From: Christeos Pir Area: Thelema To: Captain Rock 10 Aug 93 09:20:40 Subject: Re: Sybil Leek UpdReq -=> Captain Rock sent a message to Christeos Pir on 06 Aug 93 15:45:47 <=- -=> Re: Re: Sybil Leek <=- Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law. CR> Damn... that's what I get... I didn't listen to Led Zep until about CR> the time of Physical Graffiti, and by then it was too late. It's never too late... that's what thrift shops and yard sales are for! Love is the law, love under will. - Christeos Pir ... The red three-angled heart hath been set up in Thy shrine; 718499927771849992777184999277718499927771849992777184999277718 From: Christeos Pir Area: Thelema To: Rose Dawn 10 Aug 93 10:17:28 Subject: Re: ADA AND THE OTO UpdReq -=> Rose Dawn sent a message to Todd Sahba on 06 Aug 93 09:19:57 <=- -=> Re: Re: ADA AND THE OTO <=- Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law. RD> But there is a huge difference between an individual with, RD> M.S. for example, and an individual who suffers from paranoid RD> schizophrenia! Wouldn't you agree? You're talking about me, aren't you? I knew it. You're spying on me through this monitor! But you can't get me, because I'm gonna pay you all back one day!!! Love is the law, love is the law. - Christeos Pir ... in the daytime I exceeded utterly the sun; 718499927771849992777184999277718499927771849992777184999277718 From: Captain Rock Area: Thelema To: Taltos 9 Aug 93 07:39:38 Subject: Re: ADA AND THE O.T.O. UpdReq Taltos has been charged with the crime of consorting with Todd Sahba. The evidence: Ta> I do believe that the O.T.O. would be considered a religious Ta> entity, therefore, the ADA does not apply to us. Why not? I believe that legally, a church is just about anything that calls itself one. It has to be that way in order to keep lawmakers from defining the word "religion", which would lead to a state church, and penalties for "criminal worship evasion" imposed on those who did not attend. Hold weekly meetings, whether to discuss methods of attainment, or to drink dark beverages and play cards. Do that and you'll be entitled to the same legal considerations as any church. 718499927771849992777184999277718499927771849992777184999277718 From: Rose Dawn Area: Thelema To: Christeos Pir 9 Aug 93 08:20:32 Subject: Re: L'ARGOT UpdReq Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law. > Gee whiz, if you're gonna beat yourself up over this, at least wait > until I feel insulted... yer gonna make me feel guilty for not > being hurt! Ah well--vos salopes qu'on leur foute des baffes de temps en temps! I'm boringly didactic enough about Skt., nevermind Francaise, mon copain. > insulted and blamed for society's ills -including most of the > crimes > that we not only abhor, but know are usually perpetrated by people > of > the same religious beliefs the author is upholding. All in all, a > nasty, lying, and disgusting piece of offal, made the worse because > people believe it, and use it to justify discrimination against > pagans and occultists. Hmmm...I think I'll leave it on the shelf with the rest of the "classics." Love is the law, love under will. Virasanthi! RD 718499927771849992777184999277718499927771849992777184999277718 From: Serpens Area: Thelema To: Kenneth Freeman 9 Aug 93 10:18:48 Subject: Re: THE G.D. UpdReq Kenneth - "He had a pretty gift for watercolors...some thought it stronger than his verses." (g) That's our Al. Paul 718499927771849992777184999277718499927771849992777184999277718 From: Rose Dawn Area: Thelema To: Todd Sahba 10 Aug 93 09:25:58 Subject: Re: ADA AND THE OTO Rec'd UpdReq Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law. > However, this thread started by a suggestion that the OTO should do > a > better job of "screening people with mental problems". That to me > sounds dangerously like a special provision for one group, based on > someones (lay or profesional) diagnosis of a 'mental problem'. Let Are you positive that's what the suggestion was? Just off the top (I think the original message may have scrolled off), I seem to recall that the individual who wished the Order was able to screen people out was not referring to any type of mental illness or physical disability, but rather to an issue of character. Didn't the situation referred to involve people stealing from the Temple or ripping other individuals off? Unless the 'disability' is kleptomania I wouldn't think it'd have zip to do with one's qualities as a person. I also see the screening process as taking a far less ominous tone that you do. If I wanted to ensure that the person/people I was, as an example, inviting to stay in my home, were trustworthy, I would 'screen' them by speaking to them, meeting them, and getting to know them as individuals, rather than by giving them a battery of psychological tests. I'm not arguing that people who have had psychological problems can't be fine individuals, of good character, who overcome those problems and are able to be an asset to any organization, or that their fitness should be judged on problems they may have had in the past. Who *hasn't* faced adversity at some point in their lives? I simply remembered the description of 'the ones who should be screened out' a bit differently than you did apparently. > I would still argue against initiators discriminating as > individuals, > but I couldn't argue that anyone should be forced to perform an > initiation they didn't want to. So how would you solve the inherent dichotomy of this type of situation? Love is the law, love under will. 718499927771849992777184999277718499927771849992777184999277718 From: Rose Dawn Area: Thelema To: Todd Sahba 10 Aug 93 10:12:20 Subject: Re: DISCRIMINATION Rec'd UpdReq Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law. > FA>What I refer to hear is the "Mentally Unbalanced." Those > FA>persons who shouldn't take inits. because they simply _CAN > FA>NOT HANDLE THEM. > > If someone with a charter to initiate and an individual over > eighteen who had not committed any *ACTION* that put them into > ill-report agreed to an initiation do you suggest that the Order > have a > blanket policy that would stand in their way? If not we have no > disagreement. OK, maybe this is where the confusion came in! I didn't think that Frater Almost was referring to individuals who had been diagnosed with some sort of psychological illness in the above text, but rather to those who are *at* *the* *present* *time* unstable, possibly confused and/or labile, etc. Would agreeing to initiate such an individual against the better judgment of the local members and initiators do ANYONE any good? Not simply the Order as a whole, or the local body, but the person him/herself. I don't think that's overly judgmental; I feel it's a legitimate--and compassionate--concern. If an individual is truly unstable and could be psychologically 'harmed' or further confused by certain actions, whether that individual is mentally ill or simply not mature enough, I don't feel it would be for anyone's benefit to ignore the ramifications and proceed as if they didn't exist. I don't think a blanket policy would or should be necessary. Contact with other members ought to suffice. Would you think it a terrible thing to allow an unstable individual to become an associate member but not to initiate if, in the judgment of those in a position to interact with that individual, s/he wasn't 'ready' for initiation? Isn't IGNORING the possibility of serious problems just as potentially harmful as being overly concerned with the remotest possibility that someone may be unsuited to membership? > FA>_ Have you ever known anyone who has been > FA>diagnosed with Cleptomania? How about a legitimate > FA>Pyromaniac? What about a person who suffers from a > FA>condition who-ich makes them lie constantly? I do know > FA>such people. I met them working in a clinic situation. > > Yes, as an advocate for people labled mentaly ill when someone so > diagnosed is discriminated against it's my job to represent them. You're not seriously advocating that a department store be forced to employ a diagnosed Kleptomaniac; or a gas station employ a Pyromaniac, are you?? The subject line reads "Discrimination." What if we took the word out of its forensic context and applied it as a human quality--i.e., the ability to discriminate between situations and circumstances? As in: to distinguish, to discern. It's another buzz-word that's taken on negative connotations due to popular use, when in actuality, it CAN be a positive, normal, and necessary process used all the time by many mature, intelligent and sincere individuals to good result. > I've > met individuals with all sorts of lables and would feel more > comfortable > with the people I work with than with those who fit the public's > perception of normalcy. And you've made that judgment based on your frequent interaction with these individuals. Although you do seem to evince a sort of 'reverse discrimination' here--I'm sure you don't mean to suggest that EVERYONE who meet's the public's definition of 'normal' is in some way less fit than those with psychiatric diagnoses! Haven't you also met and worked with individuals who you would NOT feel comfortable developing intimate relationships with? (by intimate, I don't mean 'sexual' but close, with shared trust and knowledge that you can depend on one another) > As for what anyone would get from an initiation that's up to > initiates > in general - not for you or I to decide (certainly not based on > someones > diagnosis). As for the Order, it will gain by the contribution that > comes with diversity (so far in fact it has since there are many I agree that what an individual derives from ANY experience is up to the individual. However, when you say it's not for you or (I) to decide, you seem to imply something more than that, although I could be reading more into your words than you intended. A Thelemic organization is, naturally, quite concerned with rights--but let's not forget that 'rights' by their nature imply responsibilities as well. The responsibility to consider carefully whether any certain individual is sincere, understands what s/he is espousing a commitment to, and will have the ability to follow through in SOME degree, is an extremely heavy one. I don't think that initiators, other initiates, or the heads of local Order bodies take this responsibility lightly or make snap judgments, but I do think it deserves consideration. Possibly certain diagnoses would tend to make those in positions of responsibility initially more leery of those who've been diagnosed, but with TIME, that person's "true colors" are bound to manifest, for better or worse. If it takes time to get to know someone well enough to feel competent to judge his/her sincerity and ability to fully understand and put into action certain basics, who is harmed? I may have to wait a bit longer and interact more frequently with other members than I'd prefer--nothing wrong with developing patience! > exist to handle such matters. If however we judge people based on > someones assesment of them (called a diagnosis cause it sounds more > scientific) I would wonder who is capable of making such assesments. > I > for one am very wary of anyone who claims they can. But don't we *all* judge others based on our personal assessments of them? You mentioned judging people based upon their actions, and in that we're in full agreement. But those actions are usually what make up the basis for the personal assessment. Past problems can indeed be overcome. Indeed, the 'trial by fire' often ends up making the individual stronger and better equipped to handle day-to-day frustrations. However, I would--PERSONALLY--be much more cautious in accepting an individual with a long history of violence than an individual with a history of depression into my personal circle of friends. Love is the law, love under will. 718499927771849992777184999277718499927771849992777184999277718 From: Rose Dawn Area: Thelema To: Todd Sahba 10 Aug 93 10:50:06 Subject: Re: ADA AND THE OTO Rec'd UpdReq Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law. > 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. Again, I think our understanding of what the post entailed differs. I took the words about screening people out, not to refer specifically to those with any particular physical or emotional disability, but rather to those whose subsequent actions could be harmful to themselves, the Order, or other individuals. I don't think a blanket policy of screening would be necessary, but again disagree with your implication that it would be impossible to make accurate judgments about other individuals. There is a HUGE area between accepting every person who expresses a desire to take initiations and a wide-scale ban on people based solely on diagnostic criteria. Who would make that assessment? The initiators would play a part, certainly, but I think the assessment would hopefully be made long before such a step was taken which, I believe, was the position the original post intended to express. The members of the local organization the individual wishes to affiliate with would certainly have an opportunity to interact with and get to know that individual on a fairly thorough basis before s/he actually initiates. Why would they NOT be qualified to make that assessment? On a personal level, I certainly have the right--and the responsibility--to get to know individuals, make judgments as to whether they're people I want to have a close association with, and act accordingly. It's true that no one can fully know another's mental/emotional state, but I believe that spending time with someone, talking about matters from the mundane to the sublime, working rituals with them, and observing their actions would provide an extremely accurate assessment of that person, *as* *an* *individual*. > 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. On second thought, you're correct. Individuals with the same diagnosis, be it mental, emotional, or physical, react to situations in very different ways, and hold quite diverse opinions about any given subject. Still, I chose 'paranoid schizophrenia' as an example, as opposed to 'psychosis' in general, for a reason. If mental illness exists and can be controlled by medication, therapy, or a combination thereof--or an act of individual Will, although that's obviously much more difficult in some cases than others--then it becomes, IMO, a non-issue, or one area among many by which to form an opinion of that individual. But the implications of the example I chose--paranoid schizophrenia--would be an inability to distinguish between internal and external reality and an intense feeling of isolation combined with the belief that others are out to deliberately sabotauge or harm you. Wouldn't such a world-view, prima facie, be a warning bell to those considering close association with such an individual? I'm not arguing that they be excluded entirely from all interaction; just that much caution is necessary before automatic acceptance, not simply into an initiatory organization, but on a very personal level as well. > Of > course jerks appear everywhere, diagnosis is no predictor of their > appearance. Lack of diagnosis certainly isn't! ;> Don't misunderstand me, I'm not in any way advocating excluding individuals/groups based on *a* diagnosis. But *certain* diagnoses would entail getting to know the individual more thoroughly than others. I'd much rather have an individual diagnosed as bi-polar living next door than a pyromaniac, or a sadistic sociopath. If I wouldn't want someone in my living room, should I welcome them into my Temple? Love is the law, love under will. 718499927771849992777184999277718499927771849992777184999277718