Do Native Americans Have First Amendment Rights?

[babsbunny]

http://www.truthout.org/article/do-native-americans-have-first-amendment-rights

Wednesday 20 August 2008

by: Leslie Thatcher, t r u t h o u t | Interview

The San Francisco Peaks are visible from many parts of the Southwest's Four Corners and have been sacred to at least 13 recognized Native American tribes for at least as long as Europeans have been in the country. Northern Arizona University Professor Miguel Vasquez described the argument that only a part of the Peaks are affected by the planned spraying of up to 1.5 million gallons a day of effluent for snowmaking as "equivalent to saying it's O.K. to piss in St. Peter's as long as you only do it in one corner." (Photo: Calvin Johnson / Save the Peaks Coalition)

Ninth Circuit rules effluent does not defile sacred space. Forest Service argued skiing on treated sewage "a compelling government interest."

The San Francisco Peaks of Northern Arizona "are sacred to at least 13 formally recognized Indian tribes ... and this religious significance is of centuries duration."(1) In February 2005, the US Forest Service issued a Final Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision approving a proposal to make artificial snow using treated sewage effluent at the Snowbowl Resort located on Humphrey's Peak, the highest and - to the tribes - most holy of the San Francisco Peaks. That decision was appealed by the Navajo Nation, the Hopi Tribe, the Havasupai Tribe, the Hualapai Tribe, the Yavapai-Apache Nation and the White Mountain Apache Nation. The Circuit Court ruled for the Forest Service. In February 2007, a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court unanimously overturned the lower court's decision. On Friday, August 8, 2008, the en banc majority of the Ninth Circuit Court ruled that "using treated sewage effluent to make artificial snow on the most sacred mountain of southwestern Indian tribes does not violate the Religious Freedom Restoration Act ('RFRA'). It also holds that a supposed pleading mistake prevents the tribes from arguing under the National Environmental Act ('NEPA') that the Forest Service failed to consider the likelihood that children and others would ingest snow made from the effluent."(2)

[JonQ]

1. Who owns the land?

Every citizen has freedom of speech, but that doesn't guarantee you the right to stop someone else from doing something you disagree with on their own property.

[JVS]

2. Your link doesn't seem to go to the article you're posting about. Would you please fix it, sounds..

interesting.

[2KS2KHonda]

3. Well, I am a huge supporter of Native Americans and I decry the way they've been treated for 300

years but they're being a little goofy on this one. Their religion is no more sensible than any other...which is to say none at all.
:eyes:

[dipsydoodle]

4. This looks to be an appropriate link

http://www.truthout.org/ It's dated today.

[Cleita]

5. I'm not crazy about what ski resorts do to wilderness areas

environmentally, whether they are on sacred mountains or not. Most mountains are sacred to me actually. I'm with the Native Americans on this one. Maybe they should get the Sierra Club involved in this. I think it's crazy to make artificial snow when Mother Nature isn't making it. It seems to me that we really need to pull back recreational degradation in wilderness areas in general. I include snowmobiling, jet skis and ATVs on beach and range land in this. We as a nation have to start respecting what's left of our natural wilderness and that means respecting the other species that also live on those lands.

[DemBones DemBones]

6. I agree, and would include respecting the

Native Americans themselves, as well as other species that live on the land. We've destroyed enough of their culture and what was their land. We don't have to continue treating them badly and we shouldn't.

(Not that I don't think you don't respect the Native Americans, Cleita, just adding to what you said.)

[Cleita]

13. I agree with you about the Native people.

I sort of excluded them somewhat on my post to try to appeal to other reasons why this should be done.

[Warpy]

11. Consider that the effluent feeds those same mountains

(well, the trees on them) when it melts. While I think it's a little silly to make snow when Mother Nature refuses to do so, I understand why they do it. There are people who live all year on ski resort income made over a 4 month season.

Remember, this is treated effluent, not black water right out of the resort's loo.

Personally, I find all the things you mentioned to be desecration, also, but that's just me.

[Cleita]

12. The problem is that they have to live off of this.

We need a better way to employ people.

[sandnsea]

7. Local Indians claimed land as sacred

and then bought an adjacent acreage and built a casino and hotel complex on it.

Everything isn't always as it seems.

[ben_meyers]

8. I might have a little sympathy for the tribes

If it weren't for their blatant hypocrisy involving this issue. One of the tribes doing the complaining owns and operates the competing Sunrise Ski Area and uses untreated effluent to make snow.

The Hualapai tribe (one of the Plaintiffs against Snowbowl) has just completed a massive Grand Canyon Skywalk attached to the rim of the Grand Canyon, impacting one of their most religiously significant sites for a much-needed economic boost. Furthermore, the White Mountain Apache (another plaintiff) uses effluent not treated to A+ standards to make snow at their Sunrise ski area in Eastern Arizona.

http://roadtriparizona.blogspot.com/2007/12/grab-your-skis-and-boards-snow-is-on.html

[fla nocount]

9. If you can't beat 'em.....join 'em,

go home white boy...after you've spent your money.

[TahitiNut]

10. PEOPLE have human rights, including (so-called) 1st Amendment rights

The Constitution DOES NOT CREATE such rights! The Constitution's VERY EXISTENCE is premised on such rights.

:banghead: :banghead: :banghead: