You hear that every time somebody wants to build a road or a park somewhere.
Is it really going to tear them up when there’s other things there now?
Some of the ones in my area hadn’t seen any Indian celebrations or ceremonies for a couple of generations. So there may be some old rock paintings or a grave or two. But the European (and then Chinese) settlers also buried people and made markers on the rocks. But they don’t claim the whole mountain.
If you’re in the middle east you can’t move without stepping on someone’s sacred something, and they just build right up against it.
It just seems like a way to get cheap applause for the anti-progress movement.
Those prior generations of all backgrounds are long gone. They were scarce to begin with, and now there are a thousand times more real live people with needs.
It doesn’t make sense that the living should be ruled by the dead. They were free to build where they wanted, after all. Now it’s the next civilization’s turn.
Ah.
Here’s the point you missed. I found it layin’ on the floor over there, must’ve fallen off your desk.
They build up against it. Not “on top of it”.
If natives consider a mountain sacred, then the whole mountain is sacred, top to bottom, and you don’t build on top of it–you build up against it.
They don’t build stuff on top of the Grotto of the Nativity in Bethlehem, either, or the Grotto of Gethsemane. They build up against it.
How would you feel if someone wanted to build a public park over top of a graveyard in which a few of your family members were buried? I mean, it’s silly for the living to be ruled by the dead, right?
Whaaaaa, we can’t build tract housing and condos, whaaaaaa.
Not to join in the pile-on on the OP, but this does bring up an interesting topic: how long is a “sacred ground” remain sacred? E.g., if an ancient burial mountain is no longer actively used for burials, when is it no longer sacred? When should it be considered no longer sacred and open for reuse? Or is assimilation/removal/acceptance of the offended parties the only option?
I have been following, with some interest, the excavations of old abby ruins in England, last used about a thousand years ago or so. Given the location of these ruins, it is virtually certain that some of my ancestors’ graves are being excavated.
I don’t mind a bit.
At some point, a statute of limitations must apply.
This might sound like a lame answer but I’d say we have to examine these things on a case by case basis. Just like every old building shouldn’t be preserved as a historical landmark not every site that is sacred to someone should be preserved as it is.
Marc
Dome of the Rock…Jerusalem. Bang on top (literally!) of the Temple.
Really, if we held everything completely sacrosanct that some group declared so we’d all be packed into a 10x10 cubicle by now. The simple fact is that pretty much everything has been sacred to SOME group by now.
Wishing to point out that technically when they built the Dome of the Rock in the 7th century, the Temple did not exist, and the Jewish community that had worshiped there was largely scattered, and no longer active on-site. They put the Dome of the Rock on top of a big blank space, both physically and culturally.
So, then the Jews came back to Judea/Palestine/Israel, however you want to call it, didn’t they? And they’d like their holy space back, I guess.
So the Native Americans went away, too, didn’t they? And now they’d like their holy spaces back, too.
I don’t have any problem with either of those. I suppose the Muslims and Jews could arrange a time-sharing program for Temple Mount, if they really wanted to.
However, that’s only because you’re dealing with two different religions that claim the same holy space. Native Americans and condo developers are not different religions, so I don’t see why Native Americans should have to share their holy space with Donald Trump.
Perhaps the OP has some specific Native American holy site in mind? Might assist in advancing the discussion beyond generalities…
Sentence that got left out…
“The Temple did not exist except for the Western or Wailing Wall, the rest of it having been demolished by the Romans in 70 A.D., and the area lying waste until the Muslims decided to put a temple of their own there.”
Why should condo developers have to take into account the feelings of Native Americans? Does it really matter whether or not a tiny segment of the population considers a parcel of land they don’t own to be sacred?
Marc
Of course! Ever seen Poltergeist??? 
Well, who owns Temple Mount? Does it really matter whether or not a tiny segment of the population–Muslim, Jewish, and Christian–considers a parcel of land they don’t own to be sacred?
You can’t go by whether a person or group “owns” the land, because there are so many ways to establish title to land, for a group to claim “ownership”. Sometimes it’s enough just that they’ve been there for 10,000 years.
And you can’t go by whether a person or group is a “big” group or a “tiny” group, because otherwise it’s straight “majority rule”–if the group is big enough, then they get what they want, but tiny groups get left out. Which isn’t always fair.
What you can go by is who has the best claim to the land, for what reason. A condo developer might have a claim to a part of a mountain, but his claim would be financial–he hopes to make money off it. A Native American tribe’s claim would be religious, and personally I think “religious” claims trump “financial” claims every time.
YMMV, I suppose.
Still waiting to see if the OP is gonna come back at all.
I’d say determining who currently owns the property is a pretty good place to start and then move on to how the property has been used and is currently being used.
There’s the rub, how do we decide who has the best claim to the land? I agree that there are certain pieces of property that have signifigant cultural relevance that outweigh other considerations. I wouldn’t want them to pave over Yellowstone or tear down the Statue of Liberty.
The fact that some Native American groups consider the mountain to be sacred shouldn’t automatically preclude people from developing on it. Other considerations such as how the land has been used, how it is currently being used, and the benefits of developing there should be considered before just saying no to development.
Marc
My idea would be: if they really think it’s sacred, buy it.
If enough people get behind it, I’m sure pressure could be brought to bear.
Simplistic and naive, perhaps, but there you are.
Exactly right.
I think a little something called the First Amendment would prohibit the government from forbidding a landowner from making use of the property because a religious group which does not hold title to the land claims it is sacred.
Of course, they CAN tell him he can’t use the property because an endangered mouse lives on it… but that’s a different religion.
WAGON BOSS: Do you mind if I put this antenna up on yonder peak?
INDIAN: That’s our Sacred Mountain.
WAGON BOSS: This is our Sacred Antenna! It’s shaped like a cross!
And I gotta go with Leaper. Some condos in Chicago were recently built on the grounds of an old mental hospital that had its own graveyard. They thought they had everybody out but the bulldozers kept digging up more bones. I saw that movie and there’s no way in hell I’d buy one of those condos. Dead crazy people HAVE TO be worse mojo than dead Indians.
I’m always amazed by this argument. Don’t you realize people have been moving toms for to build new things since the days of Egypt, if not longer. How do you think the Catacombs got filled? They moved all the bones. They moved crowded churchyard graves to create most of the cathedrals of Europe.
And they are still relocating entire cemetaries. Nearly all cemetaries in San Francisco were moved to the suburb Colma because land was too valuable in the city.
[quote]
Bodies taken from and number
1887, June 3 Holy Cross Catholic Cemetery Calvary Cross 39,307
1889, Jan. I Home of Peace Cemetery & Emanu-El Home of Peace 13,000
1889, Jan. I Hills of Eternity Mem. Pk.- Jewish Cemetery
1891, Dec. 20 Salem Memorial Park & Garden Mausoleum
City Cemetery 696
1892 Cypress Lawn Memorial Park Laurel Hill 35,000
1896 Mount Olivet,now just Olivet Memorial Park
1899 Italian Cemetery & Mausoleum City Cemetery 8,000
1901 Serbian Cemetery Laurel Hill
1901, July Eternal Home Cemetery
1901, June Japanese Cemetery Laurel Hill & Masonic
1903 GreenLawn Memorial Park Oddfellows 26,000
1904, Oct. 29 Woodlawn Memorial Park Masonic
1907 Sunset View
After the 1912 Eviction notice.
1935 Greek Orthodox Memorial Park
1947 Pet’s Rest Cemetery & Crematory
1988 Hoy Sun Cemetery
1994, Feb.23 Golden Hills Memorial Park
I’m always amazed by this argument. Don’t you realize people have been moving tombs for to build new things since the days of Egypt, if not longer. How do you think the Catacombs got filled? They moved all the bones. They moved crowded churchyard graves to create most of the cathedrals of Europe.
And they are still relocating entire cemetaries. Nearly all cemetaries in San Francisco were moved to the suburb Colma because land was too valuable in the city.
[quote]
Bodies taken from and number
1887, June 3 Holy Cross Catholic Cemetery Calvary Cross 39,307
1889, Jan. I Home of Peace Cemetery & Emanu-El Home of Peace 13,000
1889, Jan. I Hills of Eternity Mem. Pk.- Jewish Cemetery
1891, Dec. 20 Salem Memorial Park & Garden Mausoleum
City Cemetery 696
1892 Cypress Lawn Memorial Park Laurel Hill 35,000
1896 Mount Olivet,now just Olivet Memorial Park
1899 Italian Cemetery & Mausoleum City Cemetery 8,000
1901 Serbian Cemetery Laurel Hill
1901, July Eternal Home Cemetery
1901, June Japanese Cemetery Laurel Hill & Masonic
1903 GreenLawn Memorial Park Oddfellows 26,000
1904, Oct. 29 Woodlawn Memorial Park Masonic
1907 Sunset View
After the 1912 Eviction notice.
1935 Greek Orthodox Memorial Park
1947 Pet’s Rest Cemetery & Crematory
1988 Hoy Sun Cemetery
1994, Feb.23 Golden Hills Memorial Park
Clearly, you aren’t aware of what the intent of the dominant (politically, though probably not numerically) parties in Israel plan. 
And though they are not numerically dominant, they’re the ones with the most fervent supporters (both financially and politically) in the Diaspora. Orthodox Jewry fully intends to someday (and many of them don’t plan to wait too long) rebuild the Temple. And they’ve got Scripture saying they will, oneday.
And nearly all conservative Christians agree that somehow, someway, it’ll happen.