[at-l] Community Spirit (Delete alert - looong reply)

[saunterer@jimbullard.org (saunterer@jimbullard.org)]

At 01:03 AM 1/20/02 -0500, RoksnRoots@aol.com wrote:
>I prefer discussion amongst Trail members myself. One thing
>I would never want to be a part of is a mono-culture community where persons
>cannot speak their minds in a constructive way. If I spend a lot of time
>seeming like a combatant here it's exactly because of what you do here. I
>myself believe that a man stands by his words without having to tow any
>community line and satisfy people who make strong demands on community but
>then turn around and dismiss a higher calling to Trail with a shrug. In a
>sense that is a higher level of community and community integrity than any
>group of people who just like to agree. If I understood American thinking it
>was key to our way of life. Why have freedom of speech and protection of the
>individual's right to dissent if those who dare use it are set upon at the
>first opportunity? With that said, it's probably more American to exercise
>that action of freedom than grouping together for censure. Unwelcome speech
>usually ends up happening in awkward settings precisely because persons
>thinking they are best serving America are actually defeating what makes it
>America. People then feel compelled to speak. America was never meant to be a
>place where persons where forced to agree with the government or public.
>Sorry.

RnR, are you saying then that there are *no* limits on free speech, not 
even limits of good taste, of consideration for the feelings of your fellow 
man?  Taken to it's limit that would suggest that it would be okay to stand 
before a group of mixed ethnic background and hurl racial epithets at them 
and they should be obliged to listen attentively then applaud the speaker 
for enlightening them with an alternative view.  This is the attitude of 
arrogant youth that spawned much of the violent protests of the '60s.  If 
you believe there *is* a limit to the freedom of speech (not a legal limit 
but a moral or social one) where you see that line falling?  Obviously not 
at the point of offending other members of the community.  Where then?

You say you want constructive discussion.  Warren's reading was one sided, 
not discussion. And as for constructive, exactly how was this 
constructive?  You refer to a "higher calling".  What is it that makes 
Warren's view (or yours) a 'higher calling'?  Because you believe it to be 
so?  Do others' views fall lower on the scale simply because they disagree 
with you?   A man should stand by his word of honor in keeping commitments 
but only a fool stands by his words of opinion without even considering 
that he *could* be wrong.

Reason without passion is cold.  Passion without reason and consideration 
for others leads to anger and loss of self control.    You appear to me to 
be ruled by passion.  You remind me of the arrogant youth I encountered on 
campus in the '60s.  Community discussion requires a balance of reason and 
passion, a willingness to listen and not merely lecture.

You may not believe it but I read most of your posts.  I skip the parts 
where you rail at the reception many of your posts inspire.  Frankly those 
rants add nothing to the "discussion" and aren't worthy of my time so I 
skip over them.  Despite reading what you have said and going back to 
reread sources to see if I was remembering anything wrong I find that I 
still disagree with your views.  It appears to me that you are reading 
through glasses that color the meaning with a predisposed opinion.  Sorry, 
but that is the way it is.  You fail to convince me that you are 
right.  Accusing us of not caring, being shallow or any of the other modes 
of attack you have directed at the list are pointless.  They add nothing to 
the 'discussion' and they certainly do not demonstrate your "higher calling 
to the Trail".

Your position on the WD incident at the Gathering is characteristic of your 
approach.  You weren't there, you didn't know what WD did but you are 
prepared to defend it, apparently because of a belief that any speech no 
matter how radical, no matter how offensive, no matter how "awkward the 
setting" should be not only permitted but embraced by those it is directed 
at.  You apparently believe that you (and presumably Warren Doyle) are the 
possessor of the 'higher calling' and we lowly AT-Lers are in need of being 
enlightened by you wisdom.  Who is this god who has called you to this role?

We who attended the Gathering went there to share a love of hiking, to meet 
like minded souls and to have a weekend of recreation.  While I don't know 
every person that was there (or even a small percentage of them) I would 
feel absolutely safe in saying that not one, repeat, NOT ONE of them was 
involved in any action toward the terrorists that warranted such 
retaliation.  There were however, folks who lost equally innocent family or 
friends in the terrorist attacks, who had family or friends involved in 
recovering the bodies of victims or who are required by their oath (not to 
mention honor) as firemen, police or soldiers to respond to the 
attacks.  They were at the Gathering for respite, to renew their spirits 
among kindred souls.  Yet you suggest that it was our duty, in the interest 
of community, to endure a political tirade which damned our country and 
defended the terrorists and more, that we should have been glad for having 
had our country, our families and friends insulted and damned for being 
Americans.   Rather than walking out or booing, we should have thanked 
Warren Doyle for his 'enlightening' alternative view on the recent national 
sorrow.

My copy of Websters dictionary defines community thus: "1) all persons 
living in a locality, 2) a group having interests or religion in common, 3) 
joint sharing".  Regardless of which of the three applies in any situation, 
I always try to respect the sensitivities of the community I am in.  If I 
feel that the community is not in tune with me, I leave it.

When I am at the Gathering I am there due to a common bond and as hikers we 
are equal.  If we have opposing political views, they are irrelevant.  I 
did  not come there to debate politics.  If I were to use my time among my 
fellow hikers to attack the politics of the majority of the people that I 
encounter I am not merely out of place, I am acting contrary to the stated 
purpose of the Gathering and I am guilty of attacking the 'community' which 
is based on hiking, not politics.  That is what happened at the 
Gathering.  Warren has every right to free speech under the US Constitution 
but what he said was out of place at the gathering.  It showed 
insensitivity to the feelings  membership.  It was wrong!  It was 
anti-community.

sAunTerer