Bernie@bernie.cncfamily.com (Bernie)

Mon, 28 Jul 1997 23:22:58 GMT

Peter:
>I'm not at all sure that this is unreasonable. After all, it's not *that* long ago that applications for visitors visas to the USA asked whether the applicant was or ever had been a member of the Communist Party. The assumption was the same - that Communists were planning on undermining the US govt in some way.

Bernie:
But the attitude of the US in this case was discriminatory as well. Besides, it was idiotic. Do you think that a *real* spy would have said "yes, I am an active member of the Communist Party"?

There are also differences with the case at hand.

First we deal in the US/Communist situation with a state to state situation, or even a political/political situation, which is different than a state to religion (or belief system) situation of individuals enjoying citizenship of the said country.

Second, we deal here with entry application of foreigners, which is different than state job application of a citizen of the said state.

If you want to take this example, in which way do you think that the German measures are different than McCarthism?

>I disagree. I think there's more than enough reason to assume that OSA can put pressure on any actively practicing scientologist to get information - and has a sufficiently coercive lever to induce many, perhaps most, to produce the sort of information that they need. So while it's unlikely that all Scientologists will be attempting to undermine the state at any given time, when the organization needs information, they have ways of getting it directly, via zealous devotion - and if that doesn't work, blackmail.

It may or it may not happen. It may or it may not happen with members of other faiths too. It may or may not happen outside of any doctrinal context. Groups that may want to infiltrate the Government are numerous. Should the state make a list of any possible "terrorist" belief system that one is or not allowed to belong in order to submit for job application?

>Consequently, I think its perfectly reasonable for them to be asked if they are members.

It is not. The state should not screen people according to what they *may* do in some hypothetic circumstances based on their belief. It is not a solution and is frown with serious problems. The state should take enough internal and legal measures to prevent abuses and locate abusers in case abuses occur. It should assume its own responsibility rather than finding scapegoat or potential scapegoat. To ask people about their private belief is irrelevant regarding security issues and is completely useless. It won't stop the real spies anyway. All it really is, is a discriminative measure, and an intent to harm a group that has been demonized.

>It shouldn't stop them getting jobs,

Who will be the judge of that?

>but it *should* alert employers to the potential risks that they present and make them think twice about where they actually locate them.

The state is *not* to assign location and jobs according to individual beliefs. It has to assign them on the basis of competency regarding the job at hand. Private beliefs and practices are irrelevant to competence.

All of this rhetoric just supports the point I wanted to make by raising the issue: if there were to be a state approved conservatorship for reason of "mind-control", there would be enough people to justify the existence of such a measure on the basis of the demonized information they have and the paranoid ffear that it creates. The type of justification we witness here is a very good example of that.

Many have come in ARS because of the freedom of speech in the COS vs the net case. Some have fallen for the emotional appeal of the anti-Scn propaganda, to the point they end up attacking the very freedom of expression and belief they thought they were defending in the first place. Absurd.

Bernie

Bernie@bernie.cncfamily.com (Bernie)

Fri, 01 Aug 1997 00:46:36 GMT

deomorto@aol.com (DeoMorto):
>>2. Scientlogy is convinced that their answers to any sort of problem are THE answers.
>> Would you put someone in charge of your country's Atomic Energy Safeguards who thinks that all thats needed is some purification rundowns and auditing and radiation wont affect them? Or someone in charge of the country's justice system who thinks that rape victims "pulled it in"?

Peter:
>Or allow access to any sort of intelligence or criminal justice system files to an organization that has showed time and again that it's prepared to do what ever is necessary to gain access to those files when it believes the information within might prove a useful tool in their attempts to silence or otherwise coerce those whose views differ from their own, or those who seek nothing more than an honest and open discussion about the cult and its influence.

That may be, but for one who *may* commit these acts, and who *may* go through the normal security measures instituted for these jobs, you are discriminating on thousand, ten of thousand others on the whole range of public services. The crime of these thousand and ten of thousand? To believe that we could live in a better world and that human betterment is possible.

>As far as I can see, it has nothing to do with religious belief, and everything to do with membership of a corrupt ongoing criminal conspiracy to 'fleece the planet'.

No. It has to do with a gross injustice committed on a group of people who have been demonized beyond any recognition of what they really are.

Bernie

Bernie@bernie.cncfamily.com (Bernie)

Fri, 01 Aug 1997 21:16:19 GMT

Bernie:
>>That may be, but for one who *may* commit these acts, and who *may* go through the normal security measures instituted for these jobs, you are discriminating on thousand, ten of thousand others on the whole range of public services. The crime of these thousand and ten of thousand? To believe that we could live in a better world and that human betterment is possible.

Peter:
>Ah. In much the same way as most communists. I take it you believe that all of the discrimination by the US government against communists was also wrong?

I do, even though we deal here with a problem from state to state (or political system) and the entry of foreign citizens. In the case of Bavaria, we deal with state to religion and of the rights of citizens within this state. Nevertheless, I do think the questionnaire the US had to prevent communists from entering the country was absurd, useless, and discriminatory, and I think the ACLU though that too, didn't they?

>In fact, the crime *isn't* believing in a better world, its active membership of a corrupt criminal organization that has continuously sought to undermine the democratic system - by attempting to stifle free speech, and by using moles planted in various official positions to facilitate access to information that they aren't entitled to.

Maybe, but Scientologists don't view it that way. They will feel they are being discriminated just because of their belief, and I think that this is what it amounts to. To put a questionnaire will *not* stop the real spy, Peter. It will only stop those who are genuinely thinking they pursue a belief system of their choice and who are honest enough to declare it on the form.

>So it isn't true that these people are discriminated against. The truth is that their continued involvement in the cult shows that they are either conscious of these crimes and therefore corrupt, or unconscious of them, and therefore stupid. Either quality is enough to reasonably debar someone from such employment.

Do you really think that every members are willfully participating in the corrupt actions of the COS? Is it your experience that Scientologists are usually stupid people? What about ex-Scn? Do think Dennis Erlich, Martin Hunt, Monica Pignotti, Joe Harrington, are stupid people? Or do you think that the mere fact that they quit the CofS made them all of a sudden bright? Do you think John Travolta, Chick Corea, or any of the many Scn celebrities are anymore stupid than a German civil servant?

A great quantity of Scientologists aren't stupid, Peter, nor are they willfully or consciously cooperating in corrupt acts. As a matter of fact, many of them have quit the CofS because they were asked to participate in or became aware of the corrupt aspect of the CofS. Do you want the Bavarian measure to be applied to these type of persons as well?

Bernie

Bernie@bernie.cncfamily.com (Bernie)

Sat, 02 Aug 1997 12:54:26 GMT

Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology,soc.culture.german,alt.support.ex-cult
Subject: Re: Case study: Kathleen Wilson
Message-ID: 34b32dda.533994936@snews.zippo.com

Bernie:
>>Do you really think that every members are willfully participating in the corrupt actions of the COS? Is it your experience that Scientologists are usually stupid people? What about ex-Scn? Do think Dennis Erlich, Martin Hunt, Monica Pignotti, Joe Harrington, are stupid people?

Martin Hunt:
>Bernie, you clueless asshole, there was no "continued involvement" on my part.

The Bavarian measure doesn't speak about "continued involvement", only whether one is or not a Scientologist, or using LRH tech.

>I left. Why don't this morons who have *seen* the facts leave, also? I'll put my vote on massive stupidity or wilful ignorance. They've been *told* what Hubbard's grades in school were, and they still quack quack quack on about how wonderful "Study tech" is. They've *read* BFM, some of them, and they're *still* in the fucking cult!

They have other reasons, other interpretations and other circumstances than yours or mine. This doesn't make them more or less stupid.

>I call that fucking clueless! Stupid! Moronic! If reading Atack's book and Miller's book and all the documents on the web about overboarding, Hubbard' rampant drug use, Lisa's death, and a million other things doesn't crack their mind, there's nothing there to crack.

Most of these are so full of distorted information and so full of irrational reactions, such as the one you display in this post, that it does not have any credibility in their eyes.

>My plea was never related to intelligence; it was related to ignorance.

You can be ignorant while intelligent. Actually, I consider that the highest form of intelligence is to be aware of one's ignorance, something you are obviously far to achieve. You are so full of your many absolute certainties that it often makes you sound stupid, something which I don't think you are.

>They fucking lied to me about every little thing, and it was stupid of me not to see though their lies as easily as I see through yours and Diane's and the other assholes here

Which is a good illustration of the mistaken way you assess your experience with the cult. Your arguments against Diane have been amongst the most silly ones (apart those from the GluGlu Bird) I was given to read. And as far as I go, can you quote a single lie I made? Or is it just one of your many generalizations and near insane rantings fit?

>who can't see the forest for the trees, but it is *infinitely* more stupid of these cultists to  stay in the fucking cult after *learning* the truth, *seeing* it everywhere, and *still* not getting a fucking clue.

They don't see "the truth", Martin. That's cultists who believe they have *the* truth and that everyone else who don't think along their way are stupid, mean, or deluded. Scieno just have a different interpretations than those outside the group. But this doesn't mean that it's a fixed and permanent viewpoint (unlike many of the anti-cultists).

>Please quit misusing my name in this manner to oppose Peter;

I suggested that, as an ex-member currently posting, you may not be stupid. Is that "misusing" your name? Oh, I am sorry.

And you really have a gall to complain about "abuses" of your name, you who have no rest in constantly bringing Diane's name through the mud of your delerious and childish depiction of her and your numerous low level sexually based verbal abuses. Didn't you ever have a good look at what *you* do? Or are you so deluded that you are completely unaware of it?

>I've had it out with him long before you were here, and settled it in a lengthy and intelligent and honest debate...

This post doesn't leave place for an inch of doubt about that.

>something which does not happen on this newsgroup any more with stupid little fucks like you crawling about all over it.

Yea, people you can't easily dismiss or intimidate, who actually argue with others and take issue on anti-cult member's exaggerations, distortions and overall cultic behavior. Annoying, eh? I understand how this must be a real frustration for you and the likes of Erlich.

>Why don't you get your shit together, Bernie? You're fucked in the head by Scientology right now, today, this instant.

Really? On what are you basing yourself? Can you quote anything I said that will demonstrate that? Or is it just some more gratuitous assertions and wishful thinking of yours? No doubt a most convincing illustration of "*learning* the truth, *seeing* it everywhere". I am crushed.

>Why don't you kick that shit out of your head? Aren't you able to or what?

My head is considerably clearer than yours, Martin.

>Scientology is bullshit, Bernie; pure fucking bullshit. It's hollow, empty, soulless crap.

Oh, thank you, Martin. *Now* I understand.

>People who cling to it become hollow, shallow, empty and meaningless,

So you say.

>so chuck it the fuck out of your brain, or be fucked.

Don't I have an option?

>Incredibly sincerely, martin.

Sincerely, Martin. To step back an reflect somewhat on your many sloppy beliefs and quick statements would do you an awful good, and may even bring your credibility scale a bit higher in this newsgroup. I am convinced you can do better than that.

>Following-up to yourself, you little puke? *Bad* sign. Bernie, take your vomit and your abuse of my name and shove it *deep* up your asshole, where it belongs, you sick little fuckwit.

>Digest this: <one-finger salute> And, please, don't forget to FOAD, asswipe.

LOL! Thanks, Martin. You really are my funny clown. I like you.

Bernie

Bernie@bernie.cncfamily.com (Bernie)

Sat, 02 Aug 1997 15:10:26 GMT

Peter:
>>>Ah. In much the same way as most communists. I take it you believe that all of the discrimination by the US government against communists was also wrong?

Bernie:
>>I do, even though we deal here with a problem from state to state (or political system) and the entry of foreign citizens. In the case of Bavaria, we deal with state to religion and of the rights of citizens within this state.

Peter:
>Yes, but I believe it went further than that. I'm pretty sure that an American with full citizenship, someone actually born in the USA for an example, who was a member of the CPUS (Communist Party of the United States) would also have been debarred from employment in any government job - this despite the fact that the CPUS had never had it's members found guilty of any sort of any espionage.

I don't know about the US scene, but they weren't debarred out because of an official state law, were they? (McCarthism apart). If, for example, the Bavarian state did not have such a law but would simply check on people to try and find out somehow if they belong to the CofS of not, it would be a different matter. As it is, that's not what they do. They simply pro-actively declare themselves against Scientologists in their very form. As a matter of fact, I think that it is a measure that is *less* effective than just checking on people. If they *really* wanted to prevent Scientologists to infiltrate the state's institutions, they would do just that. What they do is, I think, much more a PR anti-Scn propaganda tool than anything else. It certainly is useless in achieving what they claim they want to achieve doing that.

>Do I think it was wrong to discriminate against those people? In the main, yes. Not only where they actively barred from getting jobs funded by the state, but they were also effectively hounded out of jobs in the private sector as well.

>And so while I agree that such discrimination is wrong in principle, I believe that in practice it is often necessary - hence my argument that I wouldn't have a blanket ban - just a ban on them in posts where they have any chance of access toinformation of any sort.

Which is already something that narrows down the debate, and which is not what the Bavarian state does. Their measure apply to all applicants.

Sensitive tasks within state institutions already have their special measures, and it is something that concerns only those applying for these tasks and not everybody. It is something done internally, not something that would deny someone job access to public service in general (as opposed to a specific task), for which he is otherwise totally competent, on the sole ground of his belief and potential for spying. If for some reasons he doesn't fit with the criteria for the task at hand (conflict of interest, whatever), then he would just be given another job within the organization. Attribution of tasks within the state institutions are often very much an arbitrary or political matter anyway (at least in Europe).

>I don't believe that many Scientologists at all go into jobs with the intention of spying. The problem is that once they are in those jobs and Scientology realizes that they have access to information that may be of value to them, their so-called religious doctrine allows them to justify the theft of that information, and the cult's track record shows that they have no scruples whatsoever about engaging in such crimes. Their actions towards people on this newsgroup shows that these tactics are still alive and well - and why would they not be? They are 'source', surely and in light of that, it's most unlikely that any scientologist who was asked to get such information would feel able to refuse.

I could write several paragraphs on this one alone but won't for the sake of concision. I will just say that although I agree that this is a possibility, it isn't just a problem limited to Scientologists, and, mainly that the measure proposed by the Bavarian state is not addressing the problem adequately, plus it is discriminatory on all the ones who may *not* engage in these actions in the first place. I simply think that the "solution" proposed is worst than the potential problems that may arise if it wasn't enforced and if normal, internal, measures and rules were simply being applied.

>>Do you really think that every members are willfully participating in the corrupt actions of the COS? Is it your

>Not actively at every moment of every day, but they don't have to. Choosing to associate themself with such an organization is sufficient grounds to regard them as unsuitable, I believe.

YMMV.

>>experience that Scientologists are usually stupid people? What about ex-Scn? Do think Dennis Erlich, Martin Hunt, Monica Pignotti, Joe Harrington, are stupid people?

>I think that they showed a serious lack of good judgement by joining scientology. I think that they also displayed a woeful failure to go out and do the basic research on an organization that they were deciding to sell their sole to. And, yes, I think that anyone who can buy even the most fundamental parts of Hubbardism - the most innocuous Dianetic theory - has to be extremely gullible in some sense.

I would agree with gullible, in some sense. But clearly, I don't think Scientologists have a monopoly in that.

> Or do you think that the mere fact that they quit the CofS made them all of a sudden bright? Do you think John Travolta, Chick Corea, or any of the many Scn celebrities are anymore stupid than a German civil servant?

>Quite honestly, yes I do. I don't have any reason to believe that because someody can whack out a tune, or have a face that looks good on camera, that they have superior reasoning powers. Do you?

No necessarily, although I do respect those who, through their talent, are able to manage it to the top. I think that it takes more than just whack out a tune or have a face that looks good on camera. Do you see any difference between a Scientologist celebrity and a non-Scientologist one (or a Christian one, whatever)? Signs of them being "hypnotized" or other "pathological" behavior different than the other stars? (I know that you don't accept the hypnotized argument but I just use it to emphasis my point) I don't. Not for the worse nor the better. It is just a matter of individual talent, and so is their belief a matter of individual choice. I would not preclude from that alone that they would *automatically*, quasi-robotically, quasi-hypnotically, perform unethical acts dictated by the CofS.

>Perhaps you believe that Pamela Lee Anderson is more intelligent than you are?

Hey, I don't know her. Is she cute? If yes, then I think I probably would switch off my critical thinking and actually find her very intelligent :-)

>You may be right, I don't know.

>But the very fact that they *are* scienos marks them out as none too bright in my book. As ever, YMMV

And it is your right to consider them so. When the state does the same, though, I really have a problem with that.

>>A great quantity of Scientologists aren't stupid, Peter, nor are they willfully or consciously cooperating in corrupt acts. As a matter of fact, many of them have quit the CofS because they were asked to participate in or became aware of the corrupt aspect of the CofS. Do you want the Bavarian measure to be applied to these type of persons as well?

>No, I think that shows that their critical skills and ethical principles have started to function again. I'd still want to keep a very close eye on them because a Kim Baker-style flip-flop is always a risk - especially if they have access to sensitive and confidential materials.

OK. I just wish the Bavarian state would find a better way to achieve that than through a silly and discriminative measure.

My bet is that, as it is, they are going to get busted by some international human right watch organization, or even international court. What may happen then, is that, like in Lyon, the CofS may be recognized as a religion by the said court, which will turn out to be eventually another "big win" for the CofS.

All the Bavarian state wins from this measure is to gain an awfully bad reputation around the world as being hysterical, overreactive, and bigots - all the while being still unable to effectively prevent what may happen in their worst scenarios.

Anyway, thanks for your thoughts.

Bernie