From: Rose Dawn Area: Thelema To: Todd Sahba 6 Aug 93 09:19:56 Subject: Re: ADA AND THE OTO Rec'd UpdReq Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law. Todd! > Under the ADA (Unfortunately I don't have the cites sitting in front > of > me now) religious organizations are not allowed to discriminate > *within > their membership* based on a disability. The Act was drafted with > mainstream religions in mind that don't actualy have initiations, > however I do believe that a formal condition against membership (or > any > policy that had the effect of such) on those covered by the Act > would at least be arguably a violation. I would personally be interested in reading the cites themselves. I know that, for example, employers are constrained by the ADA; however, no employer could be required to hire or promote an individual whose disability *prevents him/her from performing the duties of the job*. How could a religion, mainstream or otherwise, be FORCED to accept an individual? We *do* still have the separtion of church and state. Admittedly, the line gets a bit smudged here and there--but it is still in effect. Religious organizations are free to set requirements for membership, and free to reject individuals who do not meet those requirements. Mainstream religions could be said to have something similar to initiations--Baptisms, confirmations, Bar Mitzvahs, whatever. I don't think the government could possibly FORCE the Catholic Church, or the Church of Christ, to baptise someone who didn't fit the requirements for such. Isn't that the real bottom line? Not *refusing initiation* to someone solely on the basis of a disability, but concern as to whether and to what extent said disability would affect that individual within a specigic magicko-spiritual system. > More importantly I believe it would be a huge mistake for the OTO to > bar > entry (or place barriers to entry) on a group of people simply > becouse > of their disability. IMHO it would go counter to everything the 93 What specific disability are we talking about here? I don't think the O.T.O. would bar entry on ANY "group" simply because of *a* disability. But there is a huge difference between an individual with, M.S. for example, and an individual who suffers from paranoid schizophrenia! Wouldn't you agree? Love is the law, love under will. 718499927771849992777184999277718499927771849992777184999277718 From: Rose Dawn Area: Thelema To: Donald C. Ives 6 Aug 93 09:30:20 Subject: Re: LOL ;) UpdReq Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law. Don! > LOL can mean a few things. "Laughing Out Load" is one. I've > been acussed of LOL " Lurking On Line". But, when I sign of to > certain people it means "Lot's Of Love". That's what it means to > Kayla from me. LOL Aha! ;> I've never seen LOL as anything other than Laughing Out Loud. I wondered why you signed off "Take care...LOL" a couple times. Thanks for the explanation. It seemed at first as though you were laughing at the idea that someone such as Kayla (or myself) could possibly "take care." Although, speaking personally, that explanation might be a bit more apt than I'd like to admit. ;> Love is the law, love under will. (LOL is the law...?) RD 718499927771849992777184999277718499927771849992777184999277718 From: Captain Rock Area: Thelema To: Grendel Grettisson 6 Aug 93 15:38:02 Subject: Re: THE G.D. UpdReq Grendel Grettisson has been charged with the crime of consorting with Captain Rock. The evidence: GG> Go for it but Crowley's own view is far short of historically GG> accurate or unbiased. This is, after all, the man that thought GG> Yeats hated him because of his ability as a poet. Crowley's view is what I have, and for all I know, maybe Yeats DID hate him. If you have evidence to the contrary, I'm interested. Rock 718499927771849992777184999277718499927771849992777184999277718 From: Captain Rock Area: Thelema To: Christeos Pir 6 Aug 93 15:45:46 Subject: Re: Sybil Leek UpdReq Christeos Pir has been charged with the crime of consorting with Captain Rock. The evidence: CP> Oh yes. My original copy had "Do What Thou Wilt" on one side, CP> and "So CP> Mote It Be" on the other. They were inscribed in the vinyl on the CP> runoff portion just outside the label, where the serial numbers CP> are CP> scratched before the labels are put on. Damn... that's what I get... I didn't listen to Led Zep until about the time of Physical Graffiti, and by then it was too late. Rock 718499927771849992777184999277718499927771849992777184999277718 From: Captain Rock Area: Thelema To: Josh Norton 6 Aug 93 15:49:40 Subject: Re: the g.d. UpdReq Josh Norton has been charged with the crime of consorting with Captain Rock. The evidence: JN> Don't you find it odd how every magician who refused to accept JN> Crowley's JN> spiritual superiority ended up being branded a "failed" initiate? Actually, I've never taken such a survey. 718499927771849992777184999277718499927771849992777184999277718 From: Taltos Area: Thelema To: Todd Sahba 8 Aug 93 03:12:38 Subject: ADA AND THE O.T.O. Rec'd UpdReq Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law. After seeing some of the posts regarding how the ADA might affect decisions made within the OTO regarding new initiates, I downloaded the complete text of the Americans with Disabilities Act from Compuserve, and did a text search on 'CHURCH' and 'RELIG'. The following 2 sections are the only things that came up: Select text from the Americans with Disabilities Act SEC. 103. DEFENSES (c) Religious Entities. (1) In general. This title shall not prohibit a religious corporation, association, educational institution, or society from giving preference in employment to individuals of a particular religion to perform work connected with the carrying on by such corporation, association, educational institution, or society of its activities. (2) Religious tenets requirement. Under this title, a religious organization may require that all applicants and employees conform to the religious tenets of such organization. SEC. 307. EXEMPTIONS FOR PRIVATE CLUBS AND RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATIONS. The provisions of this title shall not apply to private clubs or establishments exempted from coverage under title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000a(e)) or to religious organizations or entities controlled by religious organizations, including places of worship. I do believe that the O.T.O. would be considered a religious entity, therefore, the ADA does not apply to us. Love is the law, love under will. Taltos 718499927771849992777184999277718499927771849992777184999277718 From: Todd Sahba Area: Thelema To: Rose Dawn 9 Aug 93 13:08:00 Subject: Re: ADA AND THE OTO Sent UpdReq Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law. RD> Religious organizations are free to set requirements for membership, RD>and free to reject individuals who do not meet those RD>requirements. Mainstream religions could be said to have RD>something similar to initiations--Baptisms, confirmations, RD>Bar Mitzvahs, whatever. I don't think the government could RD>possibly FORCE the Catholic Church, or the Church of RD>Christ, to baptise someone who didn't fit the requirements RD>for such. Actualy I was wrong about the ADA. Another person posted the cites I didn't have with me, and in fact religious organizations are specificaly excempted from the public accomadations section of the ADA. Next time I check cites before posting a thing. However, while it is important to discuss secular realities and what they do or (aparently) don't require, I do want to stress that my main concern goes to what the OTO chooses to establish as policy. As far as I know presently there is no policy limiting access to initiations based on any (physical or psychological) disability. This, IMHO is a good thing, my concern stemed from a suggestion that the OTO "do a better job screening people with mental disabilities". This would create a barrier to membership for people based on someones assesment (lay or professional) of their mental state. Who would make that assesment, who is qualified to? Certainly no initiator should be required to initiate someone they don't want to, but that is a very different thing than a policy of screening. RD>What specific disability are we talking about here? I don't think the O.T.O. RD>would bar entry on ANY "group" simply because of *a* RD>disability. But there is a huge difference between an RD>individual with, M.S. for example, and an individual who RD>suffers from paranoid schizophrenia! Wouldn't you agree? Yes, there is a big differance. Just as there is a huge differance between two people diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia, or any other diagnosis (physical or psychological). A diagnosis of M.S., a diagnosis of paranoid schizophrenia, a diagnosis of cancer, or the lack of any diagnosis to date doesn't realy tell me a lot about someone. There are a host of very important issues that anyone with a diagnosis of anything has to deal with (medicaly, theraputicaly). None of those issues need have anything to do with initiation. Overall people with labels of "chronic and persistant mental ilness" have proven to be people I would place far more trust in than most others who haven't. Of course jerks appear everywhere, diagnosis is no predictor of their appearance. Love is the law, love under will Todd ___ X SLMR 2.1a X On the whole I'd rather be reading Proust 718499927771849992777184999277718499927771849992777184999277718 From: Todd Sahba Area: Thelema To: Taltos 9 Aug 93 13:10:02 Subject: Ada And The O.T.O. Sent UpdReq Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law. TA>Select text from the Americans with Disabilities Act TA>SEC. 103. DEFENSES TA>(c) Religious Entities. TA> (1) In general. This title shall not prohibit a religious TA>corporation, association, educational institution, or society from TA>giving preference in employment to individuals of a particular TA>religion to perform work connected with the carrying on by such TA>corporation, association, educational institution, or society of TA>its activities. TA> (2) Religious tenets requirement. Under this title, a religious TA>organization may require that all applicants and employees conform TA>to the religious tenets of such organization. TA>SEC. 307. EXEMPTIONS FOR PRIVATE CLUBS AND RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATIONS. TA>The provisions of this title shall not apply to private clubs or TA>establishments exempted from coverage under title II of the Civil TA>Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000a(e)) or to religious organizations TA>or entities controlled by religious organizations, including places TA>of worship. TA>I do believe that the O.T.O. would be considered a TA>religious entity, therefore, the ADA does not apply to us. You are right, I was aparently wrong. That'll teach me, next time I check cites first, post next. Love is the law, love under will Todd ___ X SLMR 2.1a X On the whole I'd rather be reading Proust 718499927771849992777184999277718499927771849992777184999277718