GENWiki

Premier IT Outsourcing and Support Services within the UK

User Tools

Site Tools


archive:messages:peyote

047/059 Mon 13 Aug 1990 20:09:00 From: Shanti Lightdancer To: All Subj: Sup. Court And Peyote (1 Of 13) Attr: local Metaphysical———————————— The following 13 messages, retrieved from PeaceNet, discuss the recent Supreme Court ruling permitting states to prohibit sacramental use of peyote.

Supreme Court Continues Chipping Away At Citizen's 1st Amendment Rights, Part 1.

  1. ————————————————————————

Exerpts from the following article detailing the April 17th ruling

   by the US Supreme Court which decided that Native Americans could 
   no longer use peyote in their religious practices: 

"For all practical purposes, a majority of the Supreme Court has

 eliminated the Free Exercise clause of the First Amendment from our Bill 
 of Rights," said American Jewish Congress Executive Director Henry Siegman. 

"The court's decision in the peyote case can have the most far-

 reaching consequences for all religions, but primarily for religious 
 minorities," continued Siegman.  "It is precisely such minorities the 
 Bill of Rights sought to protect, for it is they who are particularly 
 vulnerable to the depredations of momentary and localized majorities." 

… Dr. Robert L. Maddox, executive director of Americans United

 for Separation of Church and State, said the "Smith" ruling is cause for 
 concern... 

"We are concerned," he continued, "that this ruling will have a

 negative effect on minority religions.  Mainstream faiths will probably 
 have little difficulty getting the exemptions they need;  smaller groups 
 with less political influence will have a tougher time of it.  That is 
 unfortunate.  Religious freedom should not be left to the whim of state 
 and federal lawmakers. 

"No one wants anarchy in the name of religion," he added, "but do we

 really want more and more government regulation of religion?  What 
 bothers us most is the movement away from individual liberty and toward 
 statism--whatever the government wants, goes."

— Opus-CBCS 1.12 * Origin: Opera=Amorum, BaphoNet-At-Night → (718) 499-9277 (1:107/666.0)

048/059 Mon 13 Aug 1990 20:10:00 From: Shanti Lightdancer To: All Subj: Peyote (2 Of 13) Attr: local Metaphysical————————————

[2]

The following article appeared in the June 1990 issue of "Church and State", 
a publication of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, 8120 
Fenton St., Silver Spring, MD, 20910, and is reprinted here w/permission. 

—————————————————————————–

The Day 'Sherbert' Melted

                              by Rob Boston 

Discarding A 27-Year-Old Test For Religious Liberty Cases, The Supreme

    Court Says Government May Restrict Religiously Motivated Conduct 

Alfred Smith considers himself apolitical; he's not even registered

 to vote.  But, in light of what the Supreme Court did April 17, the 70- 
 year-old Oregonian is ready to jump into politics in a big way. 

   The high court ruled 6-3 that day that Native Americans do not have a 
 constitutional right to use the drug peyote during their religious 
 ceremonies.  Smith, one of the plaintiffs who helped bring the case 
 before the nation's highest court, is angry--angry enough to take his 
 fight to the polls. 

"I'm encouraging all people to register and vote this year," Smith

 said.  "This is the time for it.  I have never voted before because I 
 don't care to condone the system, but I have made a stand here with this 
 case." 

The political route Smith proposes may be one many members of minority

 religions are forced to take in the future, thanks to the Supreme 
 Court's decision in the "Employment Division v. Smith" case.  The 
 justices' ruling marks an abrupt shift in free exercise jurisprudence, 
 granting government broad new powers over religious practices. 

What makes the "Smith" decision so significant is that in reaching it

 five justices voted to abandon the court's doctrine of "compelling state 
 interest," a move with far-reaching implications for religious liberty. 

In a nutshell, the 27-year-old doctrine says that the government can

 restrict religious freedom only when it proves there is a compelling 
 interest to do so and that there is no less intrusive alternative 
 available to achieve the state's goals.  The judicial rule grew out of 
 the 1963 "Sherbert v. Verner" decision and is usually called the 
 "Sherbert" Test. 

In the recent peyote case the court rejected the "Sherbert" standard

 in favor of a much narrower test, holding that government may offer 
 religiously based exemptions from generally applicable laws if it 
 chooses, but it is under no constitutional obligation to do so. 

Wrote Justice Antonin Scalia for the majority, "We have never held

 that an individual's religious beliefs excuse him from compliance with 
 an otherwise valid law prohibiting conduct that the State is free to 
 regulate." [more]

— Opus-CBCS 1.12 * Origin: Opera=Amorum, BaphoNet-At-Night → (718) 499-9277 (1:107/666.0)

049/059 Mon 13 Aug 1990 20:11:00 From: Shanti Lightdancer To: All Subj: Peyote (3 Of 13) Attr: local Metaphysical————————————

[3]

   Scalia went on to say that applying the doctrine of compelling state 
 interest in the peyote dispute and similar cases would create "a private 
 right to ignore generally applicable laws [which would be] a 
 constitutional anomaly."  Rigorous application of the "Sherbert" 
 approach, he said, would be "courting anarchy." 

Later in the opinion, Scalia admitted that the ruling will force

 minority religious groups to seek relief from oppressive laws by 
 lobbying elected officials, and some may fail in their efforts.  But he 
 excused this as unavoidable.  "It may fairly be said," observed Scalia, 
 "that leaving accommodation to the political process will place at a 
 relative disadvantage those religious practices that are not widely 
 engaged in;  but that unavoidable consequence of democratic government 
 must be preferred to a system in which each conscience is a law unto 
 itself or in which judges weigh the social importance of all laws 
 against the centrality of all religious beliefs." 

The court majority acknowledged that judicial exemptions from neutral

 laws have sometimes been granted for religious reasons.  But, Scalia 
 argued, such exemptions have generally been granted in conjunction with 
 another constitutional right--such as free speech.  He called these 
 examples "hybrids" and implied they are special cases.  Other than that, 
 said Scalia, the only legal disputes where the "Sherbert" analysis has 
 been applied consistently and usefully are unemployment compensation 
 rulings, such as the line of decisions approving jobless benefits for 
 workers who are fired for refusing to work on their sabbath. 

Ironically the "Smith" case involved just such an unemployment

 controversy.  It started in 1984 when Smith, a Klamath Indian, and 
 another man, Galen W.  Black, a non-Indian, were fired from their jobs 
 as drug counselors after the agency they worked for learned the pair had 
 used the drug peyote during ceremonies in the Native American Church. 

The Council on Alcohol and Drug Abuse Prevention Treatment (ADAPT) had

 a policy stating that all employees must be drug free.  Smith and Black 
 thought an exemption would be made for their religious use of peyote, a 
 mild hallucinogen derived from some cactus plants, but ADAPT officials 
 saw things differently:  Both men were dismissed. [more]

— Opus-CBCS 1.12 * Origin: Opera=Amorum, BaphoNet-At-Night → (718) 499-9277 (1:107/666.0)

050/059 Mon 13 Aug 1990 20:12:00 From: Shanti Lightdancer To: All Subj: Peyote (4 Of 13) Attr: local Metaphysical————————————

[4]

   When Smith and Black subsequently applied for unemployment benefits, 
 they were turned down.  Officials with the state Employment Division 
 said the two had been fired for misconduct and therefore did not 
 qualify.  The duo took the case to the courts. 

Four years later the Oregon Supreme Court ruled that the ceremonial

 use of peyote is permissible under state law and is even protected by 
 the First Amendment.  The Supreme Court's recent action overturns that 
 decision. 

The "Smith" majority drew upon a somewhat unusual alignment of

 justices.  Scalia, Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Justices Anthony 
 Kennedy and Byron R. White were predictable allies.  All four have 
 argued for a narrower reading of the First Amendment's religious liberty 
 clauses. 

Justice John Paul Stevens, however, provided the key fifth vote.

 Stevens, often thought of as a member of the court's liberal wing, 
 favors a strict separationist reading of the Establishment Clause, but 
 has argued in past cases for a less expansive reading of the Free 
 Exercise Clause. 

Justice Sandra Day O'Connor concurred in the "Smith" outcome, but

 wrote a separate dissent that accused the majority of going too far. 
 "Although I agree with the result the Court reaches in this case, I 
 cannot join its opinion," asserted O'Connor.  "In my view, today's 
 holding dramatically departs from well-settled First Amendment 
 jurisprudence, appears unnecessary to resolve the question presented, 
 and is incompatible with our Nation's fundamental commitment to 
 individual religious liberty." 

The free exercise of religion, O'Connor added, is a "preferred

 constitutional activity," entitled to "heightened judicial scrutiny." 
 The "Sherbert" Test, she continued, has worked well to "strike sensible 
 balances between religious liberty and competing state interests."  

Justices Harry A. Blackmun, William J. Brennan Jr. and Thurgood

 Marshall indicated agreement with O'Connor's opinion, although they said 
 they would have gone further and upheld the Native American Church 
 members' claim.  The court's liberal wing criticized the majority for 
 "mischaracterizing this Court's precedents" and engaging in a "wholesale 
 overtuning of settled law concerning the Religion Clauses of our 
 Constitution." 

— Opus-CBCS 1.12 * Origin: Opera=Amorum, BaphoNet-At-Night → (718) 499-9277 (1:107/666.0)

051/059 Mon 13 Aug 1990 20:13:00 From: Shanti Lightdancer To: All Subj: Peyote (5 Of 13) Attr: local Metaphysical————————————

[5]

   Wrote Blackmun, "One hopes that the Court is aware of the 
 consequences, and that its result is not a product of over-reaction to 
 the serious problems the country's drug crisis has generated." 

The justice insisted that ritual peyote use by Native Americans could

 be tolerated without jeopardizing the nation's campaign to curb drug 
 abuse.  He noted that the federal government allowed the Roman Catholic 
 Church to employ sacramental wine at masses during Prohibition. 

Said Blackmun, "I do not believe the Founders thought their dearly

 bought freedom from religious persecution a 'luxury,' but an essential 
 element of liberty--and they could not have thought religious 
 intolerance 'unavoidable,' for they drafted the Religion Clauses 
 precisely in order to avoid that intolerance." 

Even though the case dealt with the sensitive issue of drug use,

 several religious organizations had sided with the Native American 
 Church members, most notably the American Jewish Congress, which filed a 
 friend-of-the-court brief in support of Smith and Black. 

"For all practical purposes, a majority of the Supreme Court has

 eliminated the Free Exercise clause of the First Amendment from our Bill 
 of Rights," said AJC Executive Director Henry Siegman. 

"The court's decision in the peyote case can have the most far-

 reaching consequences for all religions, but primarily for religious 
 minorities," continued Siegman.  "It is precisely such minorities the 
 Bill of Rights sought to protect, for it is they who are particularly 
 vulnerable to the depredations of momentary and localized majorities." 

Three weeks after the decision the AJC and an extraordinarily diverse

 coalition of religious and civil liberties groups filed a petition for 
 rehearing before the Supreme Court.  The petition urged the justices to 
 hear the case again so the organizations will have the opportunity to 
 address their free exercise concerns in friend-of-the-court briefs. 

Groups joining the AJC include: the Baptist Joint Committee on Public

 Affairs, the National Council of Churches, the National Association of 
 Evangelicals, People for the American Way, the Presbyterian Church 
 U.S.A., the American Civil Liberties Union, the Christian Legal Society, 
 the American Jewish Committee, the Unitarian-Universalist Association, 
 the General Conference of the Seventh-day Adventist Church, the 

 Worldwide Church of God and the Lutheran Church, Missouri Synod. 
 Americans United for Separation of Church and State also signed the 
 petition. [more]

— Opus-CBCS 1.12 * Origin: Opera=Amorum, BaphoNet-At-Night → (718) 499-9277 (1:107/666.0)

052/059 Mon 13 Aug 1990 20:14:00 From: Shanti Lightdancer To: All Subj: Peyote (6 Of 13) Attr: local Metaphysical————————————

[6]

   Attorney Oliver S. Thomas of the Baptist Joint Committee said it is 
 important that religious and civil liberties groups have the opportunity 
 to express their views to the court.  He said the court's abandonment of 
 the "Sherbert" Test could have a wide impact. 

"Taxation of church assets, regulation of church schools and child-

 care centers, zoning and other land-use questions are all areas of the 
 law where we've relied upon the compelling state interest test to 
 provide churches with exemptions," Thomas told the Baptist Press.  "With 
 a stroke of his pen, Justice Scalia has overturned 27 years of legal 
 precedent and made the 'first liberty' a constitutional stepchild." 

The Rutherford Institute, a conservative legal aid group that

 frequently litigates free exercises cases, was also dismayed by the 
 ruling.  Said Institute President John W. Whitehead in a press 
 statement, "Justice Scalia's opinion rejects the notion that free 
 exercise of religion is a preferred right.  Rather, in most situations 
 it is valid only when coupled with another constitutional right. 

"Armed with this opinion, a state may draft a law that violates

 religious liberty, claim it is `religiously neutral' and those affected 
 by it may have no recourse under the Constitution." 

Constitutional scholars were particularly amazed that the majority in

 the peyote case relied heavily on "Minersville School District v. 
 Gobitis," a 1940 Supreme Court decision that said Jehovah's Witness 
 children in public schools could be forced to say the Pledge of 
 Allegiance.  "Gobitis" was overturned three years later in the 
 "Barnette" decision and has been roundly criticized ever since as one of 
 the court's biggest mistakes. 

Observed Douglas Laycock, law professor at the University of Texas,

 "The court repeatedly quotes "Gobitis" without noting that it was 
 overruled in "Barnette," and without noting that it triggered a 
 nationwide outburst of violence against Jehovah' s Witnesses.  Until the 
 opinion in this case, "Gobitis" was thoroughly discredited." 

But not all courtwatchers were chagrined by the ruling. Jules B.

 Gerard, a constitutional law professor at Washington University in St. 
 Louis, told Religious News Service there has been a lot of overreaction. 
 Gerard said the decision "overturns very little" and accused those who 
 have protested it of "hysterical talk." [more]

— Opus-CBCS 1.12 * Origin: Opera=Amorum, BaphoNet-At-Night → (718) 499-9277 (1:107/666.0)

053/059 Mon 13 Aug 1990 20:15:00 From: Shanti Lightdancer To: All Subj: Peyote (7 Of 13) Attr: local Metaphysical————————————

[7]

   Bruce Fein, a conservative constitutional scholar, went even further, 
 applauding the ruling in a column in "The Washington Times."  Fein 
 wrote, "It is both counter-intuitive and contrary to American political 
 experience to suppose the "Smith" ruling portends an epitaph for 
 religious tolerance and accommodation in generally applicable 
 legislative enactments.  And when religion must yield to secular law, 
 the former continues to prosper."  

Fein went on to say that religions can drop fundamental tenets and

 still survive, pointing out that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter- 
 day Saints (the Mormons) in 1890 dumped its support for plural marriage 
 after the Supreme Court refused to allow the practice for religious 
 reasons.  

Conservative columnist George Will also was pleased with the "Smith"

 decision.  "A central purpose of America's political arrangements is the 
 subordination of religion to the political order, meaning the primacy of 
 democracy," he observed.  "The Founders, like Locke before them, wished 
 to tame and domesticate religious passions of the sort that convulsed 
 Europe....Hence, religion is to be perfectly free as long as it is 
 perfectly private--mere belief--but it must bend to the political will 
 (law) as regards conduct."  

However, Dr. Robert L. Maddox, executive director of Americans United

 for Separation of Church and State, said the "Smith" ruling is cause for 
 concern. 

"If a majority of the justices did not believe the Native American

 Church members had a valid claim, they could have rejected them by 
 relying on the doctrine of compelling state interest," said Maddox. 
 "But a majority chose to go much further, effectively weakening the 
 protection the court has extended to religious free exercise. 

"We are concerned," he continued, "that this ruling will have a

 negative effect on minority religions.  Mainstream faiths will probably 
 have little difficulty getting the exemptions they need;  smaller groups 
 with less political influence will have a tougher time of it.  That is 
 unfortunate.  Religious freedom should not be left to the whim of state 
 and federal lawmakers. 

"No one wants anarchy in the name of religion," he added, "but do we

 really want more and more government regulation of religion?  What 
 bothers us most is the movement away from individual liberty and toward 
 statism--whatever the government wants, goes." 

The decision has already had a practical consequence for one minority

 faith.  Just six days after the "Smith" ruling, the justices, by a 7-2 
 vote, ordered the Minnesota Supreme Court to reconsider a recent 
 decision it made exempting an Amish group from complying with a highway 
 safety law. [more]

— Opus-CBCS 1.12 * Origin: Opera=Amorum, BaphoNet-At-Night → (718) 499-9277 (1:107/666.0)

054/059 Mon 13 Aug 1990 20:16:00 From: Shanti Lightdancer To: All Subj: Peyote (8 Of 13) Attr: local Metaphysical————————————

[8]

   Members of the Old Order Amish had protested a state law requiring 
 them to display orange safety triangles on their horse-drawn buggies. 
 The Amish said the bright symbols violated their belief in a plain 
 lifestyle.  The Minnesota high court agreed in 1989, but now may be 
 forced to reverse the "State v. Hershberger" decision in light of the 
 "Smith" ruling.  

In Eugene, Ore., meanwhile, Al Smith has no more faith in the courts.

 After joining about 100 people in a protest of the decision that bears 
 his name at a Eugene federal building April 20, Smith told reporters he 
 is backing proposed legislation suggested by state representative Jim 

Edmunson of Eugene that would allow Native Americans to use peyote in

 religious rituals in Oregon.  If that fails, Smith said, the Oregon 
 Supreme Court could decide Native American peyote use is permissible 
 under the state constitution. 

Smith told "Church & State" he is also working with Native American

 groups in the United States that are considering filing a protest before 
 the International Court of Justice (commonly called the World Court) in 
 The Hague, Netherlands. 

"The United States is saying the original people of this land can't

 worship," Smith told Church & State.  "We were worshipping a long time 
 before the white man ever set foot on this turtle island. 

"The issue is not dead, by no means," continued Smith. "I'm not

 giving up;  I have committed no crime. It's not a crime to pray in the 
 old way." 

KOYAANISQATSI

ko.yan.nis.qatsi (from the Hopi Language) n. 1. crazy life. 2. life

   in turmoil.  3. life out of balance.  4. life disintegrating. 
   5. a state of life that calls for another way of living. [more]

— Opus-CBCS 1.12 * Origin: Opera=Amorum, BaphoNet-At-Night → (718) 499-9277 (1:107/666.0)

055/059 Mon 13 Aug 1990 20:17:00 From: Shanti Lightdancer To: All Subj: Peyote (9 Of 13) Attr: local Metaphysical————————————

[8]

  1. ————————————————————————

Exerpts from the following article analyzing the

           effects the US Supreme Court ruling on the Native 
           American Church's use of peyote as being illegal: 

Native American church members stripped of their rights under the

 Constitution are now subject to the will of the legislative branch of 
 our state and federal governments.  Not an enviable place for Indian 
 people;  as a distinct racial and religious minority Indians have always 
 had an uphill struggle in the halls of Congress and elsewhere to have 
 their rights recognized and respected. 

The legislative branch of any government is an exceedingly unusual

 place for individuals to look to have their rights under the First 
 Amendment vindicated.  Courts are traditionally looked to as protectors 
 of these rights, against majoritarian legislatures.  Justice O'Connor, 
 in a separate concurring opinion which joined the result of the majority 
 but sharply criticized its method, reasoned that "the First Amendment 
 was enacted precisely to protect those whose religious practices are not 
 shared by the majority and may be viewed with hostility." 

As a result of "Smith," minority religions, in Justice Scalia's

 opinion, may be at a disadvantage in the political arena.  But that is, 
 in his estimation, "an unavoidable consequence of democratic 
 government," preferable to "a system in which each conscience is a law 
 unto itself."  Justice Scalia had to strain to defend his decision, 
 citing the need to prevent "anarchy" in our democratic society.  Indian 

people simply want to be left alone in our society to worship the god of

 their choice.  Is that asking too much?  The Court's decision in "Smith" 
 strips Indians of their pride and integrity, and makes many of them 
 criminals in the eyes of the law.  Only history will judge the Court's 
 decision in "Smith;"  but for now the remote specter of anarchy may very 
 well have been the preferred choice. [end of article; more to come]

— Opus-CBCS 1.12 * Origin: Opera=Amorum, BaphoNet-At-Night → (718) 499-9277 (1:107/666.0)

056/059 Mon 13 Aug 1990 20:18:00 From: Shanti Lightdancer To: All Subj: Peyote (10 Of 13) Attr: local Metaphysical————————————

[10]

The following article appeared in the Spring 1990 issue of "Native American 
Rights Fund Legal Review", a publication of the Native American Rights Fund, 
1506 Broadway, Boulder, CO 80302, and is reprinted here w/permission. 

—————————————————————————–

Supreme Court Deals Devastating Blow to Native American Church

                            by Steve Moore 

On Tuesday, April 17, 1990, the United States Supreme Court struck a

 gut wrenching blow to the religious lives of many of this country's 
 Native Americans, in a decision which invites the return to an era of 
 religious persecution one would hope a presumably enlightened and 
 tolerant society such as ours had left behind.  In the case of "Oregon 
 Department of Employment v. Alfred Smith," Justice Antonin Scalia, 
 writing for a five member majority, and describing the First Amendment's 
 Free Exercise Clause as little more than a "negative protection accorded 
 to religious belief," held that a member of a religious faith may not 
 challenge under the free exercise clause of the First Amendment to the 
 United States Constitution a legislature's criminal enactment of 
 otherwise general application which produces infringement on a 
 particular religious practice.  In the "Smith" case this amounted to a 
 challenge to the constitutionality of an Oregon drug law which the Court 
 interpreted as a general criminal prohibition on all uses of the drug 
 peyote, considered by Indian members of the Native American Church as an 
 essential sacrament, the physical embodiment of the Great Spirit. 

The Native American Church, which claims over 250,000 members

 nationwide, and additional Indian practitioners in Canada and Mexico, 
 and which can be traced back archaeologically several thousand years in 
 North America, was not absolutely destroyed or driven underground by the 
 Court's action.  The Court did not go so far as to rule that any state 
 or federal law exempting the religious, sacramental use of peyote was an 
 unconstitutional establishment of religion, at the other end of the 
 religion clauses of the First Amendment.  In the Court's terms, a peyote 
 exemption, while constitutionally *permitted*, is neither 
 constitutionally *required* or *prohibited*.  A kind of constitutional 
 limbo-land for the Native American Church and its members. [more]

— Opus-CBCS 1.12 * Origin: Opera=Amorum, BaphoNet-At-Night → (718) 499-9277 (1:107/666.0)

057/059 Mon 13 Aug 1990 20:19:00 From: Shanti Lightdancer To: All Subj: Peyote (11 Of 13) Attr: local Metaphysical————————————

[11]

    In real terms the decision leaves the fate of the peyote religion to 
 the whim of majoritarian legislatures and Congress.  Eleven states 
 currently have exemptions on the statute books protecting the religion; 
 another twelve tie their exemption to a federal Drug Enforcement Agency 
 regulation which rests on questionable foundation since the decision.  A 
 small handful of states, notably California and Nebraska, in which are 
 located some of the largest Indian and Native American Church 
 populations, have based their protection on court decisions.  The 
 others, and the federal government through Congress, have no statutory 
 or common law protection.  Indian reservation lands will provide some 
 safe haven from possible prosecution, given the particular Public Law 
 280 configuration in any given state, but problems of transportation of 
 the sacrament into Indian country through "illegal" territory will 
 reduce peyote ceremonies to complex and dangerous liaisons.  

Native American church members stripped of their rights under the

 Constitution are now subject to the will of the legislative branch of 
 our state and federal governments.  Not an enviable place for Indian 
 people;  as a distinct racial and religious minority Indians have always 
 had an uphill struggle in the halls of Congress and elsewhere to have 
 their rights recognized and respected. 

The legislative branch of any government is an exceedingly unusual

 place for individuals to look to have their rights under the First 
 Amendment vindicated.  Courts are traditionally looked to as protectors 
 of these rights, against majoritarian legislatures.  Justice O'Connor, 
 in a separate concurring opinion which joined the result of the majority 
 but sharply criticized its method, reasoned that "the First Amendment 
 was enacted precisely to protect those whose religious practices are not 
 shared by the majority and may be viewed with hostility." [more]

— Opus-CBCS 1.12 * Origin: Opera=Amorum, BaphoNet-At-Night → (718) 499-9277 (1:107/666.0)

058/059 Mon 13 Aug 1990 20:20:00 From: Shanti Lightdancer To: All Subj: Peyote (12 Of 13) Attr: local Metaphysical————————————

[12]

    A noted scholar of Indian law and philosopher, Felix Cohen, was quoted 
 several decades ago as saying:  "Like the miner's canary, the Indian 
 marks the shifts from fresh air to poison gas in our political 
 atmosphere;  and our treatment of Indians, even more than our treatment 
 of other minorities, reflects the rise and fall in our democratic faith 
 ...."  Cohen's words become even more prophetic after the Court's 
 decision in "Smith."  The "Smith" decision may perhaps portend even 
 greater persecution for other forms of Indian religious expression. 
 Examples which come to mind include:  the wearing of long hair by Indian 
 students in public schools, and by Indian prisoners in federal and state 
 prisons;  missing school on a regular basis for cultural/religious 
 ceremonial purposes;  the taking of game by Indians out season, when not 
 otherwise protected by treaty;  burning wood to heat rocks for sweat- 
 lodge ceremonies, when burning is otherwise outlawed by local ordinance 
 during times of high pollution;  and body piercing as part of the Sun 
 Dance ceremony.  If these forms of religious expression are otherwise 
 prohibited by general criminal laws, the First Amendment no longer 
 provides a basis from which to claim protection from religious 
 infringement.  As with peyote use, reservation boundaries will provide a 
 buffer from the application of state law, except where Public Law 280 
 legitimizes intrusion. 

As a result of "Smith," minority religions, in Justice Scalia's

 opinion, may be at a disadvantage in the political arena.  But that is, 
 in his estimation, "an unavoidable consequence of democratic 
 government," preferable to "a system in which each conscience is a law 
 unto itself."  Justice Scalia had to strain to defend his decision, 
 citing the need to prevent "anarchy" in our democratic society.  Indian 
 people simply want to be left alone in our society to worship the god of 
 their choice.  Is that asking too much?  The Court's decision in "Smith" 
 strips Indians of their pride and integrity, and makes many of them 
 criminals in the eyes of the law.  Only history will judge the Court's 
 decision in "Smith;"  but for now the remote specter of anarchy may very 
 well have been the preferred choice. [end of article; more to come]

— Opus-CBCS 1.12 * Origin: Opera=Amorum, BaphoNet-At-Night → (718) 499-9277 (1:107/666.0)

059/059 Mon 13 Aug 1990 20:30:00 From: Shanti Lightdancer To: All Subj: Peyote (13 Of 13) Attr: local Metaphysical————————————

[13 of 13] STATEMENT FROM PACIFIC NORTHWEST CHURCH LEADERS WHO SUPPORT INDIAN RELIGIOUS RIGHTS Re: Employment Division, State of Oregon v. Al Smith, Galen Black, 88-1213

The recent U.S. Supreme Court decision regarding the sacramental use of peyote in Native American religious rites is unfortunate and deeply disappointing. We support the right of Native Americans to practice their religion as they have for centuries. We concur with Justice Harry Blackmun, who writing for the dissent, called the decision a "wholesale overturning of settled law concerning the religious clauses of our Constitution." The decision jeopardizes the fundamental right of all citizens to exercise freedom of religion free from government restraint. We will continue to work with Native Americans to help them protect their religious rights.

The Most Rev. Raymond G. Huthausen Archbishop of Seattle Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Seattle

The Right Rev. Vincent W. Warner, Bishop Episcopal Diocese of Olympia

The Most Rev. Thomas Murphy, Coadjutor Archbishop Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Seattle

The Rev. John Boonstra, Executive Minister Washington Association of Churches

The Rev. Calvin D. McConnell, Bishop United Methodist Church Pacific NW Conference

The Rev. W. James Halfaker, Conference Minister Washington-Idaho Conference United Church of Christ

The Rev. Lowell Knutson, Bishop NW Washington Synod Evangelical Lutheran Church In America

The Rev. Dr. William B. Cate, President Director Church Council of Greater Seattle

The Rev. Gaylord Hasselblad, Executive Minister

American Baptist Churches of the Northwest

These church leaders issued an apology to Indians that was carried in the Winter 1988 NARF Legal Review

— Opus-CBCS 1.12 * Origin: Opera=Amorum, BaphoNet-At-Night → (718) 499-9277 (1:107/666.0)

/data/webs/external/dokuwiki/data/pages/archive/messages/peyote.txt · Last modified: 2000/10/10 03:46 by 127.0.0.1

Donate Powered by PHP Valid HTML5 Valid CSS Driven by DokuWiki