On Sat, 5 Feb 1994 rclinton@lawnet-po.law.uiowa.edu (Robert N. Clinton) wrote:
> 6.The one point everyone should note is that neither AIRFA nor NAFERA (nor the
> constitution) apply to interferences with Indian religious freedom by private
> individuals unsupported by any governmental action, although NAFERA does apply
> to private interferences where supported by governmental actions, such as
> program assistance or permit,
I don't get what you're saying here..Could you explain this to me?
Robert:
> Oddly, the most significant and unfortunate criticism I have heard of the bill
> lately has come from some tribal leaders who do not want to extend its
> protections to all Indians, and want to limit to members of federally
> recognized tribes.
What purpose would this possibly serve for those tribes who never
lost federal recognition? What do they have to gain by excluding those
who have lost federal recognition? What do they stand to lose by
including tribes who have lost federal recognition?
Robert:
> That effort strikes me as misguided as it would eliminate Indians who
> are members of terminated and nonrestored tribes, Indians who are members of
> state recognized tribes like the Pamunkey in Virginia or the Montauk on Long
> Island, Indians who were reservation raised but ineligible for membership
> because of the restrictive membership rules of their
.....Is the voice of those tribal leaders wanting to
eliminate tribes who have lost federal recognition very strong in
Congress? What is happening then with the Bill right now? Is it going
through a re-write because of the 'elimination' idea? What can a tribal
councilman from one of those tribes who lost federal recognition do to
see that the Bill stays intact the way it is, and include ALL Indians?
It seems the U.S. federal government would want to continue to
eliminate some tribes too, when they felt like it...How much easier for
them to continue to do so when some tribes will actually support this! The
tribes with no recognition already have no voice as far as "law" is concerned..
How truely sad to me that some want to exclude their brothers and
sisters for fear of "New Agers."...What can be done to correct this
ignorance?
How could this bill benefit those tribes, like the Chinook, who
have no official termination, but are not federally recognized? (The BIA
did an administrative termination of the Chinook tribe in the 1950's,
with no act of congress or legislative act..)
Is there anyone who drafted the Bill with you who wants to
exclude those tribes not federally recognized now?
Thank you,
Tina