Liber OZ and Christianity
sha...@my-deja.com
The Marilyn Manson thread was starting to split into another topic so I
thought I would start a new header.
Liber OZ rights also carry some extremely important responsibilities if
you're like me and read between the lines. These responsibilities
include not restricting the rights of others to enjoy their rights
under OZ.
So what happens when a religion, cult, culture, as with an individual,
violates these rights? Such as an indiviual holding an American
Passport being prevented to travel as he will to Cuba. Seems like a
clear violation.
Some common forms of Christianity are pretty vehement in their
objectives to what results in the stifling of individuals to speak as
they will. On the other hand, voluntary prayer time has been
restricted from the school systems... they are being denied the same
thing.
Who's responsibility is it to monitor behavior in accord with OZ? To
enforce punishment (or release) under OZ if its tenets are broken?
I choose to let the individual monitor themself, as I do the same for
me. If I find that a person restricts or organization impedes upon my
rights, it is up to them to deal with it. (not to say I wouldn't be
extremely vocal about it). I don't believe I have the right to kill
them without killing myself.
Thoughts?
93,93/93
Sharash
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
ghou...@my-deja.com
Ok then,
Here we go...
> The Marilyn Manson thread was starting to split into another topic so
I
> thought I would start a new header.
Damn man.. I never would have thought...
> Liber OZ rights also carry some extremely important responsibilities
if you're like me and read between the lines. These responsibilities
include not restricting the rights of others to enjoy their rights
under OZ.
Each individual's rights. That is to say, we each have these rights,
BUT, it is also up to each of us to apply them as we understand them.
Kinda like a Paradox there huh?
> So what happens when a religion, cult, culture, as with an individual,
> violates these rights? Such as an indiviual holding an American
> Passport being prevented to travel as he will to Cuba. Seems like a
> clear violation.
It is. However, it is the fact that men tend to listen to the "law
makers" and govern themselves accordingly.
It takes a lot for folks to rise up and smite the government.
Sometimes it takes a lot just for 2 people to tell each other what they
really want. Same thing, different scale.
Our rights being violated by above mentioned types? Only if we let
them, and therein lies a most difficult thing to do.
While I could try to go to Cuba, the other folks who think it is their
right to stop me, may well do so. Nothing is ever clear cut.
> Who's responsibility is it to monitor behavior in accord with OZ? To
> enforce punishment (or release) under OZ if its tenets are broken?
NO one's. It is up to each individaul to think for and govern
themselves. God forbid!
> I choose to let the individual monitor themself, as I do the same for
> me. If I find that a person restricts or organization impedes upon my
> rights, it is up to them to deal with it. (not to say I wouldn't be
> extremely vocal about it). I don't believe I have the right to kill
> them without killing myself.
If however someone or someones are busy impeding your rights, you may
try to let them know the error of their ways. As it says in Duty, we
have a responsibility to point out blatent mistakes to others, so that
they do not impede our way.
> Thoughts?
Sometimes.
93,93/93
Ghoul418
--
In Nomine Babalon
paul...@my-deja.com
93.
> So what happens when a religion, cult, culture, as with an individual,
> violates these rights? Such as an indiviual holding an American
> Passport being prevented to travel as he will to Cuba. Seems like a
> clear violation.
>
Civil disobedience is always an option. Numerous US citizens travel to
Cuba despite the ban. Theoretically, by doing so, they forfeit US
government protection if they fall afoul of the Cuban government. Not
sure what else is involved (ie. is this techncially a crime in the US?
Or is it that the State Department refuses to get involved in the
documentation issues?).
> Some common forms of Christianity are pretty vehement in their
> objectives to what results in the stifling of individuals to speak as
> they will. On the other hand, voluntary prayer time has been
> restricted from the school systems... they are being denied the same
> thing.
Yup.
> Who's responsibility is it to monitor behavior in accord with OZ? To
> enforce punishment (or release) under OZ if its tenets are broken?
In a "Thelemic state," it would be the job of goverment to intervene
when basic rights were denied the citizenry. The question - as always -
is what are the limits of individual rights and in what cases shall the
larger community...the town, the locality, the nation, etc. ...
intervene.
In an IDEAL Thelemic state, no such intervention would be required,
since each citizen would respect the rights of all others as his own.
> I choose to let the individual monitor themself, as I do the same for
> me. If I find that a person restricts or organization impedes upon my
> rights, it is up to them to deal with it. (not to say I wouldn't be
> extremely vocal about it). I don't believe I have the right to kill
> them without killing myself.
The kill-response has always seemed to call for perspective (duh). Easy
cases are those already in law: the imminent threat of deadly force
empowers the citizen to use deadly force in self-defense. Deadly force
doesn't mean that if a mugger threatens to break my leg, I can only
break his leg in return...deadly force is acceptable against any threat
of grievous bodily harm. There are whole volumes of case law on the
fine tuning.
If my right to (say) speak is denied because a newspaper doesn't run my
letter to the editor, I am not entitled to machine gun the city desk
under OZ. If my right to speak is suppressed by a vicious regime, armed
revolution is an available option under OZ, or so it seems to me.
While objecting on a number of counts to the cowardly killers who blew
up the Federal Building in OKC, my "Thelemic" objection is that they
waged war on innocent bystanders, not the Justice Department. If they'd
walked into the Hoover Building and drawn down on the FBI, I'd still
object, but for different reasons.
Be THAT as it may...BELIEF is untouchable under OZ, in my opinion.
Pretty much as it is (theoretically) under the Constitution. A citizen
is entitled to believe I worship his idea of Satan, that I am going to
hell, that I am evil evil evil. No problem. I am entitled to believe he
is hidebound, ignorant, etc. No problem.
We are BOTH constrained from infringing each other's civil rights as a
result of our beliefs (the debate as to what constitutes a civil right
to the side for now...whatever they are defined as, they are
sacrosanct). We are BOTH allowed to argue with each other by any verbal
exchange we wish to use, to present our positions publicly, etc.
It gets interesting with...he lives on Elm St. and I buy a house on
Elm. Does his right to live where will conflict with mine? If I am of a
"hostile" religion? If I am black? He is living in his comfortable
home, I show up...does he have to like it, move, or can he agitate to
prevent me from moving in, etc.?
OZ in its fullest meaning is an ideal, and like most anarchic or
libertarian (not the Party, though I actually am registered in it...in
the generic sense Jack Parsons used in "Freedom is a Two-Edged Sword")
systems, posits an enlightened and committed citizenry if it is to work
in its entirety.
Just some rambling in reponse,
Love,
Paul
sha...@my-deja.com
Thanks ghoul and paul.. I suppose both your posts clarified what I was
getting at. That Liber OZ is a self destructive loop unless tempered
with another document such as Duty.
My opinion is that Thelemites might well write their own OZ document,
each for themselves. Then logically draw out conclusions how exercising
these rights would work for (or against) them in any situation.
or is that my Virgo beating the hell out of this subject?
93,93/93
Sharash
paul...@my-deja.com
> My opinion is that Thelemites might well write their own OZ document,
> each for themselves. Then logically draw out conclusions how
exercising
> these rights would work for (or against) them in any situation.
You may recall that Brother Maroney did, over issues with both the
presentation and the old-style exclusive language. I forget if he
managed to keep it to words of one syllable, which was the exercise
Crowley was trying for with the original.
Paul
ghou...@my-deja.com
Yeah I can see it now. There would be 2000 different versions of OZ
and then the "Thelemic Fundmentalists" who wanted to keep it "pure". Oy!
Hey Shar, why don't you write your own and post it!!!!! I dare you..hehe
93 9393
Ghoul418
--
In Nomine Babalon
paul...@my-deja.com
> Yeah I can see it now. There would be 2000 different versions of OZ
> and then the "Thelemic Fundmentalists" who wanted to keep it "pure".
Oy!
Not sure 2000 personal OZs would be bad...the "fundamental" issue arose
with Brother Tim (no stranger to controversy he) in that he wanted to
use his version to fulfill the requirements of a specific degree, which
got a thumbs down.
I know he's since initiated past that point, so he must have found a
resolution.
Love,
Paul