New kind of Trail Magic

[Lone Wolf]

Joseph Campbell writes some pretty good *****t on the subject too.

[bfitz]

Please refrain from being an ASSHAT at the table.

Given this opinion why do persist in participating in conversations that you are offended by? Are you a masochist or something?
If you find any topic I bring up at the breakfast table to be unsavory, just send a polite signal and I will go with any topic you prfer, so long as I find it interesting. I also said in the statement you so viciously attacked that:

"If I'm not in a mood for debate and/or conversation I'll keep to myslef, and if you press me I'll let you know. If, after that, you persist in a rude or annoying fashion, then you'd be in the wrong regardless of what topic you're on about. I know how to deal with that, too."

That means that I expect people to be polite, and sensitive to the feelings of others regardless of what topic they bring up. So obviously I would notice your inordinate distaste for religious or political discussion. (I wonder how you manage to moderate your political opinions?)

I value courtesy above all other social values, and would not be discourteous to you, either online or in person.

But any topic that another cares to bring up in a courteous fashion and wishes to discuss without condescension or sensitivity to my preference (sometimes I'm not in a mood to discuss anything at all, although I wouldn't be rude about it) is okay with me. The same ought to be true for every person. Otherwise they are in the position of being judgemental and potentially discourteous. Jack's post was excellent on the topic, since he had a polite response, allowing the other person an oppurtunity for the person to change the subject in a polite fashion. Once they have failed to behave in kind they have forfeited their expectation of courtesy from you, and you may then call them an asshat. I personally despise conversations about gear at shelters, and will try to maneuver the conversation politely towards topics I prefer. But I don't go calling people asshats if they have a conversation about gear infront of me. I just go smoke a bowl or something and check out a view or visit the privy. All conversations end. Context determines the appropriateness of any topic. You're absolutism in this regard is actually quite discourteous.

[Rain Man]

By the way, it's risky to cite cases to a lawyer: Van Orden makes it clear that anyone, regardless of their faith (or lack of it) can express their opinions - or preach, if you want to call such expressions that - pretty much anywhere or anytime in public places unless there is a truly compelling reason why not. That doesn't make it "coercive or even rude."

Doesn't make it polite, either. Your implication that if a court says it's legal then it's not rude is based on a non sequitar. Often courts say things are legal in spite of being offensive. Your legal extrapolations in this debate keep going over the top and thereby you sometimes shoot yourself in the foot, or close enough you should jump.

Moderation might be thought of as holy.

RainMan
.

[Alligator]

I just finished what I thought was a Cool book for those, like me, that are looking for spiritualism without the dogmas or goofy rules of religions. Not only that , but it demonstrates for those who are turned off by "religions" that it is OK to follow your own spiritual path and your search for oneness with the "Source." I found the author verbalized a lot of what I already knew inside, but couldn't yet classify. It's called God on Your Own : Finding A Spiritual Path Outside Religion. It complimented my spiritual preparation for my Thru also!

Are you preaching to us .

LOL.

Don't go leaving this book in all the shelters, ya hear !

[Boat Drinks]

Are you preaching to us .

LOL.

Don't go leaving this book in all the shelters, ya hear !

Heh, no way! it was just a book critique!!!

[Boat Drinks]

I just go smoke a bowl or something and check out a view

I want to Hike with YOU!!!!!!!

[woodsy]

Doesn't make it polite, either. Your implication that if a court says it's legal then it's not rude is based on a non sequitar. Often courts say things are legal in spite of being offensive.


RainMan
.[/quote]

So true, We have a small group of holy rollers in our small town that magically appear on the street on weekends hollerin for all they are worth about how everyone who doesn't believe in their god is headin for h**l . Talk about rude, This in my mind is disturbing the peace and if someone in nonreligous garb were doing this they would probably be admitted to the insane asylum. Why these people deserve special rights is beyond me.
Churches are for preaching
Trails are for hiking.

[Lone Wolf]

Hell is life drying up.

[spandau]

The Weasel[/quote]

>Well, those are your words, Spandy...sure doesn't sound very tolerant, and doesn't sound very joking, either.<

Hence the emoticon.

>By the way, it's risky to cite cases to a lawyer:<

You aren't the only lawyer in this conversation, but I'm beginning to wonder if I might be.

>Van Orden makes it clear that anyone, regardless of their faith (or lack of it) can express their opinions - or preach, if you want to call such expressions that - pretty much anywhere or anytime in public places unless there is a truly compelling reason why not. <

Of course, which is why I never made the argument that they didn't. Straw men burn nicely, don't you think?
The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment actually applies to governmental regulation or promotion of religion.
I am glad that you seem to have realized that the protections of the First Amendment apply to everyone, regardless of religious persuasion or lack thereof. A small step, but Rome wasn't built in a day.

>That doesn't make it "coercive or even rude."<

I'm afraid that, in this instance, those qualities are in the eye of the beholder, annoying though that might be to those wishing to be heard.

>As for 'not understanding their motivation', well, it's a little surprising that there's someone on this planet over legal drinking ages who didn't understand why a believer in something would want to share that belief.<

Why is that so surprising to you? I find it surprising that a believer would feel the need for outside reinforcement of deeply-held beliefs.

Spandy-o


Ihre Weasel

[Alligator]

Heh, no way! it was just a book critique!!!

Give me some breakfast and maybe I'll check it out.

[Boat Drinks]

Give me some breakfast and maybe I'll check it out.

ROFLMAO, that made coke come out my nose!

[Mags]

Any Unitarian Universalists here? I went to a UU church last nite. Seems cool.

The U.U's are quite popular here in Boulder.

I went to a U.U. mass/cerememony/gathering/whatever with my girlfriend at the time.

Reminded me of religious channel surfing!

First the song "Hallelujah" made famous in Shrek was played on acoustic guitar.

Then they went to Shinto prayer...

Then a traditional Yiddish song was played...

THEN, I swear I am not making this up, a gospel song was played...

Something for everyone ?!?!?!?

Ever hear the joke:

"Darn Unitarians burnt a "?" on my front lawn!!!!"

[halftime]

You aren't the only lawyer in this conversation,

This might partially explain why this thread is so long.

[Mags]

Hold up now - you can't even talk about grits and hashbrowns?!

Scattered smothered covered and chunked (with no commas). Though grits with butter floating in a puddle on top are a close second.

Grits...hashbrowns..or HOMEFRIES!

Much better...

http://www.chow.com/recipes/10433

Homefries are to hashbrowns what a good "bar and grill" burger is to a McD's burger. Plain pototaoes that are crunchy (and often frozen?) Blech. Potatoes fried with onions and spices? Yeah!


Visiting the folks for Thanksgiving. High on my agenda is a good greasy spoon with eggs, corn beef hash and delicious home fries on the side. Yum.

I may have moved from my home area...but the food is much better there!

[bfitz]

I want to Hike with YOU!!!!!!!

Anytime. Religious concepts are more fun to contemplate when stoned, I've discovered.

[The Weasel]

Doesn't make it polite, either. Your implication that if a court says it's legal then it's not rude is based on a non sequitar. Often courts say things are legal in spite of being offensive. Your legal extrapolations in this debate keep going over the top and thereby you sometimes shoot yourself in the foot, or close enough you should jump.

Moderation might be thought of as holy.

RainMan
.

Well, Rain, your first sentence is correct, and the second one isn't what I said: The original point here was, more or less, "Why do these people do this? I don't understand it, and I think it's offensive/rude that they do so." As for the second, actually, it's pretty rare for a court to say - in constitutional matters, at least - that something that's constititutionally permissible is inherently offensive. What they do say is that the First Amendment permits the expression of ideas that some people may find offensive. Others don't. That's what is meant by what a lot of courts say when they refer to "the marketplace of ideas." As a result, unless there is some massive governmental interest that justifies shutting someone up, there is nothing inherently wrong - or rude - about any particular opinion or how it's shared. That's why it's OK to advocate using nuclear weapons against, say, Nicaragua, but it's equally OK to prohibit disclosing how to build them. But there aren't a lot of times that "compelling governmental interest can be shown.

But yes, expressing one's opinion in public places is a lot like using nuclear weapons. Just because you can doesn't mean you should. But the first point - "why do they do it" - is one that has two parts: First, people who believe in sharing their religion and calling others to join with them do so because they can (that's the legal part) and second, because they believe they are helping others by doing so. Nuclear weapons, on the other hand, are generally considered harmful to the recipient, both by how they are used and the result after use.

Despite the conventional wisdom - mostly, it seems, from people who either haven't done the AT or seem to be talking about other places with legions of "holy rollers" screaming epithets - I don't see people passing out water and food at trail crossings as inherently rude, while Spandau certainly thinks they are. And despite the 'conventional wisdom' about "holy rollers" and such, I frankly have never seen offensive behavior by any religious group outside of a large, formal demonstration, and rarely even those, and those were fringe groups, at best. And that's a far cry from what is alleged to happen on the trail.

But I'm amazed - and saddened - at the bile that is spewed at people of different beliefs who aren't accused of doing more than offering to share those beliefs with others. I'm an Episcopalian, and we don't proselytize aggresively (read: never, it seems), and we tend to have pretty mellow services, sometimes too much so. So 'moderation' comes easily in terms of sharing my faith. But the tone of this discussion is, "Let's tell all these disgusting people to get awat from OUR trail, because WE think that what they do is offensive." Leaving aside the elitist aspect to that, there's an admonition about that from the Bible, when Jesus said to a critic, "Why do you see the little speck in my eye, but you can't see the log in your own?" In other words, why is moderation and tolerance something for others here - "Hey, Bible thumpers! Get outta my trail! - but not for us to say, "Thanks, no. Bye!"

When I walked into the bunkhouse at the Blueberry Patch, I saw a few small religious tracts on the table, in a basket, and they had a rubber stamp from a local Baptist church. Gary never said anything about them to me or, to my knowledge, anyone else, although it's well known that he runs the Patch as a form of mission to others. It was up to me to respond, or not, and what I did and didn't do was solely my choice. Much as it will be to Spandau's to stop, and chat, and perhaps learn that "holy rollers" are moms and pops and brothers and sisters and sons and daughters just like the rest of us. Or he can walk on by.

Such people have the right to be in the same places as we do - it's legal - and not inherently "rude and offensive" for doing so just because some people don't agree with what they do or believe, Perhaps Spandau and others should look in the mirror as they contemplate 'rudeness' and the need for 'moderation' by others, and, in place of suspicion for those he doesn't - or didn't - understand, find graciousness in his heart for the presence.

The Weasel

[Skidsteer]

No WH here in CA, but Denny's is an almost-acceptable substitute. Can't wait to get back the East coast!

No WH in California?

Where do Califorinians go to smoke?

[Just Jeff]

CA was the first to pass the "no smoking in public establishments" law, I think. I can't remember the last time I saw someone smoke inside.

[The Weasel]

No WH in California?

Where do Califorinans go to smoke?

Sidewalks. Alleys. Some parks. Their own homes. Inside cars.

Oh yeah, and Nevada. ANYwhere in Nevada.

The Weasel

[Jester2000]

Still, if I didn't want cake, and someone insisted I eat some, and wouldn't stop insisting, and kept trying to force me to eat that cake, and tried to shove the cake down my throat, then yeah, I'd tell them to **** off.

But, um, what if it's REALLY good?

Some observations:
-- Haven't really been exposed to overtly pushy religious folk on the trail, tho' if I did, I suppose it would bother me. On the one hand, religion, I think, is an integral part of the society I flee from when I enter the woods. On the other hand, I have five completely different fingers.

-- I have received much help and encouragement from people who are religious, and I have to believe that it is their faith that propells them to help others. A Unitarian Minister took me in when I was injured, saving my thru, and others helped in smaller, but still meaningful, ways. None of them preached at me. They helped me because they thought that it was the right thing to do. And because they thought that secretly I was an angel.

-- Some people are unaware that Lone Wolf owns the copyright on
"********"

-- Some people are unaware that you're allowed to pray to anyone you want, including Mary. You're just not supposed to worship them. Catholics pray to Mary to intercede on their behalf. 'Cause if you want someone to do something for you, asking their mom to ask for you is a pretty good strategy (the actual message behind the wedding feast of Cannan story (bet you thought it was about marriage)).

-- The Mason-Dixon line has been renamed "The Waffle House-IHOP Line."

-- BFitz comes across as rude to people even when he's being polite.

-- The church in Billville, like our feed, is far enough from the trail that it can be easily avoided. It is called "Our Lady of Perpetual Pantlessness."