I think we're broadly in agreement here - information should be provided, to an extent. The goal is informed consent - people don't need the exact details, but they should have the opportunity to opt out of anything which one might reasonably object to in advance.
However, I accept your criticism: what if something is both importantly oathbound, AND the sort of thing some may wish to opt out of?
That's tricky. I sort-of accept the idea of previous rites as a building up of a baseline - as an experiential alternative to a written document.
I guess I'd then emphasise that initiation requires a kind of implicit, blanket consent to the experience - a bit like going to a Halloween walkthrough or an immersive play - and if that isn't the kind of person you are, then likewise this initiation (and group) is not for you.
------
At the same time, worst-case-scenario abusive environments do pretty much this. They put the frog in the water and slowly turn up the heat; Coveners are pushed slightly more each time, their loyalty tested. No one voluntarily gets into a death cult; it's an insidious, organic process which slowly makes its members accept it as normal. Similarly, no one ever willingly dates an abuser. So the idea that trust *alone* is good enough, I'm not so certain of: plenty of people do develop trust over time in people and groups which do not deserve it.
(i.e. one famous cult which ended in bloodshed had, in fact, rehearsed it many times before things ended. It started as essentially a social justice campaign, and people joined because they wanted to help the downtrodden etc. I guess a written constitution would just have been rewritten; but I like to think that reading, signing and possessing a document wakes the conscious mind, and more people might have been able to think "this death stuff isn't what I signed up for" or "this has changed since I joined", and have concrete proof of it, something physical.)
---
as ever, the real trick is "Coven with good people not monsters", but it's easier said than done.
Re: Oaths and information provision
However, I accept your criticism: what if something is both importantly oathbound, AND the sort of thing some may wish to opt out of?
That's tricky. I sort-of accept the idea of previous rites as a building up of a baseline - as an experiential alternative to a written document.
I guess I'd then emphasise that initiation requires a kind of implicit, blanket consent to the experience - a bit like going to a Halloween walkthrough or an immersive play - and if that isn't the kind of person you are, then likewise this initiation (and group) is not for you.
------
At the same time, worst-case-scenario abusive environments do pretty much this. They put the frog in the water and slowly turn up the heat; Coveners are pushed slightly more each time, their loyalty tested. No one voluntarily gets into a death cult; it's an insidious, organic process which slowly makes its members accept it as normal. Similarly, no one ever willingly dates an abuser. So the idea that trust *alone* is good enough, I'm not so certain of: plenty of people do develop trust over time in people and groups which do not deserve it.
(i.e. one famous cult which ended in bloodshed had, in fact, rehearsed it many times before things ended. It started as essentially a social justice campaign, and people joined because they wanted to help the downtrodden etc. I guess a written constitution would just have been rewritten; but I like to think that reading, signing and possessing a document wakes the conscious mind, and more people might have been able to think "this death stuff isn't what I signed up for" or "this has changed since I joined", and have concrete proof of it, something physical.)
---
as ever, the real trick is "Coven with good people not monsters", but it's easier said than done.