IN THEORY

Sacred spaces worthy of respect, protection

Native Americans have long protested the use of what they consider to be sacred lands for secular purposes. In Wyoming, for example, climbing enthusiasts have been allowed by the courts to climb Devils Tower, which members of the Lakota Tribe hold sacred. Non-Indians say it violates separation of church and state to protect sacred claims on government land. Inland Valley Times asked area spiritual leaders whether claims made by Native groups that certain land is sacred should be protected by courts, and, if not, does the general public have an obligation to respect such claims?
 

I think that the people who come from the land should have the say so in what happens to that land. The general public does have the responsibility to respect other beliefs. We respect all other religions, and we expect other religions to respect us. About a month ago we went to Big Mountain (in north Arizona) to pray and we were greeted by tribal police. We're the only people in the country who are greeted by police when we go to church. They're trying to develop at Cal State Long Beach and that's our Jerusalem. That's the place we call "Puvungna," that's where our creator gave us our human form and Cal State Long Beach is trying to build a strip mall on it. -- Jimi Castillo, Tongva spiritual advisor, California Youth Authority.

Certain lands in the world enjoy special sacredness with most nations and cultures. The sacred lands of Native Americans might enjoy the same value and sanctity that mosques and churches have to the Muslims and Christians. Therefore, the Native Americans have the right to protect and maintain the integrity and particularity of their sacred lands, since some non-Indian groups may not exercise respect and regard for the sacred lands while using them. Hence, courts should consider the feelings of the Native groups regarding their lands.

-- Imam Moustafa Qazwini Assadiq Foundation, Pomona

When our Founding Fathers framed the Constitution, and thereby established the concept of the separation of church and state, their intention was to allow for the free practice of religion by prohibiting the establishment of a state-run religion. That is the sense in which they are to be separate. This separation was not designed to privatize all religion and religious practices to the point where they never touch public life or public land. Therefore, the legal issue here is not one of separation of church and state. The U.S. government has a moral obligation to allow for the preservation of the Native  American culture.
And, of course, their religion is a significant part of their culture. If the courts choose to recognize the land in question as a sacred site of the Native Americans and therefore protect it from trespass because it is an integral part of the preservation of their culture, then they are doing no more to establish Native American religion as a state religion then they are to establish gold mining as the state vocation by choosing to protect a mining claim. The central issue involved is the preservation of Native American culture. I believe that if the Native Americans can present a compelling case to the courts that protection of these lands are necessary for the preservation of their culture, then the courts should grant them the protection they have requested. However, if the Native Americans cannot present a compelling case so as to secure the courts' protection, I still contend that the general public should respect the beliefs held sacred by the Lakota tribe. That is not an exercise of the law of the land, that is an exercise of the law of brotherly love.

-- Steve Hubler, senior pastor, New Song Church of Rancho Cucamonga

This is a very difficult question to give any definitive answer to, given the record we non-Native Americans have in grabbing what is sacred to Native Americans for our own use. However, this dilemma puts me in mind of the statement attributed to a Native American chief, Noah Sealth: "This we know. The Earth does not belong to us: We belong to the Earth. This we know. All things are connected like the blood which unites one family. All things are connected." Keeping these wise words in mind and the tradition of the American Indians of nonpossessiveness, couldn't some compromise be reached? Couldn't the climbers be limited in number, and asked to approach the Lakota's holy ground with the utmost respect and reverence? In the idealistic vision of Chief Sealth, we all belong to the Earth and we are, therefore, all stewards of the Earth. We are all one human family with a birthright to enjoy and guard this planet and every mountain on it.

-- The Rev. Ellen Livingston, Monte Vista Unitarian Universalist Congregation, Montclair

Everyone living together in a common environment must have respect for the individual beliefs of particular groups in their society. Hopefully, all Americans believe that our land is sacred and have an immense respect for the vast natural environment to which all living in the United States have been blessed. Courts should protect the beliefs of the Native Americans and their particular beliefs and use of the land, but not at the exclusion of others who choose to take pleasure in the same land, but in a different manner. We must see our land as "common ground." The courts should facilitate the use of the land that belongs to everyone by orchestrating each individual group's respective request without excluding the needs of others. The groups, in response, must be flexible enough so that all may share the sacredness of a "common ground."

-- Father Vince Connor, Catholic chaplain, California Youth Authority, Chino

I support the Indians if they have claim to certain lands, but it has to be recorded by the U.S. government that they use this land at a certain time, a certain way during a certain month or a certain year. It all has to be be negotiated with the U.S. government -- not to let people interfere with their sacred time. If the Indians want to [accomplish] this, instead of protesting, they should gather a few good lawyers and take this up with the U.S. government so people from other religions will not disturb them. Or they should get part of the land allocated for worship. You can have a certain place that is sacred or you can allocate that certain part of that mountain. I could say Mt. Baldy is sacred to my people, but we can not just say this, we have to negotiate something to make this known.

-- Rabbi Gil Alchadeff, Temple Sholom of Ontario

http://www.latimes.com/tcn/ontario/features/religion/la-iv0016266aug17.story

For information about reprinting this article, go to http://www.lats.com/rights/register.htm