Skip to comments.Camp for Nude Witches Fights Closing
Posted on 11/28/2001 5:56:58 AM PST by Cagey
LEAVENWORTH, Kan. (Reuters) - A Kansas retreat that caters to witches and pagan rituals is fighting for survival amid community talk that naked witches may be weaving magical spells in the moonlight.
The owners of the Gaea Retreat Center, a 168-acre camp west of Kansas City that is home to such annual events as the Gaea Goddess Gathering and a "Heartland Pagan Spiritual event" filed suit on Monday in Leavenworth County District Court after county commissioners effectively put the retreat out of business by denying it a renewal of its land use permit.
"They say they're afraid of us, what we do here, the sound of drums. ... They don't know how lucky they are to have us as their neighbors," caretaker Wanda Roths said. "We're very quiet, very peaceful. There has never been any trouble out here."
The Leavenworth County commissioners denied the renewal for the permit, issued six years ago, in late October after a community petition raised accusations that the retreat fostered public nudity, pedophilia, and illegal drug and alcohol use. Neighbors also expressed concern about devil worship.
The suit claims the commissioners' denial is illegal and unconstitutional, as well as violating laws protecting freedom of religious expression and practice.
Lawyers for the county declined to comment.
The retreat denies any illegal activity, and county officials say there is no evidence of any.
Roths said there are "clothing optional" locations on the retreat grounds, and witches, Wiccans and other pagans do sometimes hold nighttime meetings around bonfires. But the retreat at times also attracts more traditional religious followers, she said.
Gaea, which means "Mother Earth," offers sanctuary to a variety of alternative religions and lifestyles, according to Roths. "We accept anybody," she said.
Before its current incarnation, the sprawling site was a church camp.
It's Beltane, I've studied it to death. Did you ever compare the Goddess to Mary of the Catholic Church. Yes paganism infiltrated Christianity a long time ago and it predates Christianity. Uh, this just in. So in your religious view antiquity makes right? That is about as valid as any other reason, except one. Which one is true?
Okay, now I know you're pulling my chain. Weren't you just bragging to another poster how much you love homosexuals further on up the thread? So let me get this straight---you really love homosexuals but you damn sure aren't going to stick up for them if they've got a problem with the government?Saying that I expect persecution from the government and saying that I don't look to them for support is not getting righteous and indignant. When I see the government actually do something right in a higher view I'm not going to drop to a libertarian world view and defend everyone's right to do what ever they want.
On the odd chance you're actually serious:
What part of this phrase:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"
fouls you up? Why can't you understand that simple phrase? It's not a "libertarian"-exclusive view, unless you want to concede that the Founders were actually libertarians.
That's because we burned them all.
You don't get the baby in the street analogy do you? If I love my child I will rescue him from the street even though he may be mad at me. If I love queers and witches I won't ignore the fact that they are playing in the street. Guess what, there really is a God and He is the God of the bible!! There really is a hell and it's not a place to ignore!
You also seem to be a little confused about the roll of congress and the rights of states and cities and the fact that this is a republic. You also seem to be confused about the fact that the government is made up of people and ALL people have their religious views.
I guarantee that the ears of every weirdo within a 1000 mile radius just perked up.
And if members of another religion (perhaps Islam?) happen to consider you as a Christian to be the "baby in the street", then it would make equal sense for them to "rescue" you from that danger, even though you "may be mad at" them for doing so.
Gee, that's certainly a recipe for peaceful coexistence, isn't it?
Trust me, they are most likely doing you a favor. Do you want to see a bunch of nude Hillarys?"
Oh, if only the "womyn" who went to camps such as this were only as ugly as Hillary.
They are far, far uglier than that.
Think of Betty Freidan in the nude. Or Helen Thomas.
Apologies to any who might have just lost their last meal.
Your baby-in-the-street analogy doesn't hold water, and here's the reason why: worshiping God, Allah, a rock, Jupiter, or a tree is not analogous to something innocent standing in the middle of the road about to be hit by a car.You also seem to be a little confused about the roll of congress and the rights of states and cities and the fact that this is a republic. You also seem to be confused about the fact that the government is made up of people and ALL people have their religious views.
Honestly, why can't you get it? It's not your duty nor is it your responsibility nor is it your birthright as a citizen of the United States to "save the souls" of those people you think need saving. The First Amendment says as much: we're not going to push a religion on you, nor are we going to forbid you from practicing whatever religion have.
It couldn't possibly be simpler. Everything else truly is irrelevant.
Really, how so, Chief---when I can understand the First Amendment and you can't? When I can understand the legal difference between public and private behavior and you can't . . .
Well, I don't know if it's that, or because Jim keeps letting me back in after he bans me. I must be a source of amusement, huh?
(Actually, I haven't been banned since June...I must be losing my touch)
|I heard about the banning frenzy, but wasn't aware that folks such as yourself had been affected to such a degree. It used to be that only the most streme of the extreme got booted around here. I guess for a while there was something of a crackdown...|
I hope so.
In my opinion, this does make you an ignorant prude.
The "prude" label I'll gladly accept, much as if it came from Larry Flynt himself. Thank you.
However, the "ignorant" part puzzles me. If it's not too much trouble, what am I presumed to be "ignorant" of?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.