I think that most of the participants in this thread are confusing sacred mountains and burial sites. AFAIK, and I’m at least vaguely familiar the theologies/mythologies (take your pick) of most of the western NA nations, no NA burial sites are on sacred mountains of those nations who were permitted by the US government to remain anywhere near the lands of their ancestors. Sacred mountains, for most of the nations involved, are the homes of spirits which they worship. Do you suppose you’re likely to convince them that their deities are going to be happy/willing to share their homes with the homes of the invaders? Especially when they do NOT bury their own dead there, nor even visit the mountain themselves without undergoing purification rituals (some of which are very strenuous)?
More of the sacred mountains are wanted for either astronomical istallations (when space telescopes are infinitely better, and now well-proven to be doable) or the extraction of minerals by crushing the rock and gradually converting the mountain into a plain (or even a pit, depending on how deep the mineral deposits go). Neither of these is compatible with maintaining the “sacred” nature of the mountain, anymore than having a bunch of whiteyes move in.
As for NA burial grounds, many nations have moved their ancestors’ remains when necessary. Nobody likes to, but it’s not nearly the hot button you hit when you propose to disposess someone else’s god(s).
One final comment on yours about your ancestors. Whether or not you are Christian, you are clearly the product of a Christian-perfused culture, which teaches that the spirit is more important than the body, and that it goes to its immortal home (whichever place that may be). Other religions have produced cultures with quite different ideas about their dead. Someone raised in a different culture will (almost always) hold the view that their religion teaches, even if they repudiate the religion itself.
The “balds” of the Smokies were sacred to my ancestors. OTOH, the religion of my ancestors was quite deliberately destroyed by the i/n/v/a/d/e/r/s/ settlers.
But again, you run into First Amendment problems when a governmental body is called upon to enforece a religious prohibition on people who do not follow that religion. The principle is the same whether what is being prohibited is the use of sacred land or abortion. There may be valid secular reasons for a prohibition in a particular case, but the religious reasons are legally irrelevant.
Dunno about that… a non-believer can have an abortion w/o causing the believer to have one, much as the believer may be offended by it and bewail the fate of the “unborn” and claim this will make God smite the land. A non-believer cannot develop the “sacred site” without at least partly altering, mutilating or even destroying it, materially depriving the believer of a component of their rites. And though yes, technically Art. I is a prohibition on the state interfering with free exercise, there is also a state interest in maintaining civil peace. Which means it may at some point require the prolifers to stay a certain distance away from the abortion clinic, and the developers from the sacred site.
Myself, I believe it should be case-by-case, rather than a blanket, one-size-fits-all criterion either way. There may even be situations where a satisfying compromise could be achieved if the parties do not come to the table locked into an “it’s all or nothing” position. And yes, sure, I’ll admit that I will judge certain developments and uses to be “worthier” than others (for instance, whining that they’re not letting you build condos and strip malls exactly where you want them will get no sympathy from me, either) but I recognize that’s just my subjective preference.
Bullcrap. If any (U.S.) government agency told you you couldn’t develop property you own (in the U.S.) solely because it offends ANY religious group, from the Catholic Church to the Moonies to a Native American tribe, the case would be thrown so far out of court (on First Amendment ground) it would bounce.
I wish I could be as rock-solidly 100% certain, BrotherCadfael, I honestly do. The problem is I can conceive of that hypothetical happening – of course, not by the initiative of the government, but more likely as a result of some sort of suit by the religious group.
I tried to respond to this about 24 hours ago, but SDMB seems to go offline at 3:30am CST, and so…
In the case of mineral rights, the issue is ambiguous on property rights for the simple reason that the mountains - in most cases- are part of a rez, a place where the US government, by treaty, exempted the occupants from the laws of the (whichever) surrounding state, and also from some federal laws, etc., and include specifications of rights and privileges. And there are lots of treaties - which are officially the laws of the United States. Those laws say (among other things) that the NDN nations are sovereign WRT the uses of reservation lands. Which is why one NDN nation has been locked in internal controversy because the current elected chief wants to allow radioactive waste to be stored on their lands - for a large rental fee, of course. However, in the cases of the varous sacred mountains, the Feds sold the mineral rights out from under the NDN nations a century or more ago (without regard to the treaties which were allegedly in force).
Now you tell me: Do you think that owning mineral rights (but not the mountain) entitles the mineral rights owner to destroy the mountain in order to extract them??
Even Potosi still stands, holey as Baby Swiss cheese, after deity alone knows how many thousands (or millions) of tons of silver, etc., ores have been extracted, and tin mining is still going on there. But US mining companies want to use strip mining on the mountains - which leaves a flat place when they’re done. Their argument? “The deposits are not sufficiently high-grade for older methods to be profitable.” So, in order for them to make a gratifying profit, they want to destroy a topography (and its scenic decorations) that was created millions (or at least hundreds of thousands) of years ago when continental plates buckled. Beauty aside, this is a place that the local NDN nation regards in much the same way as Christians regard heaven, or Muslims regard Paradise.
And, to make matters worse, people who have been oppressed for more than four centuries will have the home of their gods destroyed. Tell me what sort of reaction do you think there would be from Christians worldwide if somebody acquired some sort of “rights” (not ownership of the physical property) to the location of (one of the places claimed to be) Jesus’ tomb, and claimed that in order to get the benefits of their “rights”, they would have to destroy the buildings on it?
Obviously, if we are talking about reservation land, then totally different rules apply.
If we are talking about using environmental rules to stop a project the tribe doesn’t like, totally different rules apply.
But in the case where a person has unambiguous title to non-reservation land, and the sole objection is that the mountain is “sacred”, then the First Amendment applies.
I’m not aware of any current disputes that fall into the third category, but that doesn’t mean much. Lately I’ve been spending time I would probably otherwise spend in a Native American chat group on this strange board located in Chicago.
However, I would hope you’re aware of the fact that large businesses (whatever their legal form) spend money to affect the public’s perceptions of them, just like politicians. Sometimes, the best lies are half-truths; such as “We own the mineral rights to this X acre plot of land, and the locals are trying to prevent us from extracting the minerals.” :rolleyes:
