The recent criticisms from certain "veteran Native activists" concerning
the Native American Free Exercise of Religion Act (NAFERA) as reported recently
on Native Net, originally printed in News From Indian Country, distort the
content of the bill and atke sections out of context to make their argument. We
be-
lieve this should not go unanswered.
The Native Lands Institute in Albuquerque, New Mexico, is one of a hundred
NAFERA Coalition organizations that span the gamut from environmental organiza-
tions to human rights groups, mainstream national religious councils and
ministries
tions to human rights groups, mainstream national religious councils and
ministries, prisoners' rights organizations, cultural preservation groups,
tribal
governments, repatriation organizations, and on and on, as well as numerous
chapters of the Native American Church (NAC) throughout North America. All
of these groups have a vested interest in the provisions of NAFERA. All of
them have carefully considered the bill and are in agreement that this piece
of legislation could be tremendously beneficial to Native peoples throughout
all fifty states.
It astounds us to read a statement by Mr. Bob Robideau asserting that
NAFERA "...would be one of the most devastating acts ever passed as far
as sacred sites are concerned.." There is currently NO protection at all
under federal law or the Constitution for Native American sacred sites, or
any other aspect of Native American spiritual practice. It is difficult to
see how anything could be more devastating than the current situation.
Here in the Albuquerque area, for example, where Mr. Robideau also
resides, there is an ongoing struggle to protect the Petroglyphs National
Monument. This is an ancient area that has been used continuously and secretly
by many Pueblo
Pueblo peoples in New Mexico, in prayer and ceremony, for thousands of years, as
evidenced not only by their own testimony, but by the literally thousands of
petroglyphs that have been left in the area by the ancient ones. The City
of Albuquerque has voted to build a six-lane road through this area, which
would destroy its integrity as well as the ability of Native people to
continue their spiritual practice in this traditional place.
We do not know of a single individual among the many who are working
so hard to stop this from happening, who does not believe that the pass-
age of NAFERA would give us a strong tool to use to prevent the City from
committing this desecration. Thus the remarks of our neighbor are quite disha
disheartening to those who are working fervently on this issue.
Incidentally, the Apache Survival Coalition is among the members of
the NAFERA Coalition supporting this bill. Who knows what kind of leverage
they might have had from the beginning in their fight to protect Mt.
Graham if this Act had been in place a few years ago?
Chris Peters, director of the Seventh Generation Fund, and the
plaintiff in Lyng v. Northwest Indian Cemetery Association (1988), the
case in which the Supreme Court set a devastating precedent allowing for
the destruction of Native American sacred sites, is also an ardent supporter
of NAFERA and works and speaks tirelessly for its passage. Who knows what kind
of p
of protection the Native peoples of northern California would have been able
to provide Mother Earth if this Act had been in place a few years ago?
The list goes on and on. Among so many who work at the grassroots level
for the protection of specific sacred areas that are currently endangered
in their own communities, threatening their own cultures and survival,
there is a feeling that this bill, while not an all-encompassing solution
by any means, could still provide us with a very potent weapon in order
to carry on the struggles. And as we knoe, we are ALL in need of potent
weapons.
The quote from section 109 of NAFERA is paraphrased by Mr. Robideau
as stating that this portion of the bill would give the federal govern-
ment authority to desecrate sacred sites. This analysis is correct if
this one paragraph is lifted from the larger context of the bill. But in
fact, this section falls at the end of Title I concerning the protection
of sacred sites, and is preceded by twenty-two pages outlining a very
lengthy and specific process whereby Native Americans are acknowledged
a braod scope of access and responsibility concerning development pro-
jects planned for Federal lands. It is up to all parties involved to find
"least intrusive means," and to have Native Americans involved at all steps
of the planning and management of any such projects to insure the means that
are least intrusive.
Only then, if a planned development project survives this rather
strenuous process, could it become an "APPROVED Federal or fedrally
assisted undertaking or action...." (emphasis mine) as stated in section
109. as a result of the Lyng decision mentioned above, the government
already has de facto authority to desecrate sacred sites; it doesn't
need to ask for further permission vis s vis this bill. This bill
would curb that perceived authority.
One need only review theopposition that is beginning to line up to
get a glimpse at the increased access and claims concerning public lands
usage that this bill could provide to Native Americans. The Department
of Energy doesn't want to see it passed. The Department of Defense doesn
doesn't want to see it passed. Reagan-Bush holdovers in the Justice
Department don't want to see it passed. Both Senators from Arizona
have come out against it. We appreciate being opposed by such agencies
and persons! It is a sure sign that we are on the right track.
The second portion of the bill would provide nationwide protection
for Native Americans who traditionally use the sacrament peyote in
religious ceremonies, especially members of the Native American Church,
instead of the current piecemeal, sate-by-state situation in which some
states under some circumstances offer some protection from prosecution,
while nearly half the states offer none. Significantly, there is absolutely no
opposition to this portion of the bill from relevant federal agencies. If
NAFERA is passed, it would provide tremendous peace of mind to practitiioners
of this ancient and powerful spiritual way, and would be a testament to the
memory of Reuben Snake, who gave so much towards drafting this section of
the bill.
The third portion of this bill concerns the rights of incarcerated
Native Americans. Mr. Robideau asserts that the focus has been on this portion o
of the bill in hopes that people will overlook the more problematic section
on protection of sacred sites. this seems to assume that the prisoner'
rights section is a more sympathetic section than some of the others, but in
fact, this section of the bill is facing some heavy preliminary opposition
from some in the Justice Department, most corrections officials, twenty-eight
state attorneys general, and Senator John McCain (R-AZ), vice-chairman of
the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs. Mr. Robideau's statement that we
have more to lose than we stand to gain is especially questionable when it
comes to our incarcerated Native American brothers and sisters, who have
virtually no religious rights, and who also have not fared well in the
courts when they have brought lawsuits attempting to remedy their situations.
Lenny Foster, director of the Navajo Corrections Project, an AIM activist
for twenty-four
for twenty-four years and board member of the International Indian Traety
Council
has been very involved in drafting this portion of the bill. The proposed
federal Act is modelled after state legislation that Mr. Foster has introduced
and gotten passed in New Mexico, Arizona, and Colorado, based on the needs
he has seen first hand from working as an advocate and spiritual advisor to
Native American inmates for fouteen years. This section of the bill also has
the support of AIM leader Vernon Bellecourt, who directs the prisoners program
at Heart of the Earth Survival School in Minneapolis.
If this is a more sympathetic portion of the bill, there are sometimes quse
questions as to why it is not separated from the rest of the bill in order
that it may pass more easily. But Native American spirituality is not a matter
of separation. All of these sections are interwoven into a wholeness, as Native
reli
religious practices are interwoven into a whole way of life.
This is why Ben Carnes, director of the Spiritual Alliance of Native
Prisoners in Oklahoma City, has stated his wholehearted agreement with Vine
Deloria's position that this bill must remain connected and intact. This is
a commitment to the passing of the sacred sites section by those whose
primary interests may actually be with prisoners' rights or protection
of peyotists, since those sections could probably be passed on their own,
but may face considerably greater opposition if they remain attached to the
full bill and its section on sacred sites. all who work for the passage of
this Act, in whatever area their primary interest may lie, understand that
we must remain united to remain strong.
We will al prevail together, or we will go back to the drawing board
together. But as long as we remain together, we will not go down. It is
the division between us and the grandstanding of individuals taht best e
serves the colonial forces. The hundred member organizations of the
NAFERA Coalition stand united in support of S. 1021. we urge the support
of all who are interested in religious rights, human rights, and the
protection of Mother Earth. Wa do.