PDA

View Full Version : Annoyed after just getting back from the trail



JoshL
08-09-2012, 20:09
Just got back from a 2 night trip of the Standing Indian Loop trail. On the second day I stopped at Standing Indian Shelter pretty early around 3:00 pm and set up camp, hung my bear bag anticipating the storm that was rolling in. Well the bottom dropped out and there was a terrible storm around 5 and I was by myself in the shelter. At around 5:00 I saw a group of kids running up out of the rain and more and more kept coming, about 40 all in all.

Now I certainly don't fault my fellow hikers for coming in and seeking shelter in a rain storm. What I do mind is that a couple of them ran off with my hiking poles to mark the trail for their other friends (luckily someone picked them up and brought them back) and then for the next 2 hours with standing room only in the shelter I was treated to what amounts to a sermon as this was a church youth group. A bunch of the kids were initiating into whatever their group was and they recited some mantra "I am not ashamed of the gospel of christ...etc." After about an hour of this I finally got fed up and went and crawled in my tent where I could still hear them going on for the next half hour. When they finally headed on they left behind some plastic ponchos, a sock, and other various trash and the entire shelter was muddy and wet.

I don't have a problem with a church youth group taking a trip on the A.T., however not everyone on the trail shares your beliefs, nor do they want to listen to your religious service at the shelter. You may not be ashamed of your lord and savior, but you should be ashamed of taking over a shelter, leaving it a mess, and giving no consideration to your fellow hikers.

Sorry, rant off.

Lone Wolf
08-09-2012, 20:12
so lesson learned? DO NOT stay in shelters

kayak karl
08-09-2012, 20:45
yea :) a read to the part where you "crawled in my tent" LOL. i would of been in there right off.

The Cleaner
08-09-2012, 21:06
You should have asked them if they wanted some of your whiskey or ask if they have any rolling papers.Then tell them you have some great weed and like to party hard....

SassyWindsor
08-09-2012, 21:16
Light up a cigar, pop-a-top, take off the boots and relax. Tell'em Satan has the shelter reserved and should arrive any minute.:D

But seriously, don't complain if you stay in shelters because this is what you get, sometimes a lot worse. Satan could really show up at the shelter.

daddytwosticks
08-10-2012, 16:11
That section seems like a favorite for large groups to hike. :)

Lando11
08-10-2012, 16:23
so lesson learned? DO NOT stay in shelters
+1 to that

the goat
08-10-2012, 16:34
so lesson learned? DO NOT stay in shelterswhat he said

TD55
08-10-2012, 17:34
so lesson learned? Do not stay in shelters
...and run way from cults

jbwood5
08-10-2012, 18:15
That section seems like a favorite for large groups to hike. :)

They were most likely set up in the group campground below the Kimsey Creek trail. Any one of the shelters around Standing Indian CG can be invaded like that. I wouldn't have been happy either and would have done the same... go up up on the ridge and find a flat spot for a tent. That is what I usually do on that section... but the shelter is kind of nice when you arrive in the pouring rain.

Datto
08-11-2012, 02:15
September 2 - Vermont Route 12 ... in Vermont-New Hampshire
Milepoint 1702.6, 146 days since start of hike, averaging 11.7 miles per day

Last night when I'd arrived at camp, I discovered a tree stump with a board across the top of it directly in front of the shelter.

I asked the other hikers, "What is this...a pulpit?"

No one knew for sure.

Not yet having taken off my backpack, I approached the pulpit and in my very best Reverend Velveeta voice said, "My friendzzz...I come to you-ah tonight...heavy with pack."

One thru-hiker sitting on a nearby log said, "Yea-yah."

The Reverend Ra-ru joined me at the pulpit, pointing his finger at the audience of thru-hikers and said, "And I'm here this evening to tell YOU-AH...how to save your soles."

All of us in unison said, YEA-YAH!"

Work it Ra-ru, work it.



Datto

lemon b
08-11-2012, 09:25
That kinda stuff happens. Use the time to gently educate the kids on outdoor and trail ethics. Usually the ones who do not listen won't be back anyway. Sure would rather see the kids on the trail then in the streets.

Lion King
08-11-2012, 10:04
Im all for kids, churches, scouts,. whatever being out, but as LW says, avoid shelters.

In 98, I didnt and one fine memory somewhere in VA was this, it was POURING RAIN and I had gotten in to a shelter around 5 and decided to stay, it was empty and I got in a corner and took up almost no space, along comes 9 people about dark, lots of kids and two women.

One of the woman came straight up and looked at me and said they were from so and so church and that they had contacted the rnagers about using this shelter and that I had to get out so the kids could stay in it.

I laughed at her and asked her again what church was she from????
Then I explained to her that she was full of crap in the nicest of ways.

The thing is, honestly, I would have gotten up for the kids had she even attempted civility, but she choose assholism over that.

Its never the kids, even if it is, its the leaders.

SawnieRobertson
08-11-2012, 11:32
Im all for kids, churches, scouts,. whatever being out, but as LW says, avoid shelters.

In 98, I didnt and one fine memory somewhere in VA was this, it was POURING RAIN and I had gotten in to a shelter around 5 and decided to stay, it was empty and I got in a corner and took up almost no space, along comes 9 people about dark, lots of kids and two women.

One of the woman came straight up and looked at me and said they were from so and so church and that they had contacted the rnagers about using this shelter and that I had to get out so the kids could stay in it.

I laughed at her and asked her again what church was she from????
Then I explained to her that she was full of crap in the nicest of ways.

The thing is, honestly, I would have gotten up for the kids had she even attempted civility, but she choose assholism over that.

Its never the kids, even if it is, its the leaders.


I love it when Lion King gets annoyed. The final statement says it all, whether speaking of humans or canines.

Moose2001
08-11-2012, 11:48
The final statement says it all, whether speaking of humans or canines.

Amen sister.....Amen!

canoe
08-11-2012, 11:51
Light up a cigar, pop-a-top, take off the boots and relax. Tell'em Satan has the shelter reserved and should arrive any minute.:D

But seriously, don't complain if you stay in shelters because this is what you get, sometimes a lot worse. Satan could really show up at the shelter.

you owe me a new laptop. rotfl.... too funny

Altarboy
08-11-2012, 18:29
As a Christian, I want youth leaders to be more aware of good citizenship when getting large groups together. A simple explaination to the kiddos before the trip about woods etiquette would have gone a long way. Taking your poles was really a big nono.

Del Q
08-12-2012, 00:18
All the more reason to always carry shelter..............freedom, to me finding great tenting spots is more and more of the fun on the AT

Bronk
08-12-2012, 03:01
I would have called out the leader of the group and suggested that they teach their christian kids not to steal your hiking poles. They may not be ashamed of the gospel of christ, but they sure as hell didn't seem like they knew the 10 commandments. Beyond that, each one of those 40 other people had just as much right to be there as you did...including the right to say what they wanted. Course there would have been nothing preventing you from teaching your own class on any number of subjects that they might not have approved of...any party offended by what was going on in that shelter was free to leave.

HikerMom58
08-12-2012, 09:18
As a Christian, I want youth leaders to be more aware of good citizenship when getting large groups together. A simple explaination to the kiddos before the trip about woods etiquette would have gone a long way. Taking your poles was really a big nono.

I agree, that wasn't cool, at all, for the kids to run off with your poles ,without asking you first, if they could borrow them. I wouldn't say they broke any commandments by doing that. It was inconsiderant and rude IMHO. Kids need to learn better manners. Christians are always held to a higher standard, immediately. I guess I can understand that- if you claim the devil as yo daddy-watch out, right?

HikerMom58
08-12-2012, 09:22
Whoops... ..inconsiderate

Tipi Walter
08-12-2012, 09:27
When will you guys learn to avoid the trail shelters? If you think you need to go backpacking and stay at a shelter, well, just stay at home and sleep in the car port.

pervy_sage
08-12-2012, 09:29
Ok...I've been compiling a list of inappropriate shelter activities for a while now for my 2013 thru. This way I will ensure to be annoyed by and or avoid annoying others for valid pre-approved reasons.

Borrowing hiking poles without the courtesy of asking the owner...check.

Leaving the shelter an utter mess...got that one.

Have we collectively decided if evangelizing en mass is one of those things? Would that be a sub-category of witnessing ones faith, or intolerance of others beliefs?

I'll just put that down as "see also..."

I will be compiling the list into a PDF file to store on my kindle, as a paper version will likely weigh in over a pound.

Wow. I thought going on a thru hike would be socially simpler. I'm discovering that it only narrows all the social idiosyncrasies to small pinpoint micro-climates (lets call them "shelter" points) and makes all the mildly annoying crap nearly intolerable.

I guess, unlike a job where you are forced to ignore the way others act most of the time, on the trail having the option to move on more readily available lowers ones tolerance level significantly. People don't change how much of an a-holes they are when they get on the trail, but I think a hikers perception may change drastically.

HikerMom58
08-12-2012, 09:50
When will you guys learn to avoid the trail shelters? If you think you need to go backpacking and stay at a shelter, well, just stay at home and sleep in the car port.

I like shelters a lot. I usually can't wait to see who's there. ( I'm not an introvert) Most of the time, it's fun. :) But the "fun" in shelters is relative AND it's a crapshoot.

TD55
08-12-2012, 10:52
I'd say a law was broken and the OP had one of his constitutional rights violated. Shelters are on Federal lands or at least on lands under control of the Federal Government. The group conducted a religious ceremony and put the OP in the position that he had to leave the shelter or be present during this ceremony. The OP was there for the structures intended purpose. The group used it as a place of worship. So, besides being rude and ignoring request by AT managers to keep groups limited to 10 persons, they forced their religious beliefs and worship on a person not of their faith.

Pedaling Fool
08-12-2012, 11:04
Constitutional rights violated? What if they were a bunch of partiers, would that violate any constitutional rights?

WingedMonkey
08-12-2012, 11:08
I have found that nudity (mine) is a deterrent to evangelism, both at the front door and in the woods.

:sun

HikerMom58
08-12-2012, 11:09
i'd say a law was broken and the op had one of his constitutional rights violated. Shelters are on federal lands or at least on lands under control of the federal government. The group conducted a religious ceremony and put the op in the position that he had to leave the shelter or be present during this ceremony. The op was there for the structures intended purpose. The group used it as a place of worship. So, besides being rude and ignoring request by at managers to keep groups limited to 10 persons, they forced their religious beliefs and worship on a person not of their faith.

no wayyyyyyyyy!!!!

Water Rat
08-12-2012, 11:10
I am doubting the "violation of constitutional rights" argument will go far. This is just another reason why one should carry a tent (or hammock) with them. There are a millions of ways others can be an annoyance on the trail. You just have to know this before you go out there.

Had I been there, I would have made a beeline for my tent the minute I saw a bunch of kids. At the very least, a group of kids will most likely be a lot noisier than I want to be around after a day of hiking. No worries. I have my tent.

HikerMom58
08-12-2012, 11:12
I have found that nudity (mine) is a deterrent to evangelism, both at the front door and in the woods.

:sun


Now, that is FUNNY!!!
:p

atmilkman
08-12-2012, 11:16
I have found that nudity (mine) is a deterrent to evangelism, both at the front door and in the woods.

:sun
Now you're making me wonder how you got the name WingedMonkey! (LOL):-?

HikerMom58
08-12-2012, 11:17
I am doubting the "violation of constitutional rights" argument will go far. This is just another reason why one should carry a tent (or hammock) with them. There are a millions of ways others can be an annoyance on the trail. You just have to know this before you go out there.

Had I been there, I would have made a beeline for my tent the minute I saw a bunch of kids. At the very least, a group of kids will most likely be a lot noisier than I want to be around after a day of hiking. No worries. I have my tent.


I like you WR... just sayin. ;)

TD55
08-12-2012, 11:23
Constitutional rights violated? What if they were a bunch of partiers, would that violate any constitutional rights?
No, but our courts, including the Supreme Court has ruled that even praying in schools is not allowed. People at government facilities are not supposed to be subjected religious worship and ceremonies.

Capt Nat
08-12-2012, 11:28
No, but our courts, including the Supreme Court has ruled that even praying in schools is not allowed. People at government facilities are not supposed to be subjected religious worship and ceremonies.

Actually, not true, The constitution provides for freedom of religion, not freedom from religion...

Not disagreeing with the sentiment, I don't want to be around religious zealots either, of any faith...

TD55
08-12-2012, 11:44
Actually, not true, The constitution provides for freedom of religion, not freedom from religion...

Not disagreeing with the sentiment, I don't want to be around religious zealots either, of any faith...
The key here is that the shelter is on Federal land. Even if it is managed or maintained by a private group, it falls under the category of a "Federal Structure". If religious groups are allowed to use a Federal structure the government is subsidizing a specific religious worship. Just saying that if you show up at a shelter and some religious stuff is going on, or if some group shows up and wants to conduct a ceremony, you are not obligated in any way to show respect or be polite. They are in the wrong and the ones being disrespectful.

Rasty
08-12-2012, 12:00
Constitutional rights violated? What if they were a bunch of partiers, would that violate any constitutional rights?
No, but our courts, including the Supreme Court has ruled that even praying in schools is not allowed. People at government facilities are not supposed to be subjected religious worship and ceremonies.

That only covers those that are required to be at the school, workplace, etc. No one is required to be at a shelter so it would not apply.

Skyline
08-12-2012, 12:34
If a religious group at a campsite or shelter decided to hold a prayer service, or make quasi-political statements masquerading as religion while others were present it would really piss me off. But I think they have that right.

Likewise, I believe I could counter their bully-pulpit-in-the-woods by expressing my viewpoint just as publicly so they would have to listen to it. That viewpoint might conflict with theirs. Do you think they would be as tolerant of my right to do so?

Mike2012
08-12-2012, 13:33
It would have been convenient to have had a boisterous case of gas at that time. School starts soon and the trails will clear off again.

TD55
08-12-2012, 13:59
That only covers those that are required to be at the school, workplace, etc. No one is required to be at a shelter so it would not apply.
It would be just one of the reasons an application for use as a public demonstration/gathering would be denied. Every government facility has an "intended use". Any use of the facility other than the intended use requires an approved written permit. If you don't believe it take a group of friends to a government facility where LEO's are present and try to conduct a ceremony. You will be told to stop and it you don't you will be warned that you face arrest. If you continue you could be arrested, depending on the facility and the LEO.

Rasty
08-12-2012, 14:13
It would be just one of the reasons an application for use as a public demonstration/gathering would be denied. Every government facility has an "intended use". Any use of the facility other than the intended use requires an approved written permit. If you don't believe it take a group of friends to a government facility where LEO's are present and try to conduct a ceremony. You will be told to stop and it you don't you will be warned that you face arrest. If you continue you could be arrested, depending on the facility and the LEO.

I'm not disagreeing with you, but an unorganized sermon would not get to the level of needing a permit. It's annoying but not much different from the Boy Scouts or a secular group speaking at a shelter about whatever they want to speak about. The question would be, is the group allowed to stop or sleep at a shelter while hiking? If the answer is yes then they could openly speak at the shelter just like you or I. Free speach sucks sometimes but what's the alternative?

TD55
08-12-2012, 14:23
I agree with you rastrakis in regards to speaking. The OP described a worship ceremony. I suppose my point is that religious groups would be in violation if they use shelters as chapels in the woods. I think a hiker would have every right to question who the group was and to ask to see the government issued permit.

Tipi Walter
08-12-2012, 14:29
No point going on meaningless rants and Whines---just avoid the shelters and the scouts and the church groups and hit the woods. There are a million places in the Cherokee or the Nantahala or the Chattahoochee or the Pisgah or the Jefferson National Forests to backpack and not have to deal with the loud chortling bonobo humans.

Rasty
08-12-2012, 14:29
I agree with you rastrakis in regards to speaking. The OP described a worship ceremony. I suppose my point is that religious groups would be in violation if they use shelters as chapels in the woods. I think a hiker would have every right to question who the group was and to ask to see the government issued permit.

He could even disrupt the others by yelling at the top of his lungs and would be within his rights.

Papa D
08-12-2012, 14:32
When will you guys learn to avoid the trail shelters? If you think you need to go backpacking and stay at a shelter, well, just stay at home and sleep in the car port.

Yes - I agree with this - it is a way to protect yourself from these run-ins, but it does miss the point that people should not hike in huge groups - it is bad for the trail, the water sources, causes noise pollution and is inconsiderate of others and with kids teaches them the exact wrong stuff. I too tent but sometimes, you sort of have to tent close to the shelters and use shelters on the AT as benchmarks for your hike. Large groups like this are bad and should be strongly discouraged. It's absolutely TYPICAL of a church group (the self-appointed righteous) to always be and act so very wrong.

MuddyWaters
08-12-2012, 14:42
I agree that large groups are bad. I would go as far to say that once you get over 4 people, impact increases dramatically, not to mention monopolization of resources like shelter space, and disturbance of others. Grand canyon limits group sizes for these reasons.

However, the trail does belong to them also. They have as much right to be there as anyone else, and to use it in the way they choose as long as they dont break any laws. Not saying right or wrong, but how it is. Maybe they dont like smelly people that have been on trail without a bath for weeks, or people that drink, or do other things out there that are not uncommon .

Pedaling Fool
08-12-2012, 14:46
Freedom of religion is a government constraint to determine people's choices of beliefs; it allows people to be free to act upon their beliefs. It does not prohibit someone from speaking about their religion on federal property. What if these were a group of no-name quasi-religious group of people out for a hike, stopped in the shelter and were talking crazy stuff about the eternal soul and how we’re children of the universe, blah, blah, blah. It’s not an organized religion, but very much the same thing. Would that be violating your constitutional rights?
Or what if it were a group of Wiccans?

There used to be a saying …with rights come responsibilities. The “responsibility” part seems to have gone by the wayside. Everyone seems to want to exert their rights. You don’t have a right to not be irritated by someone. We need to remember that our rights are there to protect us from an overbearing government, trying to use it against other people is a task too big for the constitution. Seems like every time I turn around someone is exerting their rights to something...it's like the "Is Water Free?". No, unlimited amounts of water is NOT your right. I think people need to go back and read how the constitution came into existence.

BTW, with respect to hiking groups, I know it’s frowned upon, but in the end, so what. If some group decides to go out for a hike, what can you do? Yeah you can bitch and complain, but there’s no law you can quote. Try calling the cops and see how far that gets you. Also, every year in March a very large group hikes together. Yeah, they might not know each other, but the effect is exactly the same.

Tipi Walter
08-12-2012, 15:01
I agree that large groups are bad. I would go as far to say that once you get over 4 people, impact increases dramatically, not to mention monopolization of resources like shelter space, and disturbance of others. Grand canyon limits group sizes for these reasons.

However, the trail does belong to them also. They have as much right to be there as anyone else, and to use it in the way they choose as long as they dont break any laws. Not saying right or wrong, but how it is. Maybe they dont like smelly people that have been on trail without a bath for weeks, or people that drink, or do other things out there that are not uncommon .

Over the years I've grown a set and now don't hesitate to criticize in-camp behavior which is obnoxious or objectionable. And it's not a subjective thing as LNT principles clearly denote loud groups and shouts as being a violation of LNT. For example, one time a group of three drunks (they arrived at a campsite nursing whiskey bottles) brought out their boombox and I told them to shut the dang thing off and they did. Ear plugs are held in reserve, of course.

"Ya gotta keep quiet" is a phrase that needs to be used when encountering backpacking groups as groups can get very loud what with a grabfest party atmosphere and the usual alcohol-fueled idiocy and the usual big bonfire mentality. Recently I was set up on an open bald and 12 boy scouts decided to camp nearby and they would not shut up as they squealed like girls nonstop. Funny thing is, the leaders were well aware of the crap but they were powerless to stop it. I guess I could've made a scene but then why let their hyena howlings disrupt my peace of mind? Ear plugs etc.

tscoffey
08-12-2012, 15:07
TD55 --
Please visit ACLJ.org to educate yourself about what is allowed via-a-via, public prayer. They have argued and won many cases over this issue in the past 20+ years.
You'll find that your view of the first amendment and government restriction of prayer on public grounds is quite mistaken. The burden upon government to impose restriction on speech must meet the HIGHEST standard of legal scrutiny. A publicly funded hiking shelter on public land falls far, far below that level of scrutiny. The solution is really as imple as this: If someone's speech/prayer offends you, don't listen and don't participate.

HikerMom58
08-12-2012, 15:30
Over the years I've grown a set and now don't hesitate to criticize in-camp behavior which is obnoxious or objectionable. And it's not a subjective thing as LNT principles clearly denote loud groups and shouts as being a violation of LNT. For example, one time a group of three drunks (they arrived at a campsite nursing whiskey bottles) brought out their boombox and I told them to shut the dang off and they did. Ear plugs are held in reserve, of course.

"Ya gotta keep quiet" is a phrase that needs to be used when encountering backpacking groups as groups can get very loud what with a grabfest party atmosphere and the usual alcohol-fueled idiocy and the usual big bonfire mentality. Recently I was set up on an open bald and 12 boy scouts decided to camp nearby and they would not shut up as they squealed like girls nonstop. Funny thing is, the leaders were well aware of the crap but they were powerless to stop it. I guess I could've made a scene but then why let their hyena howlings disrupt my peace of mind? Ear plugs etc.

I can't stop laughing... you did a great job writing this post. Thanks for the belly laugh, it was great. I don't know for sure but I think all this might be Rastraikis's fault. ;)

Rasty
08-12-2012, 15:41
I can't stop laughing... you did a great job writing this post. Thanks for the belly laugh, it was great. I don't know for sure but I think all this might be Rastraikis's fault. ;)


Freedom of religion is a government constraint to determine people's choices of beliefs; it allows people to be free to act upon their beliefs. It does not prohibit someone from speaking about their religion on federal property. What if these were a group of no-name quasi-religious group of people out for a hike, stopped in the shelter and were talking crazy stuff about the eternal soul and how we’re children of the universe, blah, blah, blah. It’s not an organized religion, but very much the same thing. Would that be violating your constitutional rights?
Or what if it were a group of Wiccans?

There used to be a saying …with rights come responsibilities. The “responsibility” part seems to have gone by the wayside. Everyone seems to want to exert their rights. You don’t have a right to not be irritated by someone. We need to remember that our rights are there to protect us from an overbearing government, trying to use it against other people is a task too big for the constitution. Seems like every time I turn around someone is exerting their rights to something...it's like the "Is Water Free?". No, unlimited amounts of water is NOT your right. I think people need to go back and read how the constitution came into existence.

BTW, with respect to hiking groups, I know it’s frowned upon, but in the end, so what. If some group decides to go out for a hike, what can you do? Yeah you can bitch and complain, but there’s no law you can quote. Try calling the cops and see how far that gets you. Also, every year in March a very large group hikes together. Yeah, they might not know each other, but the effect is exactly the same.

How's this my fault? I havent been to church in twenty years and I usually hike by myself and sleep in a tent. :)

HikerMom58
08-12-2012, 15:47
Just kidding "R"... private joke, well maybe not so private. ;)

Rasty
08-12-2012, 15:49
Just kidding "R"... private joke, well maybe not so private. ;)

I'm always causing trouble! :)

HikerMom58
08-12-2012, 16:38
You're Ok. I don't know why I have to stay in the basement though. I never did figure that one out. :-? Just kidding! :) Turns out everyone on here is pretty cool! :)

pervy_sage
08-12-2012, 16:40
Take a look at Supreme Court case - Good News Club v. Milford Central School (my alma mater btw) in regard to public facilities and use. If I am reading it correctly, it is a matter of viewpoint discrimination (Freedom of speech clause - first amendment) vs subject discrimination (establishment clause - first amendment).

If the folks in the shelter were speaking about current events in a religious context relative to their faith, then it would have been covered under free speech.

An outright sermon or practicing of an organized religious ritual (like group prayer) in a publicly funded facility violates the establishment clause, and the OP would have been well within his rights to object.

What most people get confused or pissed off about and misinterpret as government repressing religion is actually the government preventing any one religion from gaming the system. The constitutional system is obligated by the constitution itself to uphold freedom of religion, but to not take a position nor expend public resources that benefits any religious group over another. In essence equal protection and equal treatment under the law.

But I'm no lawyer.

Tinker
08-12-2012, 16:48
I'd say a law was broken and the OP had one of his constitutional rights violated. Shelters are on Federal lands or at least on lands under control of the Federal Government. The group conducted a religious ceremony and put the OP in the position that he had to leave the shelter or be present during this ceremony. The OP was there for the structures intended purpose. The group used it as a place of worship. So, besides being rude and ignoring request by AT managers to keep groups limited to 10 persons, they forced their religious beliefs and worship on a person not of their faith.

Too funny. Hope it wasn't intended to be serious.

Freedom of speech, assembly, and petition are still among the many Constitutional laws of the land, and the shelters neither belong directly to the hikers nor the church group - they belong to the Federal Government, which is supposed to :rolleyes: uphold the laws of the land.

The majority of speech which is suppressed, censured, and prohibited, legally in the general public is religious. Other than that, you can pretty much say whatever you want. It may be "politically correct", but it is hypocrisy.

Unfortunately, hypocrisy isn't limited to either side of any argument.

One of the above posters was correct in saying that religious people are held to a higher standard, and it should be so, and being judged by people holding different standards is part of the price one must pay for attempting to improve him or her self. :)

Btw: The folks who come through the doors of my church are in every conceivable station in life, and I daresay that none, including myself, are "model" Christians in every respect.

Kids will be kids, that is, basically selfish. They may parrot what their parents or religious elders say, but what is in the mind does not change the character, it is what is in the heart, and often it is only evident after a long, long time.

I've heard it said that the longest straight line is the one between the head and the heart. I believe that, and I try to remember that we are all different, and many of the differences I find in others are strengths that I am lacking in myself.

We are ALL "sheeple" to one extent or another, like it or not. :)

Oh, yes, sleep in a tent or hammock. Shelters are best for interacting with other sheep. ;)

Tinker
08-12-2012, 16:52
From John Gault:

"You don’t have a right to not be irritated by someone."

'Nuf said. Seems like I wasted a bunch of words above. :o

Rasty
08-12-2012, 17:01
You're Ok. I don't know why I have to stay in the basement though. I never did figure that one out. :-? Just kidding! :) Turns out everyone on here is pretty cool! :)

The basement is under water.:D

TD55
08-12-2012, 17:09
Too funny. Hope it wasn't intended to be serious.

;)
Absolutely serious. My job for 10 years was to help people obtain permits to conduct various events in the nations capitol. I've helped obtain or obtained myself permits for everything from prayer vigils to parades. Many groups came to me because they attempted to do the same kind of thing that went on at the shelter and learned the hard way that they couldn't do it without going through the system. Your church does not have the right to conduct religious ceremonies, rituals or events without an approved permit. This is not the same as "prayer" by an individual or small group. The event at the shelter was a ceremony or ritual of some sort, not a prayer.

Papa D
08-12-2012, 17:23
you guys are speaking as if there is some law enforcement sorts near Standing Indian Shelter that might do something about this situation - - there are not. As fun as it would have been to try to piss-off this church group, the best thing (in some hope that in the future they would act more respectfully) would have been as follows:

1) Pack your bag
2) Pull one of the leaders aside and express your extreme displeasure (sermon and group size)
3) Explain to him or her exactly how you feel and why you are indeed leaving
4) Offer some polite suggestions as to how they might improve their camping methods
5) Hike away to the next good campsite or shelter with the happy gleeful thought that you know that they know that they made you leave

If the leader will listen to you, you will probably be mostly re-buffed but if you are firm and polite, something you say MIGHT sink in a little. MAYBE next time they might split into smaller groups or something. You have no chance of winning them over at all if you are rude.

I remember one night in a rainstorm not too far from there - Carter Gap, I think, running into 2 "alleged thru-hikers" named "Good News" and "On the Move" who made it their mission to "save" shelter occupants up and down the trail. I told them that they were welcome to their opinions but that their sermon was truly un-appreciated and was not achieving their desired result - everyone in the shelter was cold and tired (or sleeping) and their prayers out-loud and singing was bothersome indeed. It was a cold and rainy night about 7pm but I packed my stuff up and hiked to (I think) Big Spring Shelter and got there about 9:30 PM or so, pitched my tent and slept just fine. Who knows if what I said sank in but I believe that their knowledge that they essentially made me leave probably gave them more grief (and maybe pause for thought) than any gratuitous blasphemy that I might have had more fun with.

Pedaling Fool
08-12-2012, 17:26
Absolutely serious. My job for 10 years was to help people obtain permits to conduct various events in the nations capitol. I've helped obtain or obtained myself permits for everything from prayer vigils to parades. Many groups came to me because they attempted to do the same kind of thing that went on at the shelter and learned the hard way that they couldn't do it without going through the system. Your church does not have the right to conduct religious ceremonies, rituals or events without an approved permit. This is not the same as "prayer" by an individual or small group. The event at the shelter was a ceremony or ritual of some sort, not a prayer.What you're talking about is a permit for public assembly and it really has nothing to do with type of assembly, it's just assmebly. It really doesn't apply to shelters, yeah, maybe if it happened by one group, over and over, then that could lead to requiring a permit, example would be the rainbow gatherings; I would imagine they need a permit.


This was just a group of people at a shelter. Really no different than a group of anyone, say a community hiking group of old women, converging on a shelter. Would they require a permit? Religion, in this case is irrelevant.

Papa D
08-12-2012, 17:27
Absolutely serious. My job for 10 years was to help people obtain permits to conduct various events in the nations capitol. I've helped obtain or obtained myself permits for everything from prayer vigils to parades. Many groups came to me because they attempted to do the same kind of thing that went on at the shelter and learned the hard way that they couldn't do it without going through the system. Your church does not have the right to conduct religious ceremonies, rituals or events without an approved permit. This is not the same as "prayer" by an individual or small group. The event at the shelter was a ceremony or ritual of some sort, not a prayer.

this is good stuff but fat chance that they would listen to you on site - - maybe you could find out what group it was and write them a letter (still doubt that it would change anything) and as much as the sermon would chap my hide, the group size is far and away the worse thing and we can encourage smaller groups and frown on big ones but there is no law against them (I suppose)

Pedaling Fool
08-12-2012, 17:32
I remember one night in a rainstorm not too far from there...That reminds me, I remember shelterd being overtaken by college groups up in NH. They did not have a permit, they assembled, was that illegal. I'm sure there are many other examples.

Tinker
08-12-2012, 17:34
Just got back from a 2 night trip of the Standing Indian Loop trail. On the second day I stopped at Standing Indian Shelter pretty early around 3:00 pm and set up camp, hung my bear bag anticipating the storm that was rolling in. Well the bottom dropped out and there was a terrible storm around 5 and I was by myself in the shelter. At around 5:00 I saw a group of kids running up out of the rain and more and more kept coming, about 40 all in all.

Now I certainly don't fault my fellow hikers for coming in and seeking shelter in a rain storm. What I do mind is that a couple of them ran off with my hiking poles to mark the trail for their other friends (luckily someone picked them up and brought them back) and then for the next 2 hours with standing room only in the shelter I was treated to what amounts to a sermon as this was a church youth group. A bunch of the kids were initiating into whatever their group was and they recited some mantra "I am not ashamed of the gospel of christ...etc." After about an hour of this I finally got fed up and went and crawled in my tent where I could still hear them going on for the next half hour. When they finally headed on they left behind some plastic ponchos, a sock, and other various trash and the entire shelter was muddy and wet.

I don't have a problem with a church youth group taking a trip on the A.T., however not everyone on the trail shares your beliefs, nor do they want to listen to your religious service at the shelter. You may not be ashamed of your lord and savior, but you should be ashamed of taking over a shelter, leaving it a mess, and giving no consideration to your fellow hikers.

Sorry, rant off.

I just wanted to revisit the orig. post.

I had no idea the the Federal Government could prohibit freedom of speech, assembly, or petition (legally).

I guess they can, on their "own" property (wait, don't we pay taxes? Isn't it public property?), unless you obtain
a permit?
:-? again.

TD55
08-12-2012, 17:35
Of course no one expects the government to come down on a church group for doing religious stuff at a shelter, but they could. Yes, the best thing to do is move on or just stay away from shelters, but you shouldn't have to. For sure Christians will continue to impose their beliefs on non Christians and then whine about "the war on Christians", they believe they are the national religion and entitled religion. But why should the rest of us tell them it's OK to do stuff that is not OK for the rest of us to do.

TD55
08-12-2012, 17:41
I just wanted to revisit the orig. post.

I had no idea the the Federal Government could prohibit freedom of speech, assembly, or petition (legally).

I guess they can, on their "own" property (wait, don't we pay taxes? Isn't it public property?), unless you obtain
a permit?
:-? again.
You have freedom of speech and I could get you a permit to give a sermon on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial if that is what you wanted. But, you would have to make arrangements on the time and date so as to insure public safety and interference with other scheduled activity. I could also get a permit for the KKK or the Muslim Brotherhood. How would you like to show up at a shelter and find some of those guys.

Rasty
08-12-2012, 17:41
Of course no one expects the government to come down on a church group for doing religious stuff at a shelter, but they could. Yes, the best thing to do is move on or just stay away from shelters, but you shouldn't have to. For sure Christians will continue to impose their beliefs on non Christians and then whine about "the war on Christians", they believe they are the national religion and entitled religion. But why should the rest of us tell them it's OK to do stuff that is not OK for the rest of us to do.

You can also talk about whatever you want also.

HikerMom58
08-12-2012, 17:45
The basement is under water.:D

I don't know these things unless you tell me. :D

pervy_sage
08-12-2012, 17:45
This was just a group of people at a shelter. Really no different than a group of anyone, say a community hiking group of old women, converging on a shelter. Would they require a permit? Religion, in this case is irrelevant.

Beg to differ...

Religion is always relevant when it comes to any public land use. Old ladies converging on a shelter to talk about their grandsons, arthritis medication, or Obamacare is far different than a religious group having a sermon. (I think I just posted on that subject).

If they were a religious group that was out there to hold a forum on government environmental policy in a religious context, then they are more than welcome, so long as they don't have a group prayer before or after (and are properly permitted). Allowing a moment for silent individual prayer I would imagine is ok.

Moving to the back of the bus just because it is easier only emboldens those who want their way. At the very least the group should be reported and let the authorities sort it out.

Tinker
08-12-2012, 17:55
There are also "wars on women", "wars on gays", and various other "wars". Why do the same rules of governmental "protection of 'rights'" not apply to Christians, as groups or individuals, when they are recipients of "hate" or "bigotry"?

Not all Christians believe that they are the national and entitled religion, nor do we all intend to or attempt to "impose their beliefs on non Christians". It is a major tenet of Christianity, however, that God has prepared a perfect place for His people for eternity, free of all the hurtful nonsense of this age, and, to those who believe this doctrine, it makes sense to extend the invitation to those who do not believe as yet, and to celebrate it with others of similar views.

I, personally, will never force someone to convert, because they won't be truly converted and will therefore be a hinderance to God's work, and may even decieve themselves into thinking that they are "true believers" when they are headed for judgement themselves.

If I ask someone why they don't believe, don't be offended, just give me a truthful answer. Most often it is the poor example of the unconverted heart of a professing Christian that muddies the name of Christ and hurts and/or alienates good people.

HikerMom58
08-12-2012, 17:56
Beg to differ...

Religion is always relevant when it comes to any public land use. Old ladies converging on a shelter to talk about their grandsons, arthritis medication, or Obamacare is far different than a religious group having a sermon. (I think I just posted on that subject).

If they were a religious group that was out there to hold a forum on government environmental policy in a religious context, then they are more than welcome, so long as they don't have a group prayer before or after (and are properly permitted). Allowing a moment for silent individual prayer I would imagine is ok.

Moving to the back of the bus just because it is easier only emboldens those who want their way. At the very least the group should be reported and let the authorities sort it out.

How do you know it was a prepared sermon? Was it truely a worship service? It may have seemed like it but what were they really doing? Just memorizing scripture together? That's not against the law.

Tinker
08-12-2012, 18:03
You have freedom of speech and I could get you a permit to give a sermon on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial if that is what you wanted. But, you would have to make arrangements on the time and date so as to insure public safety and interference with other scheduled activity. I could also get a permit for the KKK or the Muslim Brotherhood. How would you like to show up at a shelter and find some of those guys.


God loves them, too, even though He may not condone their lifestyle. We are all sick in our own personal way. God just wants the chance to treat our ills.

Pedaling Fool
08-12-2012, 18:04
Well, since this thread is about religion and being annoyed on the AT, I gotta tell my story. In 2006 I wasn’t really familiar with “trail magic”, as most of you know I’m very much against it and that dislike can be traced back to 2006. My first encounter with “trail magic”, more aptly referred to as trail feeds; it was in a parking lot somewhere in Georgia. I partook, of course, not really having an opinion yet on the subject.

I was somewhat struck at how common they were and was actually starting to get a little sick of them. Then one morning, not more than a couple miles out of camp I ran into a group offering the works, I mean a full breakfast buffet with pancakes and everything else. They had a vehicle at the gap and taking hikers to the house; I decided (wasn’t an easy decision) not to take them up on it, after some cajoling on their part I finally got away, I swear they were very persistent in trying to talk me into a breakfast, that kind of confused me.

I later found out why. They were preaching to the hikers, which were required to listen to their sermon before eating the breakfast. I had a great laugh when I heard about that from all the hikers, of course they all took them up on the offer. But what I think is bad, is that they didn’t walk out once they got to the house, no them guys listened to the sermon then ate. So much for principles.
:rolleyes:

I think that was the beginning of my extreme dislike for trail feeds. I’ve since said, “no thanks” when offered, but people just look at you like you’re some kind of weirdo and try and talk you in joining. :mad:

MuddyWaters
08-12-2012, 18:09
If one assumes that that public lands, or private lands under public juridiction due to usage agreements, are subject to all laws, then you could report anyone for almost anything. From cursing, to spitting, to littering, to obscenity, to open container, public drunkeness, to improper disposal of waste, to whatever.

I dont think its anything anyone should want to start. At least we dont need use permits for the AT.......yet. Im sure the day will come that we do, just like other places out west.

HYOH.

Skyline
08-12-2012, 18:10
There are also "wars on women", "wars on gays", and various other "wars". Why do the same rules of governmental "protection of 'rights'" not apply to Christians, as groups or individuals, when they are recipients of "hate" or "bigotry"?

Not all Christians believe that they are the national and entitled religion, nor do we all intend to or attempt to "impose their beliefs on non Christians". It is a major tenet of Christianity, however, that God has prepared a perfect place for His people for eternity, free of all the hurtful nonsense of this age, and, to those who believe this doctrine, it makes sense to extend the invitation to those who do not believe as yet, and to celebrate it with others of similar views.

I, personally, will never force someone to convert, because they won't be truly converted and will therefore be a hinderance to God's work, and may even decieve themselves into thinking that they are "true believers" when they are headed for judgement themselves.

If I ask someone why they don't believe, don't be offended, just give me a truthful answer. Most often it is the poor example of the unconverted heart of a professing Christian that muddies the name of Christ and hurts and/or alienates good people.

It's a bit disingenuous for Christians to profess they are "victims" of hate and bigotry in the USA. What other religion is so honored by our own government with official holidays while almost everything else grinds to a halt on "their" day(s)?

Put yourself in the minority, and pretend that Muslims are in the majority. Wouldn't you be offended if Muslim-oriented organizations and political wings of Muslim religions were constantly beating their drums to make sure our nation's civil laws conformed to their narrow view of their religious dogma? That's exactly what a lot of Christian groups do, and they are well organized to the point that they can indeed force their will on an entire nation, politically, and do have the final say over some elections and ultimately, some of our laws.

There are in fact plenty of "Christian" purists who sincerely believe the USA was founded by and for Christianity, thus making Christianity an "official" religion we all must adhere to. They have power, and when others point out the fallacy of their claims they are labelled hateful and bigoted.

TD55
08-12-2012, 18:10
You are right HikerMom, and that is not what they would be arrested for. They would be told that they were creating a disturbance to others not involved with their group and to stop. If they di not, they would be asked again and warned that they could face arrest. If they continued they would be arrested for disturbing the peace, failing to obey a LEO etc.

Tinker
08-12-2012, 18:13
Well, since this thread is about religion and being annoyed on the AT, I gotta tell my story. In 2006 I wasn’t really familiar with “trail magic”, as most of you know I’m very much against it and that dislike can be traced back to 2006. My first encounter with “trail magic”, more aptly referred to as trail feeds; it was in a parking lot somewhere in Georgia. I partook, of course, not really having an opinion yet on the subject.

I was somewhat struck at how common they were and was actually starting to get a little sick of them. Then one morning, not more than a couple miles out of camp I ran into a group offering the works, I mean a full breakfast buffet with pancakes and everything else. They had a vehicle at the gap and taking hikers to the house; I decided (wasn’t an easy decision) not to take them up on it, after some cajoling on their part I finally got away, I swear they were very persistent in trying to talk me into a breakfast, that kind of confused me.

I later found out why. They were preaching to the hikers, which were required to listen to their sermon before eating the breakfast. I had a great laugh when I heard about that from all the hikers, of course they all took them up on the offer. But what I think is bad, is that they didn’t walk out once they got to the house, no them guys listened to the sermon then ate. So much for principles.
:rolleyes:

I think that was the beginning of my extreme dislike for trail feeds. I’ve since said, “no thanks” when offered, but people just look at you like you’re some kind of weirdo and try and talk you in joining. :mad:

I hope that their motive was in offering eternal life to the listeners and not simply to swell the ranks of their members. I don't agree with their tactics, though, and can see your distaste for the apparant deception. I've never read anything concerning the subject of deceit in a positive light in the words of Jesus.

Pedaling Fool
08-12-2012, 18:19
I'd say a law was broken and the OP had one of his constitutional rights violated. Shelters are on Federal lands or at least on lands under control of the Federal Government. The group conducted a religious ceremony and put the OP in the position that he had to leave the shelter or be present during this ceremony. The OP was there for the structures intended purpose. The group used it as a place of worship. So, besides being rude and ignoring request by AT managers to keep groups limited to 10 persons, they forced their religious beliefs and worship on a person not of their faith.


Beg to differ...

Religion is always relevant when it comes to any public land use. Old ladies converging on a shelter to talk about their grandsons, arthritis medication, or Obamacare is far different than a religious group having a sermon. (I think I just posted on that subject).

If they were a religious group that was out there to hold a forum on government environmental policy in a religious context, then they are more than welcome, so long as they don't have a group prayer before or after (and are properly permitted). Allowing a moment for silent individual prayer I would imagine is ok.

Moving to the back of the bus just because it is easier only emboldens those who want their way. At the very least the group should be reported and let the authorities sort it out.
This whole discussion started on the issue of violating one's constitutional rights and then it kind of morphed into a public assembly thing. So I'm not sure what you're saying, are you saying it's a violation of peoples constitutional right because someone is spouting religious views on public land?

As for public assembly and obtaining a permit, generally speaking, the type of gathering is irrelevant.


If you read the OPs post I'm not entirely clear that this was an organized event. So it's kind of a mute point. However, if it did happen on a regular basis, then I could see the issue of a permit coming into play, but not because it's a religious event. But I'm thinking it would have to be a very large group before anyone, in an official capacity, starts requiring a permit.

WingedMonkey
08-12-2012, 18:27
I have found that nudity (mine) is a deterrent to evangelism, both at the front door and in the woods.

:sun

OK fair warning, I'm about to moon someone.

Tinker
08-12-2012, 18:28
It's a bit disingenuous for Christians to profess they are "victims" of hate and bigotry in the USA. What other religion is so honored by our own government with official holidays while almost everything else grinds to a halt on "their" day(s)?

Put yourself in the minority, and pretend that Muslims are in the majority. Wouldn't you be offended if Muslim-oriented organizations and political wings of Muslim religions were constantly beating their drums to make sure our nation's civil laws conformed to their narrow view of their religious dogma? That's exactly what a lot of Christian groups do, and they are well organized to the point that they can indeed force their will on an entire nation, politically, and do have the final say over some elections and ultimately, some of our laws.

There are in fact plenty of "Christian" purists who sincerely believe the USA was founded by and for Christianity, thus making Christianity an "official" religion we all must adhere to. They have power, and when others point out the fallacy of their claims they are labelled hateful and bigoted.

Well, you have a point, and I guess you could petition to work on those Christian holidays. For all I care, you could take them off of the calendar. My Lord Jesus said "My Kingdom is not of this world". Neither is mine. I will abide by the laws of the USA, but, biblically, it is NOT "God's country". The Bible reads "blessed is the nation whose God is the Lord", but the second part of the verse says something to the effect of "and those who He has chosen for His inheritance". I'm not very confident that the verse could be applied to our country.
Btw: I like the way you put the word Christian in italics. Semantically, it means that they are so-called Christians. I hope you meant it that way.
My arguments are mainly intellectual. My questions are intended to induce thoughtful discourse. When folks are on one side or the other of an "argument" it is difficult to be objective.
I try my best to be objective. This is undoubtedly the most difficult subject matter for me to be objective on.

Question: How difficult do you suppose freedom of speech and the right to be an atheist will be if (when?) Muslims rule this country?
Atheists should be thankful that the current crop of Christians do not subscribe to physical force to "convert" their adversaries.
It has not always been so. The Crusades are a painful reminder to practicing Christians of how out of hand our religion can get when we fail to understand the commandments of our Head, Jesus Christ.

pervy_sage
08-12-2012, 18:33
How do you know it was a prepared sermon? Was it truely a worship service? It may have seemed like it but what were they really doing? Just memorizing scripture together? That's not against the law.

I don't know if it was or wasn't. I wasn't there. Not for me to say. But if it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, and ducks aren't supposed to be there, a hiker would be remiss in their responsibility as a tax paying citizen to condone it regardless if the ducks are Christian, Jewish or Druid. Like I said (and was ignored) let the authorities sort it out. I doubt many hikers are Constitutional lawyers.

Each citizen is responsible to abide by the law, and hold others to those same laws equally. If I let one group slide because they are white, or agnostic, or male, then I am doing a disservice to my community as a whole. Everyone should be held to the same standard, and that standard is the Constitution and the laws created under its guidance.

If one doesn't like the law, one can challenge it, get it changed, or break it. But they shouldn't cry if they get caught doing something illegal, or threaten revolt when the rest of their community or the court stands firm on the existing law. That's how democracy works.

Everyone loves the parts of the Constitution that works for them as individuals, yet despise the parts that work against them as citizens.

Pedaling Fool
08-12-2012, 18:36
Take a look at Supreme Court case - Good News Club v. Milford Central School (my alma mater btw) in regard to public facilities and use. If I am reading it correctly, it is a matter of viewpoint discrimination (Freedom of speech clause - first amendment) vs subject discrimination (establishment clause - first amendment).

If the folks in the shelter were speaking about current events in a religious context relative to their faith, then it would have been covered under free speech.

An outright sermon or practicing of an organized religious ritual (like group prayer) in a publicly funded facility violates the establishment clause, and the OP would have been well within his rights to object.

What most people get confused or pissed off about and misinterpret as government repressing religion is actually the government preventing any one religion from gaming the system. The constitutional system is obligated by the constitution itself to uphold freedom of religion, but to not take a position nor expend public resources that benefits any religious group over another. In essence equal protection and equal treatment under the law.

But I'm no lawyer.

BTW, I'm not familar with the case you cited above, but I did a quick seach of it. While I didn't read the entire thing, I don't think it applies at all in this case. It does seem to be a case of religious indoctrination in a school. Here's an excerpt:


In response to a letter submitted by the Club's counsel, Milford's attorney requested information to clarify the nature of the Club's activities. The Club sent a set of materials used or distributed at the meetings and the following description of its meeting:
"The Club opens its session with Ms. Fournier taking attendance. As she calls a child's name, if the child recites a Bible verse the child receives a treat. After attendance, the Club sings songs. Next Club members engage in games that involve, inter alia, learning Bible verses. Ms. Fournier then relates a Bible story and explains how it applies to Club members' lives. The Club closes with prayer. Finally, Ms. Fournier distributes treats and the Bible verses for memorization." App. in No. 98-9494 (CA2), at A-30.

McGruder and Milford's attorney reviewed the materials and concluded that "the kinds of activities proposed to be 104*104 engaged in by the Good News Club were not a discussion of secular subjects such as child rearing, development of character and development of morals from a religious perspective, but were in fact the equivalent of religious instruction itself." Id., at A-25. In February 1997, the Milford Board of Education adopted a resolution rejecting the Club's request to use Milford's facilities "for the purpose of conducting religious instruction and Bible study." Id., at A-56.

TD55
08-12-2012, 18:40
the current crop of Christians[/I] do not subscribe to physical force to "convert" their adversaries.

Tell that to the families of murdered and maimed health care workers shot and bombed by Christian terrorist.

Tinker
08-12-2012, 18:56
Tell that to the families of murdered and maimed health care workers shot and bombed by Christian terrorist.

Atheists, agnostics, other religious groups, etc. don't shoot or bomb people?

Why don't we just hate everyone?

No. Why don't we just love everyone, even our enemies?

Why do we take the exception and hold it out before the world as the rule?

This is the mark of someone with an agenda posing as a moderate.

Do you hate drug lords as much as the Lord of the Universe?

Someone who kills in the name of Christ will end up with the same fate as one who kills those who love His name.

pervy_sage
08-12-2012, 19:38
BTW, I'm not familar with the case you cited above, but I did a quick seach of it. While I didn't read the entire thing, I don't think it applies at all in this case. It does seem to be a case of religious indoctrination in a school...

I would encourage you read the whole thing, including both the majority opinion and the dissenting opinions, then you would see why I brought it up. It is not exactly the same, but it has info on precedent regarding use of public facilities by religious organizations, and on the distinctions between upholding the freedom of speech clause argument for the GNC, and the very relevant (yet frequently ignored) establishment clause (aka separation of church and state) argued by the school.

It basically boiled down to the kind of speech occuring, with the court deciding that the speech was religious in nature (viewpoint discrimination), but not religious instruction (subject discrimination - i.e. sermon, ritual, etc.), therefore covered under the free speech clause.

The good stuff IMO is actually in the dissenting opinion.

In the case of the OP post, it is a matter of religious instruction (sermon) vs having a faith based discussion. If it was the later, then no harm no foul, and he might have benefited all if he stayed to represent and gain insight, with their blessing of course.

If it were the former, then following the advice of another post, taking the leader aside and mentioning the issues, would be more appropriate if not wholly effective. Attempt to educate, stand your ground, then if no mutual remedy is found, be on your way and report to authorities the nature of the incident and let them deal, thus fulfilling your responsibility as a citizen. If it really bakes your biscuits, then you can call whatever civil liberties organization or liberal press group that might want to make hay over your spoiled hike.

In regard to other posts speaking of war on religion, that is hokum. Any removal of religion from public spaces is actually upholding the law. Something the Christian majority has managed to prevent and postpone since the Constitution was signed.

It is like everyone driving over the speed limit, and the white cops only pulling over the black folk. But then when the police force becomes more diverse, the white folk start to get pulled over more and start screaming cuz the cops are harassing them (which is hilarious in its own right). Except the cops aren't harassing. They are just attempting to uphold the law equally, like they are supposed to do. (and yes, I know it is still not equal, so no comments on the example please)

The case I cited is testament to that, with freedom of religious speech being upheld in an appropriate manor relative to the establishment clause.

Bronk
08-12-2012, 20:21
I'd say a law was broken and the OP had one of his constitutional rights violated. Shelters are on Federal lands or at least on lands under control of the Federal Government. The group conducted a religious ceremony and put the OP in the position that he had to leave the shelter or be present during this ceremony. The OP was there for the structures intended purpose. The group used it as a place of worship. So, besides being rude and ignoring request by AT managers to keep groups limited to 10 persons, they forced their religious beliefs and worship on a person not of their faith.

I disagree here...we have freedom of religion not freedom from religion. For the life of me I can't figure out how freedom of religion has turned into preventing people from exercising their religion. As long as the OP was free to leave his rights were not violated. Someone else saying a prayer does not violate your rights as long as you aren't forced to pray with them. Seems to me the first and foremost place you ought to be able to exercise your rights should be on federal property and in federal buildings.

Lets look at exactly what the first amendment says about religion:


Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
So far as I can see, Congress has never tried to establish a religion. What these people were doing in this shelter was freely exercising their religion, and Congress is expressly forbidden from making a law prohibiting that. Freedom of speech applies here, as well as the right of the people to peaceably assemble. Now, I wasn't there, the OP might argue the 'peaceably' part if the kids were getting rowdy.

Bronk
08-12-2012, 20:26
No, but our courts, including the Supreme Court has ruled that even praying in schools is not allowed. People at government facilities are not supposed to be subjected religious worship and ceremonies.

What the courts have ruled is that a teacher cannot lead the prayer...as an agent of the government, the teacher would be establishing religion. What we've mostly seen is the ACLU filing a bunch of frivolous lawsuits and bullying people into complying with their demands. Most small town schools do not have the financial resources to fight these cases so they buckle under pressure...its easier to change policy than to fight it out.

Someone else praying in front of you does not violate your rights, but having someone tell you that you can't pray certainly does.

Bronk
08-12-2012, 20:29
Just saying that if you show up at a shelter and some religious stuff is going on, or if some group shows up and wants to conduct a ceremony, you are not obligated in any way to show respect or be polite.


This statement I'll agree with. You have every right to exercise your first amendment rights as well.

HikerMom58
08-12-2012, 20:32
You are right HikerMom, and that is not what they would be arrested for. They would be told that they were creating a disturbance to others not involved with their group and to stop. If they di not, they would be asked again and warned that they could face arrest. If they continued they would be arrested for disturbing the peace, failing to obey a LEO etc.

Now that makes sense to me. I can totally understand that... no prob. :) How on earth do we keep authorized people around to make sure any kind of disturbance, like this and others, is addressed and handled in the proper way as you, so well, described? Well, I already know the answer to that question :/ We can't and therefore we don't. So it boils down to all people being considerate of others around them, while sharing a public space. (AT shelter) Some people aren't so thoughtful. That's why the one that posted had to vent, when he got home. :/ Thanks TD55, I got it. :)

Bronk
08-12-2012, 20:33
I think a hiker would have every right to question who the group was and to ask to see the government issued permit.

First amendment doesn't say anything about a 'government issued permit.' A permit would be akin to establishing a religion, and they are expressly forbidden from doing that. No permit is required. This country was founded upon inalienable rights. Which means they exist whether they are honored or not. You can't issue a permit for inalienable rights. They just exist.

atmilkman
08-12-2012, 20:45
What the courts have ruled is that a teacher cannot lead the prayer...as an agent of the government, the teacher would be establishing religion. What we've mostly seen is the ACLU filing a bunch of frivolous lawsuits and bullying people into complying with their demands. Most small town schools do not have the financial resources to fight these cases so they buckle under pressure...its easier to change policy than to fight it out.

Someone else praying in front of you does not violate your rights, but having someone tell you that you can't pray certainly does.
What happened here (Alabama) was that at the beginning of each home football game at one of the highschools they would lead the crowd in the Lord's Prayer over the PA system. Well someone objected to that and they had to stop doing it. They switched it to a moment of silence and the crowd took it upon themselves to recite the Lord's Prayer. They are not using the public PA system anymore and there's nothing anyone can do about it.

Sarcasm the elf
08-12-2012, 20:50
Hmmm...:-?

I went to bed last night and there were 16 replies, got back to the house just now and there were five pages of replies. I was momentarily puzzled, but then I saw the word religion in the subsequent t replies and lost all interest by page two. Did anything get resolved in pages three through five, or was it just the usual political/religious banter?

Bronk
08-12-2012, 20:57
There are in fact plenty of "Christian" purists who sincerely believe the USA was founded by and for Christianity, thus making Christianity an "official" religion we all must adhere to. They have power, and when others point out the fallacy of their claims they are labelled hateful and bigoted.

No serious historian would argue that the United States was founded as a "christian nation." Anyone who has studied it knows that most of the founders were not even christians. It bugs me every time I hear that "christian nation" crap.

rocketsocks
08-12-2012, 20:57
Hmmm...:-?

I went to bed last night and there were 16 replies, got back to the house just now and there were five pages of replies. I was momentarily puzzled, but then I saw the word religion in the subsequent t replies and lost all interest by page two. Did anything get resolved in pages three through five, or was it just the usual political/religious banter?Winds, you want to field this one, I think it requires that special touch that only you seem to provide.:)

Papa D
08-12-2012, 20:58
First amendment doesn't say anything about a 'government issued permit.' A permit would be akin to establishing a religion, and they are expressly forbidden from doing that. No permit is required. This country was founded upon inalienable rights. Which means they exist whether they are honored or not. You can't issue a permit for inalienable rights. They just exist.


I sense that you and I butter our bread on different sides but I have read your posts and more or less agree with what you say (except for the ACLU suits frivolity). I will make the point that there are legally established limits with good precedence to all of our "inalienable rights" take free speech for example, you can't yell "FIRE" in a restaurant and claim that it is free speech - you will be arrested for inciting a riot. Law is all about where your rights end and other's begin. I could argue that eating pot brownies is "life liberty and pursuit of happiness" but (in most states), I'll still get arrested. People in this country are winning the battle against smokers (and second hand smoke). Where your rights end and another's begin are interesting and tricky questions.

Now, you bring up the issue of permits. I know of no permit that is obtainable to preach in trail shelters but you DO have to have a forest service permit to run a commercial activity in the forest. If these folks were paying "guides or leaders" (they were probably volunteers) they might have needed a Forest Service Permit or if they had more than 75 people (non-paying) the way I read it. This link will take you to the proper U.S. Forest Service page:

www.fs.usda.gov/wps/portal/fsinternet/!ut/p/c4/04_SB8K8xLLM9MSSzPy8xBz9CP0os3gjAwhwtDDw9_AI8zPwhQ oY6BdkOyoCAPkATlA!/?ss=110811&navtype=BROWSEBYSUBJECT&cid=FSE_003762&navid=160120000000000&pnavid=160000000000000&position=BROWSEBYSUBJECT&ttype=main&pname=National%20Forests%20in%20North%20Carolina-%20Event/Commercial%20Permits

I think that the larger point being overlooked in all of this is that this giant church group was not using good trail etiquette and were clearly being inconsiderate to the OP. This is really a thread about being considerate more than it is about applicable law - having the law enforced in a trail shelter would be pretty hard - whatever law is being broken

Old Hiker
08-12-2012, 21:01
First amendment doesn't say anything about a 'government issued permit.' A permit would be akin to establishing a religion, and they are expressly forbidden from doing that. No permit is required. This country was founded upon inalienable rights. Which means they exist whether they are honored or not. You can't issue a permit for inalienable rights. They just exist.


..............to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them,..................

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. <emphasis added>

"Among" these, not "these are the only ones".



Hmmm...:-?

I went to bed last night and there were 16 replies, got back to the house just now and there were five pages of replies. I was momentarily puzzled, but then I saw the word religion in the subsequent t replies and lost all interest by page two. Did anything get resolved in pages three through five, or was it just the usual political/religious banter?

Same ol', same ol'. Fun to read thru and see the usual suspects.

rocketsocks
08-12-2012, 21:01
Winds, you want to field this one, I think it requires that special touch that only you seem to provide.:)Dam, where's a strong "Winds" when you need one.

Well Elf, it has been entertaining, and I can only add that in the back of my mind, it would seem that an opportunity for a teaching moment was lost...and that is all.

pervy_sage
08-12-2012, 21:02
Hmmm...:-?

I went to bed last night and there were 16 replies, got back to the house just now and there were five pages of replies. I was momentarily puzzled, but then I saw the word religion in the subsequent t replies and lost all interest by page two. Did anything get resolved in pages three through five, or was it just the usual political/religious banter?


The usual. Come back later. It should subside after the usual talking points and insults have been exchanged. I forget the blinders fall into place once the "R" word is uttered.

Old Hiker
08-12-2012, 21:03
The usual. Come back later. It should subside after the usual talking points and insults have been exchanged. I forget the blinders fall into place once the "R" word is uttered.

"Rocketsocks" !?!?

"rastraikis" !?!?

rocketsocks
08-12-2012, 21:04
The usual. Come back later. It should subside after the usual talking points and insults have been exchanged. I forget the blinders fall into place once the "R" word is uttered.In days of old, wars were fought for less (R word), come to think of it....they still are......

rocketsocks
08-12-2012, 21:06
"Rocketsocks" !?!?

"rastraikis" !?!?Tou'che......

Sarcasm the elf
08-12-2012, 21:08
The usual. Come back later. It should subside after the usual talking points and insults have been exchanged. I forget the blinders fall into place once the "R" word is uttered.

Could be worse, at least it isn't a debate about whether or not he had the right to use hiking poles on the trail. :D.

pervy_sage
08-12-2012, 21:09
"Rocketsocks" !?!?

"rastraikis" !?!?


To quote Mrs. Murphy (aka Aretha Franklin) "Don't you blaspheme in here, don't you blaspheme in here!"

Rasty
08-12-2012, 21:29
"Rocketsocks" !?!?

"rastraikis" !?!?Tou'che......

Maybe I'm guilty, maybe I'm not. I'm not religious at all but will defend someones right to be religious. I'm just a believer in personal liberty. My main point about the shelter is no one is required to be there so freedom of assembly/speech/religion applies. The school is a different story because the students and teachers are required to be there and can't just walk away or dispute the subject. I think Bronk nailed it though.

Rasty
08-12-2012, 21:52
The usual. Come back later. It should subside after the usual talking points and insults have been exchanged. I forget the blinders fall into place once the "R" word is uttered.

"Rocketsocks" !?!?

"rastraikis" !?!?

Funny! But it started before I posted anything. :)

pervy_sage
08-12-2012, 22:48
Maybe I'm guilty, maybe I'm not. I'm not religious at all but will defend someones right to be religious. I'm just a believer in personal liberty. My main point about the shelter is no one is required to be there so freedom of assembly/speech/religion applies. The school is a different story because the students and teachers are required to be there and can't just walk away or dispute the subject. I think Bronk nailed it though.

Upholding rights is the point, but it isn't just the rights of those present that are being challenged.

This issue has less to do with religion as it does with fair use of public property. Everyone contributes taxes (ok most people contribute taxes) that are utilized to pay, in part or in full, for public property and facilities. Everyone who contributes does not follow the same religion. Therefore, the government is obliged to uphold rights of free speech, assembly, and the press when individuals or groups wish to exercise those rights as citizens.

The government is also obligated to remain neutral by not supporting, directly or indirectly, any one religious group beyond the act of ensuring the other rights are not infringed. This means public resources cannot be utilized in supporting the action of maintaining or spreading of any religious teachings under the establishment clause. (i.e. - utilizing public space for sermons and ceremony, or posting of religious texts and symbols).

Like I said before, it has only been in the last 50 years or so that the establishment clause has been used to challenge those things that had been left untouched because of the inherent power of the Christian majority. Folks may not like it because they feel it restricts their freedom, but it is and always has been the law. In the long run, it is better because no one group will have advantage over any other, so long as the citizens continue to hold the government accountable for the laws it is meant to maintain.

And for those who like to quote the part of the constitution that names God, it does not specify a Judeo-Christian God, no matter how much they wish to say it is implied, because it isn't. God is a all encompassing term in this context, just as is the term Creator.

Pedaling Fool
08-13-2012, 09:19
I would encourage you read the whole thing, including both the majority opinion and the dissenting opinions, then you would see why I brought it up. It is not exactly the same, but it has info on precedent regarding use of public facilities by religious organizations, and on the distinctions between upholding the freedom of speech clause argument for the GNC, and the very relevant (yet frequently ignored) establishment clause (aka separation of church and state) argued by the school.I am reading it now, but going to take some time, because I need to get familiar with certain terms and I want to also read the earlier cases, such as the Lamb's Chapel case for a little history on this issue, but I find it interesting.






Like I said before, it has only been in the last 50 years or so that the establishment clause has been used to challenge those things that had been left untouched because of the inherent power of the Christian majority. Folks may not like it because they feel it restricts their freedom, but it is and always has been the law. In the long run, it is better because no one group will have advantage over any other, so long as the citizens continue to hold the government accountable for the laws it is meant to maintain.

And for those who like to quote the part of the constitution that names God, it does not specify a Judeo-Christian God, no matter how much they wish to say it is implied, because it isn't. God is a all encompassing term in this context, just as is the term Creator. I do think the establishment clause is incorrectly used in many cases, i.e. to attack Christianity, but on the other hand, it is correctly used in many other cases that were previously overlooked due to the Christian majority in this country. Overall I agree with you on this, especially with your last sentence.

Theosus
08-13-2012, 20:53
You could have taken any old cloth, laid it on the floor, and began bowing to the east mumbling unintelligible words. Of course, Christians being what they are, they would have probably tried to convert you, or murdered you for being a non-believer, or worse, they might have pushed copies of "the watchtower" at you and wanted to talk about their faith. I can put up with talking and singing, after all, it's just that, talking and singing. I probably would have had my tent set up already anyway. I'm planning on doing this loop over spring break, so it will be thru-hikers I'm dealing with, not church groups. I'll probably want to be out alone in the tent any way. I go out into the woods to get away from crowds, not join some.

double d
08-20-2012, 23:04
Why not just tell this church group that God is Dead? That will start the ball rolling.

Coffee Rules!
08-21-2012, 03:07
Actually, not true, The constitution provides for freedom of religion, not freedom from religion...

Ohhhhhhh how wrong you are. So you think you're allowed to choose your religion without having one forced on you, but I'm not free to choose NO religion?

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..."

THAT is your freedom from portion.

Coffee Rules!
08-21-2012, 03:13
While I agree with the "just get away from them" sentiment, I can't help but wonder how different the responses in this thread would be if the OP were a Christian and it had been a bunch of Wiccans who showed up and staged an impromptu service.

10-K
08-21-2012, 07:12
Shelters blow.

IrishBASTARD
08-21-2012, 08:02
MY GUESS IS YOU PAY TAXES AS WERE ALL MOSTLY STUCK DOING. This group being a "Christian youth group" does not for a couple of reasons... But all and all the Christian BS does not belong in a shelter...its not a church or chapel. As a hiker and first one there...you have a Right to stand your ground. ALL too many of these shelters are taken over. Either by groups or BOY SCOUTS (was once years ago) who have no respect for fellow Hikers. Out in the shelters evenn fellow hikers sobo/nobo take up enough room for 6 men...while only being three in number. So I blame peoples give me attitude of life and living. Me on the other hand Ive slept on more tables on the trail...then I have shelters to make room for others. Even most of the time being the first one to those shelters as such.

Thirsty DPD
08-21-2012, 09:05
Me on the other hand Ive slept on more tables on the trail...then I have shelters to make room for others. Even most of the time being the first one to those shelters as such.

Are you sure your not a Christian, your very sacrificial, Roadside must be very proud of you. A troubled, hard head is one thing, a hard heart is deadly. Send me a PM if you want to talk about it.

IrishBASTARD
08-21-2012, 09:38
Beg to differ...

Religion is always relevant when it comes to any public land use. Old ladies converging on a shelter to talk about their grandsons, arthritis medication, or Obamacare is far different than a religious group having a sermon. (I think I just posted on that subject).

If they were a religious group that was out there to hold a forum on government environmental policy in a religious context, then they are more than welcome, so long as they don't have a group prayer before or after (and are properly permitted). Allowing a moment for silent individual prayer I would imagine is ok.

Moving to the back of the bus just because it is easier only emboldens those who want their way. At the very least the group should be reported and let the authorities sort it out.
LEGALLY SPEAKING THEY NEED PERMITS FOR SUCH A LARGE GROUP. Otherwise they are violating Park guide lines in using said public property. RELIGION does not belong on PUBLIC PROPERTY NOW OR EVER...its in violation of all US. RIGHTS. Not anywhere is RELIGIOUS FREEDOM spoken of in any public documents...it was an idea a suggestion by Thomas Jefferson. Not sure what "grandsons" "obamacare" has to do with anything in shelter usage. BUT you need PERMITS (unless otherwise noted differently) to have X amount of people...anywhere on Federal land.

Water Rat
08-21-2012, 09:47
MY GUESS IS YOU PAY TAXES AS WERE ALL MOSTLY STUCK DOING. This group being a "Christian youth group" does not for a couple of reasons... But all and all the Christian BS does not belong in a shelter...its not a church or chapel. As a hiker and first one there...you have a Right to stand your ground. ALL too many of these shelters are taken over. Either by groups or BOY SCOUTS (was once years ago) who have no respect for fellow Hikers. Out in the shelters evenn fellow hikers sobo/nobo take up enough room for 6 men...while only being three in number. So I blame peoples give me attitude of life and living. Me on the other hand Ive slept on more tables on the trail...then I have shelters to make room for others. Even most of the time being the first one to those shelters as such.

Well, that kills eating at picnic tables for me...

IrishBASTARD
08-21-2012, 09:51
Constitutional rights violated? What if they were a bunch of partiers, would that violate any constitutional rights? YES IT WOULD violate that single persons RIGHTS...we cannot hold mob mentality when it comes to RIGHTS. Stample on one while they other party...isnt that what the REVOLUTIONARY WAR was for...fighting for the rights of the broken hearted and over taxed single COLONY. Also they violate FEDERAL PARK LAND LAWS...numerous state local laws as well. They run the gambit in laws broken...and or ignored. I've called the Police on partiers when I am out...why dont more hikers? It would be a less messy much better hiked trail. Don't care if a shelter is in your back yard so to speak...its FEDERAL PROPERTY and drinking or smoking ANYTHING there is a Federal crime then.

Skyline
08-21-2012, 09:52
Ohhhhhhh how wrong you are. So you think you're allowed to choose your religion without having one forced on you, but I'm not free to choose NO religion?

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..."

THAT is your freedom from portion.


Well put! And it follows that our civil laws must not project any particular religious dogma, either. Unfortunately, some do, and their constitutionality should be called into question.

Thirsty DPD
08-21-2012, 09:52
Well, that kills eating at picnic tables for me...

Good point!

Water Rat
08-21-2012, 09:55
Good point!

I think eating off the ground might be a bit more sanitary...

Thirsty DPD
08-21-2012, 10:27
I think eating off the ground might be a bit more sanitary...

For sure, he already said he doesn't like cleaning up after himself.

Water Rat
08-21-2012, 10:30
For sure, he already said he doesn't like cleaning up after himself.

Okay... I will not be using any of the tables along the trail. I will also refrain from eating directly under the tables.

Thirsty DPD
08-21-2012, 10:36
Okay... I will not be using any of the tables along the trail. I will also refrain from eating directly under the tables.

To think what might have fallen through the cracks. Are the tables clean in the Cafe, I'll move over there if they'll give me a seat.

Water Rat
08-21-2012, 10:38
To think what might have fallen through the cracks. Are the tables clean in the Cafe, I'll move over there if they'll give me a seat.

Come on over! The tables are cleaned at least monthly... Used to be more often, but the polar bear decided to quit and only hang out in the pool.

Thirsty DPD
08-21-2012, 10:41
Come on over! The tables are cleaned at least monthly... Used to be more often, but the polar bear decided to quit and only hang out in the pool.

See you there.

Water Rat
08-21-2012, 10:42
See you there.

You got it. Tell the guys I am bringing cookies later.

Coffee Rules!
08-21-2012, 11:18
RELIGION does not belong on PUBLIC PROPERTY NOW OR EVER...its in violation of all US. RIGHTS.

All rights? How does religion on public property (Kindly forgive my non-use of all caps. I prefer not looking like an idiot.) violate my right to free speech? Carry a gun? Avoid unreasonable search and seizure? Right to vote? Please, enlighten us all, oh Swami of the CAPS LOCK.

pervy_sage
08-21-2012, 12:07
YES IT WOULD violate that single persons RIGHTS...we cannot hold mob mentality when it comes to RIGHTS.


LEGALLY SPEAKING THEY NEED PERMITS FOR SUCH A LARGE GROUP. Otherwise they are violating Park guide lines in using said public property. RELIGION does not belong on PUBLIC PROPERTY NOW OR EVER...its in violation of all US. RIGHTS. Not anywhere is RELIGIOUS FREEDOM spoken of in any public documents...it was an idea a suggestion by Thomas Jefferson. Not sure what "grandsons" "obamacare" has to do with anything in shelter usage. BUT you need PERMITS (unless otherwise noted differently) to have X amount of people...anywhere on Federal land.

First, there is no need to shout. Your name was sufficient to indicate your passion. Chill out.

Second, irregardless of the need for permitting of a large group (which speaks more to public safety and fair utilization of a public resource than to rights), as individuals and taxpayers we have the right to practice whatever religion we chose in any venue we chose that is either our own, (private) or payed for by our taxes (public) per the first amendment as someone else has already quoted. I can pray, with due respect to the rights of others, in either place as an individual and would expect (and demand if the case arose) them to respect my rights in turn (assuming I know them).

I cannot, as a member of an organized religious group that pays no taxes, participate in an activity that would be interpreted by law as a religious ceremony, religious instruction, or indoctrination, nor can I post or display religious artifacts or text in the context of such ceremony, while on public land or in a public building, or when acting as an agent of the state (i.e. teacher, judge, police officer, etc.).

As per my example, if this same group were to gather in the same venue to discuss the impact of the recent Healthcare act (aka Obamacare) on their organization or in relation to their beliefs and did not participate in any ceremony other than a moment for private individual prayer, then they do not run afoul of the first amendment establishment clause of the constitution and are well within their rights of free speech and assembly (assuming proper permits were obtained of course).

Thirdly, and more being picky than anything, first amendment right to assembly covers the "mob mentality" you speak of. To join with others of like mind or like concern for political discourse or protest should the need arise is one of the cornerstones to uphold and maintain the other rights. Fortunately, with the flourishing of the internet it presents a much harder challenge for any government to prevent such "assembly" from occurring. Huzzah for us.

Lastly, and most importantly, it is only illegal if they get caught by a duly sworn officer of the state, or are reported by an individual(s) who is willing to testify or make sworn statement to such activity, and it is interpreted as such by the judiciary in a court of law. Otherwise, legally it never happened. If you want your rights upheld, first learn what they are (and I mean really learn what they are), and then exercise them.

At least that is how I would interpret it, but I am certainly not a constitutional lawyer.

Pedaling Fool
08-21-2012, 14:13
YES IT WOULD violate that single persons RIGHTS...we cannot hold mob mentality when it comes to RIGHTS. Stample on one while they other party...isnt that what the REVOLUTIONARY WAR was for...fighting for the rights of the broken hearted and over taxed single COLONY. Also they violate FEDERAL PARK LAND LAWS...numerous state local laws as well. They run the gambit in laws broken...and or ignored. I've called the Police on partiers when I am out...why dont more hikers? It would be a less messy much better hiked trail. Don't care if a shelter is in your back yard so to speak...its FEDERAL PROPERTY and drinking or smoking ANYTHING there is a Federal crime then.Exactly which Right was violated?

TD55
08-21-2012, 14:46
Post #127 is spot on. It matchs my own experiance with these matters.

Coffee Rules!
08-21-2012, 16:35
I sure wish someone would start violating my lefts. They feel inadequate and unloved.

pervy_sage
08-21-2012, 16:44
I sure wish someone would start violating my lefts. They feel inadequate and unloved.

What you do with your lefts is your own business. Please keep them to yourself.

Bronk
08-21-2012, 17:41
Explain to me how a right exists if a permit can either be approved or denied. Our founders believed our rights were unalienable, which means they cannot be taken away. You can come up with all kinds of creative explanations for denying people their rights...people do it all the time...and as they do it they pretend to uphold them. I've learned to tell the difference.