From:    Serpens                                Area: Thelema
To:      Jonathon Blake                         23 Aug 93 18:46:32
Subject: Re: ADA AND THE O.T.O.                 UpdReq 

Jonathon -
 Smith v Oregon is the case which, argued before the Supreme Court last year, 
led to the "downgrade" of the test for state interference in a religious 
practice. Prior to the decision, the state had to demonstrate "compelling 
interest" in controlling such activity - now it is down to "legitimate 
interest."
 Smith and a co-plaintiff were...
1) Native Americans and members of the Native American Church (the one that 
uses peyote in ritual)
 2) Employed by the Oregon government in a drug councilling program.
When they tested positive for peyote, they were fired, and brought suit that 
their use of the drug, as part of their religious practice, was
protected by teh Constitution.
 So, the case wended its way up to the Supremes. Unfortunately, rather than 
refusing to hear it, upholding the lower courts (which maintained a 
compelling interest in this case, in that the state was justified in 
requiring drug councillors to be drug-free, regardless of religious tenets), 
or otherwise disposing the case without redefining the legal basis of 
government interference with religious practices, the Court redefined the 
legal test justifying such interference, and in the event, reduced the 
judicial level of scrutiny in such cases.
 There is an act before Congress (Religious Freedom Restoration Act?) which 
restores the earlier, more rigorous level of scrutiny, ie. "compelling
interest."
 Paul

718499927771849992777184999277718499927771849992777184999277718

From:    Todd Sahba                             Area: Thelema
To:      Josh Norton                            26 Aug 93 12:46:02
Subject: multiple truths                        Sent UpdReq 

Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law
JN>Heh. My main problem is that Thelema contradicts itself -- which is why
JN>I'm no longer a Thelemite. But here goes:
How does the phrase "Do what thou wilt" contradict itself?  That is
after all what Thelema means, outside of how Crowley, Rabelais or
St. Augustine interpreted it.
JN>"The word of sin is Restriction."
JN>You can see some of this happening in your own attitude in previous
JN>comments, and in Frater Almost's; you are basically saying "if he can't
JN>play by our rules, then he can't play at all." What does this have to do
JN>with encouraging people to do their will?
Hypothetical situation:  A person, I'll call him Herb, approaches me and
states that it is his will to work with me and I am to initiate him now.
It turns out that it is not my Will to work with Herb.  Which of the
following two actions is consistent with Thelema:
               A) I work with Herb becouse he wants to, despite what my
                  Will happens to be.
or             B) I don't work with Herb since it ain't my Will.
It is appropriate that you quoted "The word of sin is restriction"  Am I
to restrict my Will in the name of encouraging Herb?  If the O.T.O.
required this *then* it would be hypocritical.  It doesn't, so it's not.
Since the phrase is "Do what thou wilt" not "Do what thou wilt, as long
as you have a good reason for your will" the reasons why it's not my
Will to work with Herb are irrelavant.
Assume that I went with option B.  Herb then goes down the hall and
finds another O.T.O. member, I'll call her Barb the Thelemite.  If Barb
decides that it is her Will to work with Herb I'll have (and should
have) nothing to say about it.
Herb, Barb, and myself are all excercising what we see as our Will.
Sounds Thelemic to me.
Love is the law, love under will.
Todd
___
 X SLMR 2.1a X On the whole I'd rather be reading Proust


718499927771849992777184999277718499927771849992777184999277718