By DEACON MIKE MANNO
One thing I remember from my childhood, among all the old black and white westerns that I watched on TV, was an interest in Cowboys and Indians. Of course, at the time most Indians were portrayed as the antagonists, except for Tonto and a few that were intended for comic relief.
That never seemed right to me, but what was a kid to do? So like all the other kids I just sat back and watched the boob-tube. But the portrayal of the Indians never seemed balanced, especially when in history class the nuns taught us how real the prejudice against them was, and how they were relegated to reservations and stripped of most of their natural rights as the white man moved westward.
Then one day I remember seeing a solicitation for a Catholic Indian mission in one of the Dakotas. The solicitation listed the prices of things they needed to acquire to make sure the mission was financially stable. Of course I wasn’t a rich kid and lived with my parents in modest style. But I was intrigued with the cost of one of the mission’s necessities.
Bricks for building classrooms were fifty-cents apiece. I remember talking to my dad about it, he gave me an envelope and stamp and I put a dollar bill in it with a note that I would like to buy two bricks for the Indian kids. I don’t remember if I ever sent them any more money, but I was hoping my dollar might contribute to a better life on the reservation for kids like me.
Now before you get the idea that I’m some sort of civil rights activist for Native Americans, I’m not. I know history has not been kind to them, I know they were here first, but I also know that there were many other injustices committed during the long history of white men in America. There, of course, is nothing that we can do about the past except trying to understand it, and to grapple with the legacy we have inherited, both the good and the bad.
One of the ways we deal with this history is to recognize the cultural beliefs that are represented by the indigenous peoples that inhabited our land before we did. That may sound pious, although I do not mean it in that way. What I mean is this: Just as we take umbrage when we see mobs of demonstrators tearing down symbols of our white, Euro-centric culture, we should be reticent to disrespect theirs.
A case on point is now before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in which the Klickitat and Cascade Tribes of the Yakama Nation have watched as the government has not only disrespected a small religious site that has been the center of rituals and burial ceremonies since long before we arrived, but it deliberately destroyed it.
And it was all done to widen a highway in Oregon, without notice to the tribe and in violation of an agreement between the tribal leaders and the government agencies involved.
The dispute goes back to 2006 when the Federal Highway Administration sought to expand U.S. Highway 26 which linked Portland to Mount Hood, an ancient and sacred site for the native Indians. Along the highway was a small sacred cite called Ana Kwna Nchi nchi Patat, the “Place of Big Big Trees.” It was not quite a full acre and consisted of “a dense stand of old growth trees encircling a historic campground, burial ground, and centuries-old stone altar. The site has been used by indigenous peoples since time immemorial, and by Plaintiffs personally since the 1940s for core religious ceremonies that cannot take place anywhere else,” according to the tribe’s petition to the appellate court.
While initially the government tried to work with the tribes, those negotiations failed as the government went ahead with its widening plans and in 2008 the tribal hereditary chiefs, Wilbur Slockish and Johnny Jackson, along with a tribal elder, Carol Logan, and two other entities, responded by bringing suit against the Federal Highway Commission to prevent the further destruction of their religious site.
To add the turning lane, and to protect nearby wetlands, the government “completely destroyed the sacred site — cutting down the old-growth trees, bulldozing the burial ground and stone altar, and covering the area under a massive earthen berm. It did this even though there were several feasible ways to add the turn lane without harming the sacred site,” the tribes argued in their brief.
The tribes alleged that this is a violation of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), claiming the governmental action posed a “substantial burden” on the tribe’s religious liberties. “Here, the sacred site’s destruction obviously imposed a ‘substantial burden’ on Plaintiffs’ religious practices because it makes those practices impossible,” the tribes wrote.
Additionally the tribes contend the government violated the Free Exercise Clause by carving out secular — but not religious — exemptions from the negative consequences of its actions. Specifically, while the government altered the project to accommodate nearby wetlands, it refused to make the same accommodations for plaintiffs’ sacred site.
In addition, the suit alleged that the government violated the National Environmental Policy Act, the National Historic Preservation Act, and the Federal Land Policy and Management Act.
The lower court, however, was not kind to the tribes. It dismissed the suit saying that since the religious site had been destroyed and it was no longer accessible to the tribes, the destruction of the site did not impose a substantial burden on their religious exercise under RFRA. The case bounced around in the district court for a while until the court entered a final decree from which the tribes took this appeal to the circuit court.
In its brief, the tribes appealed to the court of appeals:
“Some cases present an irreconcilable conflict between the protection of a sacred site and the accomplishment of the Government’s goals. Not this one. Plaintiffs sought to protect a tiny, 0.74-acre site where they worshiped for a half-century, and where their ancestors worshiped for centuries before them.
“The Government knew about the site, sending an archaeologist to examine it. The Government protected the site, changing prior projects to preserve it. But then the Government knowingly destroyed it, rendering Plaintiffs’ religious practices impossible. That the Government deemed the site insignificant, or wanted to finish its project more quickly, does not justify its actions. It only shows why we have laws like these in the first place — so our nation’s tragic history of destroying sacred sites does not senselessly repeat itself.”
“For centuries Native Americans have endured the destruction of sacred places by the federal government, and it’s heartbreaking that the court would say this completely preventable destruction was okay,” said tribal elder Carol Logan, and one of the plaintiffs in this case. “All we want is the return of our sacred artifacts, the rededication of the area for our ancestors, and the promise that we can continue to worship as our tribes have done for centuries.”
The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty and two local firms are representing the tribes.
This case has had a long and complicated history. This appeal was only filed May 3, 2021 so there might be a while longer before the tribes get justice. But this is one of those cases that will get little note by the press or legal commentators. For most, unless you live in the area, you will never have heard of this dispute. But it is real, it affects real people who want to protect their religious heritage and practice.
We would want the same thing.
(You can reach Mike at: DeaconMike@q.com and listen to him every Thursday at 10 a.m. Central on Faith On Trial at IowaCatholicRadio.com.)
Powered by WPtouch Mobile Suite for WordPress