Smoke Signals January 1990 Page 12
THAT OLD TIME
RELIGION
Dr. Michael Zimmerman
Office of the Dean
Oberlin College
The first amendment to the United States Constitution
is reasonably clear. It safeguards religious groups from
improper meddling by the government, and keeps
religions from interfering unduly in the workings of
government. While it cannot be denied that there are
gray areas, the general principal has served us, as a
nation, quite well.
This summer, however, in two distinct instances, that
separation has come under attack in Washinton. If
those attacks are permitted to go unchecked, the
principles underlying the first amendment will be shaken
to their core.
In the first instance, Representative William E.
Dannemeyer (R-CA), along with 35 co-sponsors,
introduced a constitutional amendment innocuously .
called the "Community Life Amendment." The lan
guage of that amendment is far from innocuous. Section
1 states: "The right of the people to allow voluntary
school prayer and the teaching of the Judeo-Christian
ethic in public schools shall not be denied or abridged by
the United States." Section 2 then goes on to define
what is meant by Section 1: "the term 'teaching of the
Judeo-Christian ethic' shall include the Ten Command
ments, and the creation of the earth as accepted in
Judeo-Christian tradition."
What Dannemeyer and his fundamentalist co-conspirators
intend is for a literal interpretation of the King
James version of Genesis to be taught in public schools.
No other explanation is possible because all mainstream
religions in this country accept the scientific version,
rather than the biblical version, of Earth's history. Only
the religious fringe groups, politically powerful far
beyond their numbers, feel impelled to proselytize in the
public schools. And as bad as science education is
currently, it will get much worse if these people get their
way. Henry Morris, head of the largest creation organi
zation in the world wrote about the creation of the
Earth: "The only way we can determine the true age of
the Earth is for God to tell us what it is. And since He
has told us, very plainly, in the Holy Scriptures that it is
several thousand years in age, and no more, that ought
to settle all basic questions of terrestrial chronology."
This is not stuff for the public schools. Nor is the pap
advanced by the editors of the Tychonian Bulletin, a
magazine published out of Cleveland in the Judeo
Christian tradition to advance Judeo-Christian ideals.
The magazine's main focus is an unyielding beliefs in the
public schools, something is seriously amiss.
This summer's second attack on the first amendment
demonstrates exactly why that amendment is so impor
tant. The Bureau of Land Management and the Depart-'
ment of Agriculture unequivocally opposed an amend
ment to the American Indian Religious Freedom Act
introduced by Representative Morris Udall (D-AZ).
His amendment says simply that "Federal lands that
have historically been either part of, or necessary to, or
been used by, a traditional Native American religion
shall not be managed in a manner that will pose substan
tial and realistic threat to undermine and frustrate any
traditional Native American religious practices."
The rationale is equally straightforward. Unlike most
religions, those practices by Native Americans are j
intricately tied to specific locations. If these sacred
places are destroyed, spirituality itself is compromised.
All that Udall's amendment requests is that the Federal
government respect Native American religious rights to
the extent that it not destroy those sites that have, for
generation, served as the focus for religious activities.
That hardly seems unreasonable. Apparently, Washing
ton bureaucrats' disdain for the religious freedom of
minorities has lead to their willingness to destroy Native
American heritage for the possibility of a timber harvest,
a mining operation or a ski resort. Ironically, that
disdain does not extend to the dogma of a vocal minority
when it is couched in the Judeo-Christian tradition,
which might someday be forced on all Americans.
These are exactly the abuses that the first amendment
was written to prevent. A bit of respect for our
Constitution would go a long way in Washington these
days.
"PEYOTE RITUAL IS NO
MENACE"
FROHNMAYER IS WASTING TIME,
MONEY
By Michael Donnelly
Attorney General Dave Frohnmayer would have you
believe that a friend of mine is a dangerous drug
offender.
He feels so strongly about this that he has spent more
than $1 million of our tax money and countless hours of
prosecutorial time trying to convince court after court all
the way to the Supreme Court of the United States that
Al Smith and Galen Black and by inference the entire
Native American Church - should be denied employ
ment if they engage in sacramental use of the substance
peyote in church rituals.
The facts of the case are not in dispute. The case
started when Smith and Black were fired from their jobs
as alcohol counselors in a Douglas County Program.
Both are recovering alcoholics and as such, quite
qualified for their jobs. .
However, the county has a policy that any drug use by
an employee is a violation requiring termination of
employment. And Smith and Black attended a Native
American Church tipi meeting where the use of peyote
is an integral part of the ritual
Frohnmayer argues speciously that if Native American
are allowed the right to use peyote, then what's to keep
other groups from seeking a sacramental exemption to
existing drug laws? He cites the far-fetched example of
motorcycle groups demanding the right to ceremonial
use 'of the deadly drug methamphetamine.
Let's get real, Dave. Unlike the supposed motorcycle
groups. Native Americans can show a centuries-old
tradition of the peyote ritual. Wasn't this country
founded by those upset with religious persecution? How
ironic that we would seek to prohibit religious practices
of the indigenous folks who were engaged in those
practices long before the first Europeans set foot on this
continent.
Even the United State Supreme Court granted Chris
tian Churches an exemption to laws outlawing the
consumption of alcohol during Prohibition!
Al Smith has suffered personal harm in all of this.
He's not an overly crusading type of guy. He's a soft
spoken, older Klamath with two young children and
could truly use the benefits that he's been denied as a
result of his stand. I have gained from my friendship
with Al. He's one of those rare persons who can
brighten up your day whenever you're around him. I
can't stress enough how well he can put an individual or
a group at ease. You go away from a time with Al with
a much better feeling about yourself and your fellow
humans. I can't imagine a finer skill for a counselor who
is helping people recover from substance-abuse prob
lems. ,
At the same time that tax dollars are being wasted on
this case, Frohnmayer allies himself with the Citizens for
a Drug-Free Oregon and the business-oriented Citizen's
Crime Commission. He's recriminalized the use of
marijuana and incarcerated more Oregonian's and spent
tens of millions on new prisons and jails that have done
little to reduce crime. In fact, these knee-jerk methods
have taken sorely needed money away from jobs
programs and substance-abuse rehabilitation efforts
(like the one that Smith and Black were involved with)
that evidence shows actually reduce crime.
Interesting to note, Precision Castparts, a major donor
to the recriminalization effort, recently was cited for
dumping radioactive waste into the Portland Sewer
System for the past IS years. That's a social crime worth
prosecuting.
What's a more serious public health problem: some
one attending a Native American Church ritual, some
one lighting up a joint in their home, or someone who,
in the throes of their wealth addition, acts with such
Come one, Mr. Attorney General Get serious about
the real "drug" problems we face. We've got to get a
handle on drugs such as methamphetamine, cocaine,
heroin the deadly white powders - not to mention die
enormous problems associated with the legal drugs,
tobacco and alcohol, with their 400,000 deaths per year
and countless millions in societal costs. To claim that
denying basic religious freedoms is a form of getting
tough on drugs is as silly as fighting alcohol addiction by
denying churches their ceremonial use of wine.
Michael Donnelly is a Salem resident
-Courtesy of the Statesman Journal
INDIAN RELIGIOUS
FREEDOM:
The Great Balancing Act?
Traditional Yurok representative Walt Lara, Sr.,
recently told the Senate Select Committee on Indian
Affairs, "AU my life I have been involved with the
ceremonial practices of the Yurok people. These beliefs
and practices have been passed on to me by my family
before me...These practices are threatened when the
government seeks to destroy the sacred sites which are
part of our religious ceremonies but that are now
located on land taken by the government. These sites
were there and were part of our beliefs and practices
long before they became government land."
The First Amendment's guarantee that "Congress shall
make no law...prohibiting the free exercise" of religion
often requires a unique kind of protection for geographically-based
Native American religious practices.
Congress is currently struggling with the issue of how to
balance "competing interests" is the continuing practice
of an ancient religion, the balancing question is espe
cially critical. The question arises now as Congress
considers legislation. (H.R. 1546 and S. 1124) to amend
the "American Indian Religious Freedom Act of 1978"
(AIRFA).
The amendments come as a congressional response to
court decisions since 197S that have diminished Indian
religious freedom. In these cases, the "American Indian
Religious Freedom Act" has been ineffective in its
purpose of protecting Native American religious
practices. In a startling 1988 decision in Lyng, Secretary
of Agriculture, et al., v. Northwest Indian Cemetery
Protective Association, et al., the Supreme Court held
that Indians had no First Amendment protection against
Forest Service plans to build a logging road through an
area of traditional religious importance, even though the
action would "virtually destroy the Indians' ability to
practice their religion." First Amendment protection
could be invoked only if Indian practitioners were
(Continued on page 13).