Horsin' around
Don Coldsmith, Syndicated Columnist
Monday, August 4, 2008
As a general rule, the old adage is true: To get along with people, don’t discuss politics or religion. That’s not bad advice. However, a couple of things that caught my attention may deserve a comment. ‘Tis the season, I guess.
First, of course, was the protest through the American Civil Liberties Union, to stop the presentation of the school district’s Christmas Program in Emporia. It has a long and respected history. (The Christmas Program, I mean — the ACLU has a long history of another sort, and have certainly espoused some bizarre causes).
We had no idea exactly what the complaint was about —was this someone who is of another faith, who objects to a Christian-oriented pageant? Hey, they can stay home that night. Why bother everyone else in town? This isn’t religious FREEDOM; it’s religious persecution of the majority.
Or maybe the dissenter doesn’t have a religion of his own. Maybe he (or she) is a professed atheist. They’ve always amused me. “A-theist” means literally “without God,” a being that does not exist for them. Now what’s the point in being without something that doesn’t exist anyway? Should we all be forced to respect the whims of somebody who is that confused?
YES! We SHOULD respect their views. But we should NOT be forced to change our own views just for them. Nor should they, just for us. But they’re not asking freedom OF religion, as provided in the Constitution, are they? They demand freedom FROM religion, which is quite another thing.
I’ve always had a tendency to respect the faith of others. We’ve had friends who are Jewish, Islamic, Buddhist, Baha’i and a wide variety of Christians. In the major Christian denominations, we read Old Testament scriptures each Sunday which are seen as sacred by at least three other major faiths. What’s the problem here? Let those who don’t want to participate NOT participate. The Constitution guarantees it.
My present job requires much research in the history and beliefs of American Indians. Here’s an odd situation, then: I have never found an instance of a war between Native American tribes or nations over religion. They might fight and kill, even carry out genocide. It could be over many different things, but not over religion. In the tribal religions, one’s faith is personal and private. Your people have yours, we have ours and it is impolite, even forbidden, to question it. It’s a bit embarrassing to me that Christianity has one of the most intolerant track records of any faith. It seems downright unchristian.
This whole thing seemed to come full circle last week in a letter I received from an Indian friend. He called my attention to a couple of cases of religious intolerance against Indians. Not historical, but current. In both, American Indians were being prevented from worshiping in their traditional ways. Both reached the Supreme Court and decisions had been handed down.
Surely, that brought justice, right? Freedom of religion, under the Constitution and the Bill of Rights? WRONG. Incredibly, the United Sates Supreme Court has decreed that the right to freedom of religion does not apply to American Indians! (Don’t take my word for it. You can look it up: Lyng vs. Northwest Indian Cemetery Protective Association or Employment Division, Department of Human Resources vs. Smith.)
Meanwhile, is there something here that seems slightly out of focus?
See you down the road.
Comments
We allow registered users to post comments on this Web site. To learn more about our posting policies please read our User Poster Agreement Policy.
Posted by smith_ron (anonymous) on August 4, 2008 at 3:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Mr. Coldsmith: Your posting is about six months too late, although it would be appropriate next December, when the issue of The Christmas Program will surface again.
Here is the summation of the Lyng case:
Facts of the Case (The Oyez Project, n.d.)
The United States Forest Service was considering building a paved roadway that would cut through the Chimney Rock area of the Six Rivers National Forest. It was also considering timber harvesting in the area. A study commissioned by the Forest Service reported that harvesting the Chimney Rock area would irreparably damage grounds that had historically been used by Native Americans to conduct religious rituals. After the Forest Service decided to construct a road, the Northwest Indian Cemetery Protective Association took action against Secretary of Agriculture Richard Lyng.
Question
Did the First Amendment's Free Exercise Clause prohibit the government from harvesting or developing the Chimney Rock area?
Conclusion
No. In a 5-to-3 decision, the Court held that the Forest Service was free to harvest the lands. Though the government's actions would have severe adverse effects on the Indians' practice oftheir religion, those effects were only incidental and did not constitute an attempt to coerce Native Americans to act in violation of their beliefs. The Court reasoned that government could not operate "if it were required to satisfy every citizen's religious needs and desires," and that the First Amendment did not give any one group veto power over public programs that did not actually prohibit the free exercise of religion.
Works Cited
The Oyez Project. (n.d.). Lyng v. Northwest Indian CPA. Retrieved August 4, 2008, from The Oyez Project: http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1987...
Posted by madpoet (anonymous) on August 4, 2008 at 4:54 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Am I understanding that the Indians were upset because a road was built through a religious site and trees were to be cut down? Imagine if the government wanted to build a road through your church or cementary. I would guess you'd be pretty upset too. I would be.
And a road may not sound like much but they damage ecosystems. They break up habitat, cause a hazard for wildlife, affect their movement from one area to another, and introduce "edge" species which can crowd out climax species. So I'm rather offended by the road in the National Forest separate from the religion issue.
Posted by smith_ron (anonymous) on August 4, 2008 at 5:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I agree with you, mad. the issue of the road upsets me more than the religious freedom stuff.
Posted by create (anonymous) on August 4, 2008 at 5:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)
So we'll have Christmas in August. It's never too late to sing out about hurts.
I too am upset because this road was built. An entire people's religious connection to the land was dismissed as if it did not matter in the least just as our historic Christmas observance was dismissed here in Emporia as if an entire town did not matter. Are we so insignificant to not matter?
Good points about the ecosystem, madpoet.
Post a comment
We allow registered users to post comments on this Web site. Our goal with this feature is to encourage thoughtful discussions about the news stories. Using the comment feature to make random attacks on people is not acceptable. Emporiagazette.com neither endorses nor guarantees the accuracy of any user contribution. Responsibility for what is posted or contributed to this site is the sole responsibility of each user. To learn more about our posting policies please read our User Poster Agreement Policy.
(Requires free registration.)