From: gd8f@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Gregory  Dandulakis)
Subject: Re: Stating relegion on IDs (Re: W/E News)
Organization: University of Virginia
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 19:33:45 GMT

In article <1992Dec24.091758@imhfhp16.epfl.ch> gavrila@imhfhp16.epfl.ch (Spyros Gavrilakis) writes:
>
>The essential qualification for being in the EC is high democratic
>standards. The rules of membership are obligatory but membership
>is optional.


 Since when stating your religion, *if you want*, in the IDs is 
 an undemocratic principle? Let me give you an example. Here in the 
 US the churches operate as any other non-profit organization. This
 requires to keep full data about their members and money which they
 contribute to the operation of it. Several times FBI checks relevant
 information for various security reasons. Both keeping the church registers
 and making them accessible to security agents is *required*. Do you
 see any contradiction with the american political system values?


>> Didn't Danmark cause friction for the very existence of EC?
>
>No. Everybody in the EC gives Danmark top marks for their compliance
>with the Treaty of Rome and the Commission directives. What the
>Danes did was to reject the follow-up agreement (Maastricht).


Spyros, we are talking about causing friction with the EC, as your
suggestion was about; If a country wants to block any further
evolution of it, is not friction? The whole Europe is upset
with them, because of their extreme anti-German fears, and you want
to reduce this into a legalistic argument? In any case, I'm sure
that the EC law is not opposite to stating religion in the IDs.
Otherwise anybody can object to it by making an appeal to the EC courts.
(Actually Danmark even though in papers is one of the most 
democratic states, in practice its citizens are one of the most
racists and xenophobic in Europe- several reports and personal
witnesses prove this).


>> Didn't everybody bend in their demands?
>
>No, the treaty was not renegotiated. They just got an exemption
>from some aspects of the Maastricht treaty. This has been in
>recognition of the lukewarm support for the treaty in other
>countries like France and Germany. Danmark is also an exemplary
>member and its attitude is considered to be typical of all other
>Scandinavians all of whom are about become members.


 OK. If you think that the others didn't bend in their demands,
 then I quess is a matter of perception...


>> When EC guarantees the Greek territory against any other state,
>
>This will not happen in the foreseeable future. It is even less
>likely since the end of the cold war. But, by allowing Greece
>membership (ie veto), the west E. countries have done the next
>best thing: they have given Greece diplomatic clout that she
>could never attain by herself and generous economic support.


You've got to be kidding me; They accepted us in the WEU after
making Turkey an associated member, and specifically changing
the article 5 such as to not give any WEU right to intervene
in conflicts between members and assoc. members. Thus making
our entrence into the WEU wrt to Turkey (practically the only security
threat for Greece) a totally useless agreement.

As far as a "generous economic support", I hope that you don't
believe it. No intelligent person can ever believe that a country
is giving alms to an other country. The direct financial support
of the EC in Greece comes as a realization that the extra benefits
from a common market will go all in the stronger countries if you
leave only the forces of the free market to work. In the battle
for a more balanced share of the *enlargement of the EC GNP*
because of integrated markets comes all this "support".
All the countries will benefit from the EC, but how much each
of them, it's a matter of bargaining.


>> then Greece can bow to EC demands wrt her security.
>
>The EC was never a defense-orientated organisation. This
>demand is out of place within the EC.


For this exactly reason, EC permits member states not to follow
some EC legislation for security sake (eg the right of foreigners  
to buy land next to the borders, or the right to own monopolistic
sea-transportation in the Aegean sea).


>> An identity card is a civil document. A document which creates
>> differentiation between citizens and not citizens (eg permanent
>> residents).
>
>Not so. In every EC country the aliens are required to have an
>ID - even when the citizen do not have (e.g. UK).


May be you misunderstood my argument. Through the ID, people are
differentiated based on their citizen-non citizen status etc; a
category of differentiation, on top of the others, can be religion
affiliation.


>> My argument is:
>
>>1. On philosophical grounds, is that the state discriminates
>>   based on (eg) place of birth; then why not on crucial importance's
>>   for its security philosophical beliefs.
>
>Very obscure, Gregory. What does the above mean?


Certainly obscure. As everything based on philosophical grounds
(eg naturally existing human rights). But it is a logical argument.
If it doesn't satisfy inner desires, that's an other legitimate
objection.


>>2. On legal grounds, the constitution states that Greece is a predominantly
>>   Orthodox state.
>
>There are other countries with state relegion which do not oblige
>their citizen to have it officialy recorded. Where is the logical
>necessity?


It's not a necessity. It's only a "legally acceptable" logic.
And as I said: It is NOT required; it is just suggested.
Even though, I have to accept, in practical matters, 
in some occasions, it can make quite a difference.

>> Freedom of religion is an other matter unrelated to
>> security concerns (in which case the individual is subjected to state's
>> will (as defined by the principle of democratic representation))
>
>>3. On practical grounds, countries have been created based on religious
>>   beliefs (eg Israel, Pakistan);
>
>Greece is not one of them. Since you have put so much effort arguing
>about history (with A.T. Fear) your point 3 is quite unexpected.


I cann't follow the argument. Could you please elaborate?


>> Turkey IS acting as a "protector" of the Balkan muslims.
>
>Turkey is a powerful country and wants to throw its weight around
>whatever the excuse. It is only fear of losing favour with the
>West that prevent her from doing so.


So what? Is this an argument or just a statement reenforcing my arguments.
In any case Turkey is not a powerfull country. Without
any infrastructure, any tradition of modern enterprise,
and with almost no natuaral resources, it's by default
a third world country. With respect the West restraining
it, it's exactly the other way around: because it's useful
only as a military base for the West, they have protected
her from being further dissolved into the constituent ethnic
lines, so far.


>> Till all the relevant dangers disappear, then Greek
>> state owes to protect itself.
>
>Everybody will agree with this. But what has the above to
>do with the stating relegion on the IDs?


In principle all the greek citizens can take any public office
and have the same freedoms. But I don't think that giving
to Mr Sadic the title of the General in Command of the greek
armed forces is possible; the same for an agent of the secret
police. IDs can help to find out this very easily in the very
beginning before further complications. And as I may remind
you, the ID can be inspected only by people who are legally
authorized. Not everybody can ask for it; otherwise commits
a violation of civil rights. (In more casual uses of IDs, one
can use other related documents; eg driver's licence).


>>Gr
>
>>PS: The most "strange" appplication form seen so far was that from the
>>    "Onassis Cardiac Surgery Center". Not only citizenship and religion
>>     were asked, but also nationality...!
>
>Not as odd as you suggest. Cardiac surgery is risky and
>if the patient dies all this info will be necessary. As far as
>relegion is concerned, this is also essential as some sects
>do not allow blood transfusions or organ transplan or have very
>unusual rites for their dead.


I'm not sure that we understand the same thing from your words here.
Do you suggest that philosophical beliefs do make a difference
wrt choosing employees?


>Here is why stating relegion on IDs is frowned upon :
>The priciple is that religious belief is matter of conscience
>(even though most of us bother little about it) whose freedom
>will be compromised when citizens are required to register
>their beliefs. Freedom of conscience is now taken as a basic
>human right whose absence would stigmatize any country as
>undemocratic. A good analogy would be the  obligation to
>state how one voted in previous elections. Can there be
>freedom then? Certainly not.


All these are compromised. When I came in the US in 1989, I had
to sign a paper which made me to *publicly deny* that I never was
an organised communist. As you can see security reasons override some
human rights in some occasions. That's my whole argument. And EC
does accept this argument too in many similar cases.


Gr

PS: If you want my philosophical beliefs (very-very long term goals)
    I can express them. But these are totally irrelevant to the every
    day life politics (where the succesful compromises is the desired
    goal).
    Did you know that in the US, last summer Congress passed legislation
    whic REQUIRES from all the telephone companies to produce ONLY
    TAPPABLE telecommunication systems because of security reasons?
    (To make all the communications accessible to FBI and CIA inquiries).
    And on top of this; the law requires the extra cost for operating
    this kind of communications (about one billion dollars a year) should
    be charged to the users ...:-).
    The interesting thing though here is thet the media give wide publicity
    only in benign controversies; crucial legislation like the above, is
    burried into small circulation magazines for specialists.. :-). While
    in subordinate states this is impossible!
Newsgroups: soc.culture.greek