hear them.
-Brian
Jon Noring
In article be...@arcadis.be (Bernie) writes:
>nor...@netcom.com (Jon Noring) wrote:
>>In article be...@arcadis.be (Bernie) writes:
>>You're oversimplifying a much more complex issue, and you neglect that there
>>can be other positions/conclusions.
>>In essence, I believe the "state" can deny job applications in its employ
>>under certain circumstances, and this includes belief structure.
>I would be interested what part of the constitution affirms
>this.
Note the phrase "I believe". Of course, it will be interesting to see how
the Bavarian and FDR courts handle this as no doubt CoS will file suits,
if they haven't already, on this matter.
I am not an expert on German Constitutional Law (and only have a lay
understanding of the U.S. Constitution), but in my prior posts I tried to
make it clear these were my lay opinions. But there are many commonalities
among the various democracies.
>>If an
>>organized group shows years of government infiltration, compromise, blackmail,
>>extortion, etc., etc., then the government can legitimately restrict civil
>>service employment to people of that organized group (or who hold any type of
>>allegiance to that organization -- note the word "allegiance") *if*
>Legitimately? This would require a quote of the constitution.
Of course, and hopefully we'll get answers soon. But I do know in the U.S.
the Federal government can deny employment based on allegiance to certain
organizations because of the concept of "risk" to the integrity of the
government. I'm certain this has been held up in U.S. Courts since this is
done all the time.
>>(1) the
>>government makes it clear *in public* that they are doing this (so the people
>>know about it and if they want to change it or oppose it, can do so via the
>>democratic process and so allow public oversight), (2) limit it to the
>>minimum required to guarantee effectiveness of safeguarding the government,
>>and (3) base it not simply on belief alone, but on a documented history of
>>actual attempts at spying, infiltration, document theft, and other crimes
>>against the government by that organization.
>Is this all called the Noring's amendment? :-)
I consider it a lay perspective based on ethical/moral considerations,
combined with my knowledge of U.S. law on these matters (I do have more than
a passing knowledge concerning U.S. security clearances and when government
jobs can be denied based on belief/allegiance.)
You're right -- these are not part of any Constitution but my own. However,
nobody has challenged these three principles as being stupid. I believe they
are a reasonable compromise when various rights and freedoms seem to clash,
as it seems here.
>>In the case of Bavaria, they are being public about it, and I believe they
>>are minimizing it as much as they can but still be effective for its
>>intended purpose.
>You have defined your own laws and now attempt to demonstrate
>that the Bavarian state conform to this law.
Well, sort of. I've laid down my *principles* that *I* believe are right,
and then show *why* I'm not troubled by what Bavaria is doing.
I suppose you do the same thing -- you have principles you believe in, and
then in exposition you invoke these principles and come to conclusions.
>>A Scientologist can still get a civil service job I believe,
>>but are not eligible for all jobs (if I'm wrong here, please do correct me.)
>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.
In my prior posts I argue the Bavarian government does have this right and
power and invoked the example of U.S. practice in this regard, plus some
philosophical reasons of my own. But we'll have to await the court rulings
as they are the final word.
>>So Bavaria looks like they're doing only the minimum necessary. And there's
>>so much evidence of actual infiltration by Scientology of government bodies
>>all around the world, as well as millions of pages of seized documents
>>outlining such infiltration, and conspiracy to do such, that at this stage I
>>don't think anybody can argue that there's not enough evidence to conclude
>>that Scientology wants to infiltrate and destabilize the German government as
>>any foreign enemy would during a time of war.
>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.?
But we cannot ignore that Scientology has infiltrated governments in the past,
and there's evidence they have not changed their ways. We cannot ignore that.
Nor can we ignore that a duly-elected government has the right to protect
itself from attack by organizations *who will use individuals* to effect
that attack. We have to be pragmatic as well as idealistic.
>>I recall reading recently that a few years ago the German government seized
>>thousands of pages of documents from a raid on a Scientology office or
>>something (I hope somebody here can fill in the details) where they got first
>>hand glimpse of intelligence information on the immensity of the actual and
>>planned penetration of the German government. I believe they saw the danger
>>this group poses to their national security, and they have every right to
>>take action to safeguard the integrity of the government.
>Every right under what part of the constitution? Under what part
>of International Charter of Human Rights?
It would not surprise me if the ICHR would uphold the Bavarian action, but
we'll have to wait as it is probable CoS will file suit in World Court (or
whatever) on this basis should they lose in the various German courts.
>>[Note the very important distinction that Bavaria, and Germany in general, is
>>not focusing on the belief system of Scientology and "discriminating" against
>>it because of belief, but because Scientology has a well-documented history
>>of infiltration and other criminal acts in governments all over the world.
>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?
Your assertion is not founded. You are stating that *all* those who are
appalled by CoS actions would applaud deprogramming and the like. This is
simply not true. When Bavaria begins deprogramming Scientologists then
we condemn Bavaria for this wrong action. But I doubt this will happen.
There are several people here on alt.religion.scientology are Free Zoners
who believe in aspects of Scientology philosophy/religion who fervently
attack the CoS organizations for their actions.
>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.
But a duly-elected government of the people has the right to protect itself,
and not allowing those with even a possible allegiance to Scientology to hold
certain government jobs is acceptable.
In the U.S., a person denied a security clearance because they are a risk is
not considered to be a criminal. There's many examples of this. For example,
I heard about one individual, a naturalized U.S. citizen, and a fervent anti-
communist, who was denied a DOE 'Q' clearance because all of his close family
were in a communist country (this was in the late 1970's or so). It was
explained to him that although their background investigation showed that he
clearly was impeccably a loyal U.S. citizen, and thus they were certain he
would never divulge secrets from this perspective, it was still too risky to
hire him because his family members could be threatened and used for blackmail
purposes (e.g., you send us a copy of ... or else your mother will disappear
for good.)
Bernie, you have to realize the Bavarian action is limited to government
employment and service. If it goes well beyond that to something
unacceptable, *then* that's another matter. And the argument that the
Bavarian action could cause hysteria in the public and lead to pogroms
against Scientologists is unfounded. It could happen, but we don't know
that a priori. The duly-elected Bavarian government must protect its
integrity within the Constitution of Bavaria and of the FDR. If the Bavarian
courts and the FDR courts upholds Bavaria's actions, then as far as I'm
concerned, it's o.k.
>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.
What crime did the loyal U.S. citizen commit to be denied a security
clearance, and thus a high-paying job, with the U.S. government? As I
said, none. And everybody who heard this story was saddened, but also
understood the bigger issues. It would not surprise me if this
individual got good referrals from his government contacts!
Your argument is a little too emotional and glosses over the details.
>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?
Your use of the word "hated" implies that Bavaria is taking this action
because they "hate" Scientology. NO, this is not the reason. Bavaria
is taking the action because of CoS' actions of infiltrating governments,
stealing documents, blackmail and so forth, *and* the recent seizure of
many Scientology documents in Germany which seems to indicate that CoS has
an active conspiracy to actually try to infiltrate all the German state
and Federal governments and severely compromise them.
If CoS did not do these things, Bavaria and the FDR would NOT be taking the
actions they are now doing. I think this is obvious. Bavaria and the FDR
are taking action in response to Scientology criminal actions, not because
they hate their belief system. There is zero proof that government officials
hate the religion of Scientology.
You seek to not allow any duly-elected government of the people to protect
itself from criminal attacks of "religious" organizations who seek its
overthrow and the subsequent elimination of civil rights including the
freedom of religion, and the institution of one religion that all must obey.
The freedom of religion you so cherish (and I do, too) cannot exist if we
allow that freedom to be a shield by which fascist organizations use to
overthrow the government. That's what you're advocating, though you may
not realize it.
>>We as a society should do as much as we can not to "discriminate" against
>>*individuals* based on beliefs they hold, but society also has the right to
>>protect itself from organizations that will use society's abhorence to
>>discrimination as a shield to pursue the infiltration and destruction of the
>>very social order there to protect our religious freedoms!
>~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.
But denying government jobs based on allegiance is NOT punishment. It is NOT
the same as being convicted of a crime. When a U.S. citizen is denied a
security clearance, most Americans don't consider this person a criminal.
This person can still vote, can still move about freely, will still have the
same chances as any other person to get a private sector job (as well as local
government jobs), etc. In fact, the denial of a security clearance is
considered semi-private information and unless the press obtains this
knowledge (which they rarely are interested in anyway), the general U.S.
community will never know, nor do they care.
As far as I know, a Bavarian citizen denied work in various government jobs
due to *risk* because of his/her allegiance to Scientology will not be
public knowledge in Bavaria. This person will lose no rights (getting
a government job is NOT a right, btw).
>>What I outline
>>above is reasonable and pragmatic action to balance between these two very
>>important needs.]
>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.
Of course, but the courts haven't ruled yet. My take on this whole thing,
using U.S. law as I know it, is that what Bavaria is doing is acceptable,
but there are actions they could take that would be not acceptable. But
so far, Bavaria is only taking the actions to maintain the integrity of
its own government by denying government employment to those with a possible
allegiance to organizations that actively seek to infiltrate and steal
documents from the government. This is acceptable -- it's been done in the
U.S. for years and has passed U.S. Constitutional muster.
>>To give a U.S. example, a person can be denied certain government jobs if
>>they believe in the forcible overthrow of the U.S. Government, and there
>>certainly are "religions" that believe in this goal
>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.
But again, a person can be denied a government job (which is not a RIGHT
protected by the U.S. Constitution) if they hold beliefs regarding the
overthrow of the U.S. government, OR if they hold allegiance, or strong
evidence they hold allegiance, to an organization which is attempting to
infiltrate, steal docuements, and/or destabilize the government.
I know I sound like a broken record when I say this, but I am being very
specific that a government, whose purpose is to protect the Constitution,
has the power to maintain its own integrity for this purpose, even if it
means denying government employment to individuals who have, or suspected to
have, allegiances to organizations seeking the violent overthrow of the
Constitution or to civil liberties. Belief of course plays a role in this,
but it is Constitutional because a government job is a very specific thing,
and there is no right to a government job.
>>(I'm not saying
>>Scientology does, but I know there are religious and philosophical belief
>>systems that believe this). Also, until recently, a person professing belief
>>in Communism, which is in itself a philosophical belief system not unlike
>>that of many religions, could be denied a security clearance as well, and
>>this is still in effect I believe.
>Does it make it any better? Should we reintroduce McCarthism?
The practice of denying government employment because of possible allegiance
to dangerous organizations still goes on today, and we certainly are past
McCarthyism. The historical existence of McCarthyism does not negate the
need the government has to minimize the *risk* of infiltration, the theft
of documents, and so forth. This must be avoided. A government should not
just wait for it to happen and then deal with it -- for very pragmatic
reasons I've dealt with in other posts.
>>Are you saying that it is totally wrong
>>for the U.S. government to deny high-level security clearances to individuals
>>professing allegiance to Communism or Fascism because they believe these
>>things, which include the forcible overthrow of the U.S. government and the
>>elimination of religious tolerance?
>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.
Government employment is not a right. Any duly elected government of the
people has the right to protect its integrity within the Constitution,
including the Bill of Rights. It's been shown that denying certain
individuals a government job because of *possible* allegiance to
organizations with a proven or demonstratable desire to infiltration/
destabilize the government, or to steal government documents, is
Constitutional because it is the very government which is charged with
protecting the Constitution. It is also morally right, even if it delves
into the issue of personal belief.
Now, Bavaria is acting quite restrained, in my opinion. You call it
hysteria. It will only become hysteria when Scientologists are denied the
*rights* given them by Bavarian and FDR law and their Constitution. But
it is correct that the Bavarian government publicly state their fears about
Scientology, to show to the public from the *evidence* why they fear the
organization of Scientology, and to take action protecting its integrity
within their laws and Constitution. We'll wait to hear the results of the
inevitable court cases on the Bavarian policy.
>>One last point: is it possible that an organization can use the "shield"
>>of religion in a bogus way in order to try to avoid scrutiny?
>It is.
O.K.
>>If this is
>>possible (and I say the answer is *yes*) then it is, and should be, in the
>>power of the people (through our elected officials) to deny certain government
>>positions to those individuals who profess allegiance to any organization when
>>there's strong documented evidence that the organization is trying to
>>infiltrate and destabilize governments.
>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.
But again I view it pragmatically. First, a government job is not a right.
Second, there are organizations out there who wish to do away with democracy,
human rights, and civil liberties,, who will attempt to infiltrate and
destablize the government, and steal documents for whatever purpose. Third,
the duly-elected government exists to defend the Constitution, civil liberties,
and the human rights of its citizens. Put together, I come to no other
conclusion but that a government has the LIMITED right and power to deny
government employment to any individual they believe *might* have allegiance
to the dangerous organizations. Notice that I say 'LIMITED', since there
are things the government could do that are not right. In my opinion,
Bavaria is within their power and mandate, even from a strong human rights
viewpoint, to ask the questions they do about Scientology.
>>To close, Bernie and others, you have to differentiate between religious
>>belief of individuals and the *actions* of an organization claiming to
>>represent that religious belief. They are NOT the same, and thus the
>>arguments we use for one cannot be automatically used for the other.
>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.
O.K.
>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
It is possible the German Constitution may not allow this. But then we'll
have to wait until the courts rule definitely. However, from the U.S.
perspective, I think what the Bavarian government is doing is right. And
another alternative is that the courts might rule that in general the
Bavarian government has the right to ask questions about allegiance, and
to deny employment when the *risk* has been established, but may have to
reword the questions as well as setup procedures by which they would use the
information so as to comply with the Constitution -- that is, to set up
procedures of appeal (in the U.S., there are procedures to appeal a denial
of a security clearance, and one can even file a lawsuit and take it to
court, so a denial of a security clearance is not the final word.)
>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.
You view this as a government protest because they hate Scientology because
of their beliefs, but everything I've heard the state and federal governments
say is that Scientology is a danger based on *evidence*, which they have, and
which I also believe exists. And the Bavarian action is based on a concern
for the integrity of the government and not as a protest action.
Thanks for your reply. I'm glad that we can vehemently disagree without
resorting to ad hominem attacks.
Jon Noring
In article lip...@primenet.com (James J. Lippard) writes:
>In article Ron Newman <rne...@cybercom.net> wrote:
>>In article nor...@netcom.com says...
>>>In the U.S., it's been considered proper to deny security clearances to those
>>>with an allegiance to the Communist party, and variants of it.
>>Consider proper by whom? Not by the ACLU or many other people concerned
>>with civil liberties in the U.S.
>Well, the CPUSA did have a record of engaging in espionage for the late
>Soviet Union, paying for intelligence information with money provided by
>the Soviet Union, etc. I think it was more than reasonable to deny
>clearances to people who were members of an organization recruiting spies
>and selling secrets to a foreign country. Not because of their political
>and economic beliefs, but because of the actions of the organization they
>belonged to.
Since the current questions asked on various U.S. government security
clearance forms are just as delving as the Bavarian questions, and even more
so in my experience, I can only assume that in the U.S. these questions have
survived legal challenges, possibly even going to the Supreme Court.
Some may look upon these questions as being overly intrusive from a civil
liberties point of view, but I don't. The reasons are:
1) It is public knowledge this is being done -- via our representatives this
can be changed if public opinion forces it. In addition, this practice
has so far survived Constitutionality scrutiny as far as I can tell.
2) My experience shows that the questions asked are towards organizations
which strong evidence exists pose a real and identifiable threat to the
integrity of the U.S. government and the security of the United States.
3) A Federal Government job is not a right, though there are laws that
prevent discrimination for Constitutionally unsupported reasons.
4) The Constitution and the Bill of Rights are in principle protected by the
U.S. government, thus from a civil liberties viewpoint we cannot allow our
government to be infiltrated or destablized by organizations who wish to
violently overthrow our Constitution (that is, to do it outside the
designated Amendment process) with the intent to eliminate our civil
liberties. If our concern over an absolute application of civil liberties
principles so defangs our government's, or even society's, ability to fight
enemies who wish to take away all of our civil liberties, then we will lose
our civil liberties -- it's just a matter of time. But let me emphatically
state that I do see the value in civil liberties advocates (ACLU,
libertarians, etc.) continuing to question to the last iota every
government policy from a civil liberties perpective to make sure that we
never compromise our civil liberty principles any more than the absolute
minimum necessary to guarantee our civil liberties.
5) The questions asked, and the process to deny security clearances, are, in
my opinion, the minimum intrusiveness required to fulfill the integrity of
our government from the attacks by the identified dangerous organizations.
And an appeal process exists for those denied clearances, including the
use of the U.S. courts to appeal to (I don't claim the appeal process is
the best possible, and it may have flaws needing improvement from a civil
liberties perspective, but nevertheless it exists).
What I wrote above forms the basis for my postings on why I think the Bavarian
action is justified, even from a civil liberties viewpoint. Of course, the
state of Bavaria, and the FRD, is not the U.S., and they don't use the same
Constitution as we do, which is my frame of reference. Nevertheless, there
tends to be many commonalities in most democratic governments, so it would
not surprise me if what I've been arguing would be seen similarly in Bavaria
and the FRD. However, the German courts might find the specific Bavarian
procedures to be incorrect and may require Bavaria to fine-tune the overall
process to bring them into conformity with the Bavarian and/or German
Constitution. But I'm talking in generalities in my recent posts on this
subject, not word-for-word specifics.
Bernie
br...@translator.se (Brian O'Grady) wrote:
>Bernie says
>----------------------------------------------------------------
>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.?
>------------------------------------------------------------------
>While I see the attempted logic of your position consider this...
>In a war, you don't hold off from shooting a soldier who is coming
>at you just because they haven't yet committed any act of aggression
>against your comrades or yourself.
>You don't say "Oh well, he won't be a soldier forever so I should
>wait and see whether he's friendly or not."
>I don't accept your assumed retort that this is not a war...
Ah, I was about to make it, sorry ;-)
>in many ways the Scientologists are fighting against the established
>status of the world and attempting to change it.
Wow, wow, wow!! Is anyone who is fighting against the
established status of the world and attempting to change it to
be considered at war with the government and deprived of rights
granted to others???
>Also I don't accept the argument that one can be a government official
>and a Scientologist and keep one's loyalties apart. There is much
>evidence to suggest that a Scientologist will always be loyal first and
>foremost to the Cult and that any attempt by them to acquire a position
>of power will be motivated by a wish to benefit the Cult and not the
>people they are meant to( since by Scieno logic, the Cult's aim is to
>help the world so helping the Cult _is_ helping the people they govern, judge,
>administer for etc).
So you completely discount the possibility that a Scientologist
may apply for a job in order to feed his family and because he
may be genuinely interested in the job's purpose?
>It is a very confused issue since one always gets a bad feeling from
>judging someone from a label they have. However, when dealing with
>people who abuse freedom. one always ends up taking a little bit of
>everyones freedom away, it's the best of two evils though.
Best of two evils: classical defense for those who have taken
the law into their end. Who is to define what evil is "better"
than the other?
>If you have any other points other than the ones I refute above, I'd love
>to hear them.
Ooops, sorry, I only saw this sentence now. I didn't realized
your refutations were definitive <g>
I think that all of my arguments are pretty much spread in the
different posts I made in this thread. I still may come with
more, but don't know myself which :-) I suppose the rest will be
for the German Federal Court and the International Human Rights
institutions to decide.
---------
Bernie
That men do not learn very much from the lessons of history is
the most important of all the lessons that history has to teach.
(Aldous Huxley)