Boo! Eagle Feathers for all!
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42326213/ns/us_news/
Quote
Court: Eagle feathers only for American Indians
By BRIAN SKOLOFF
updated 3/29/2011 6:16:40 PM ET
SALT LAKE CITY — Restricting use of eagle parts and feathers to members of federally recognized American Indian tribes for religious purposes does not violate the religious freedoms of non-Indians seeking the same right, a federal appeals court ruled Tuesday.
The Denver-based U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals found that such a prohibition, under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, does not violate the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
Tuesday's ruling comes after several cases in which non-Indians, and one man from a tribe that is no longer recognized by the federal government, sought the right to use feathers in their religious practices.
Eagle feathers are believed to be sacred among many Native Americans.
Federal law requires that eagle carcasses be sent to the National Eagle Repository in Denver, Colo., and that any tribe member wishing to use eagle feathers or parts in ceremonies apply for a permit to do so. The court noted that the repository "receives significantly more requests than it has available eagle carcasses" so there is already a long waiting period to fulfill permits.
All the cases noted in Tuesday's ruling weighed freedom of religion against the government's ability to protect the eagles and help maintain the centuries-old religious practices of Native Americans.
Federally recognized tribe members agree the law should restrict access to eagle parts to those whose ancestors have been practicing such ceremonies for centuries.
"As native people, we appreciate that others want to understand our philosophies, understand the sacredness of things. And I understand that many non-natives are looking for spirituality and looking for something sacred to hold onto," said Lacee A. Harris, a Northern Ute medicine man and mental health therapist in Salt Lake City.
However, Harris likened non-Indians' wanting to possess indigenous sacred objects to an outsider entering a Christian church and trying to perform that religion's ceremonies.
"To us, this is a very sacred thing," he said.
The cases cited in Tuesday's ruling include that of Samuel Ray Wilgus Jr., who claims to be an adopted member of Utah's Paiute Indian Peak Band.
During a traffic stop in 1998 near the town of Fillmore, about 150 miles south of Salt Lake City, authorities seized more than 100 eagle feathers from him. He was later charged with possessing the feathers without a permit, and pleaded guilty with the provision that he could appeal.
Wilgus was sentenced to 100 hours of community service, but maintained that it was a violation of his religious freedoms.
A district court disagreed, but the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals at the time reversed the decision and ordered a hearing on whether the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act was "the least restrictive means of serving the government's interests."
The district court then found that the act did indeed violate Wilgus's rights to religious freedom.
The appeals court now overturns that ruling.
"We are sensitive to the sincerity of Wilgus' religious beliefs, and we do not question either the authenticity or the weight of his religious experience among Native Americans," the court wrote.
However, it noted, that "in light of the options before the federal government, the regulations at issue are the least restrictive means available."
Wilgus says he is, in essence, now being banned from practicing his religion.
"It's totally discriminatory to say I don't have the right to practice my religion the way I have been taught, and by the rights I have been given by Native American spiritual leaders because I can't prove that I am Indian under the law, because I am white," Wilgus said Tuesday. "I thought we all had the right to religious freedom in this country."
Wilgus' lawyer, Joseph Orifici, said he will appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.
"It not only discriminates against my client, but it discriminates against any Native American who lives in this country who is not a member of a federally recognized tribe," Orifici said.
The U.S. Justice Department had no immediate comment on the ruling.
However, department lawyers previously argued that demand for eagle feathers far exceeds the federal government's supply, and that exemptions to the law should only be provided if it doesn't undermine the intent of the statute.
Other similar cases in the last decade included a New Mexico man who is a descendant of Chiricahua Apaches, a tribe no longer recognized by the federal government, and another Utah man who claimed he was given an eagle feather by a Hopi religious leader. Both men had their feathers seized and were prosecuted.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on March 30, 2011, 06:48:44 AM
Lacee A. Harris, a Northern Ute medicine man and mental health therapist in Salt Lake City.
He has a girl's name. :nelson:
Racism!
If they were in fact so fucking sacred why didn't they defend them in the first place? Their case is like Swiss cheese: not very effective.
I understand Americans are wrecked with cultural guilt but this ruling has very disturbing implications.
Quote from: Martinus on March 30, 2011, 02:11:51 PM
I understand Americans are wrecked with cultural guilt but this ruling has very disturbing implications.
The native peoples were so good and pure and close to nature :weep:
Quote from: Martinus on March 30, 2011, 02:11:51 PM
I understand Americans are wrecked with cultural guilt but this ruling has very disturbing implications.
It restricts freedom of religion. Thought that would make you happy. :P
Seriously, though, it does seem a distrubing ruling, as it implies that freedom of religion is contingent on one's ethnicity.
Quote from: dps on March 30, 2011, 02:29:24 PM
Quote from: Martinus on March 30, 2011, 02:11:51 PM
I understand Americans are wrecked with cultural guilt but this ruling has very disturbing implications.
It restricts freedom of religion. Thought that would make you happy. :P
Seriously, though, it does seem a distrubing ruling, as it implies that freedom of religion is contingent on one's ethnicity.
Um...it restricts the use of body parts from endangered species. Nowhere does it dictate you cannot belong to a religion that holds such body parts sacred. You just cannot go killing eagles to get them.
Likewise I can freely participate in a religion that requires human and animal sacrifices so long as, you know, I do not break any other laws in that practice.
You are looking at it from a wrong side. What it really does is that it allows one religion/ethnicity to commit acts that are illegal for the rest of the populace. That's the very antithesis of equality under law.
What's next? Descendants of Aztecs can perform human sacrifice?
There's already precedent for this. We let some tribes in Washington (the Makah?) hunt whales because it's "part of their heritage".
Quote from: Martinus on March 30, 2011, 02:50:00 PM
You are looking at it from a wrong side. What it really does is that it allows one religion/ethnicity to commit acts that are illegal for the rest of the populace. That's the very antithesis of equality under law.
What's next? Descendants of Aztecs can perform human sacrifice?
Native Americans already had this exemption and many others to boot (see: indian casinos).
Various exemptions and recognition of special rights and status for Natives is a common feature of legal systems in Canada and the US. There is a different historic situation and reality to take into context than in Europe.
Quote from: Martinus on March 30, 2011, 02:50:00 PM
You are looking at it from a wrong side. What it really does is that it allows one religion/ethnicity to commit acts that are illegal for the rest of the populace. That's the very antithesis of equality under law.
What's next? Descendants of Aztecs can perform human sacrifice?
Um it allows those who belong to a federally protected self-governing nation-within-nation to do so. Not simply those who are of a certain religion or ethnicity. Our treaties with certain native tribes require certain things. There is no Aztec reservation but if there was I am sure the Feds would not sign an agreement giving them the ability to raid others for the purposes of grabbing sacrifices :P
Quote from: Valmy on March 30, 2011, 02:32:16 PM
Quote from: dps on March 30, 2011, 02:29:24 PM
Quote from: Martinus on March 30, 2011, 02:11:51 PM
I understand Americans are wrecked with cultural guilt but this ruling has very disturbing implications.
It restricts freedom of religion. Thought that would make you happy. :P
Seriously, though, it does seem a distrubing ruling, as it implies that freedom of religion is contingent on one's ethnicity.
Um...it restricts the use of body parts from endangered species. Nowhere does it dictate you cannot belong to a religion that holds such body parts sacred. You just cannot go killing eagles to get them.
The Indians can't go around killing eagles to get them either. They get them from a federal eagle carcass repository.
Quote from: Valmy on March 30, 2011, 03:04:22 PM
Quote from: Martinus on March 30, 2011, 02:50:00 PM
You are looking at it from a wrong side. What it really does is that it allows one religion/ethnicity to commit acts that are illegal for the rest of the populace. That's the very antithesis of equality under law.
What's next? Descendants of Aztecs can perform human sacrifice?
Um it allows those who belong to a federally protected self-governing nation-within-nation to do so. Not simply those who are of a certain religion or ethnicity. Our treaties with certain native tribes require certain things. There is no Aztec reservation but if there was I am sure the Feds would not sign an agreement giving them the ability to raid others for the purposes of grabbing sacrifices :P
Sure they would, as long as they were restricted to raiding only other native tribes. :P
Quote from: dps on March 30, 2011, 03:11:07 PM
The Indians can't go around killing eagles to get them either. They get them from a federal eagle carcass repository.
Yes I am aware of that.
Quote from: Pitiful Pathos on March 30, 2011, 02:59:25 PM
Various exemptions and recognition of special rights and status for Natives is a common feature of legal systems in Canada and the US. There is a different historic situation and reality to take into context than in Europe.
We only let pure-breed Sami own reindeer. Some Samis can't, and some mixes aren't allowed to do it.
We have some weird racist laws as well.
We let Greenland hunt seals, but we do not prohibit the rest of the world to wear sealfurs.
Nor should it be disallowed to wear a russian orthodox cross unless you are an ethnic russian. They are mixing race, heritage, and religious symbols into one big mess here.
V
Quote from: Valmy on March 30, 2011, 03:04:22 PM
Quote from: Martinus on March 30, 2011, 02:50:00 PM
You are looking at it from a wrong side. What it really does is that it allows one religion/ethnicity to commit acts that are illegal for the rest of the populace. That's the very antithesis of equality under law.
What's next? Descendants of Aztecs can perform human sacrifice?
Um it allows those who belong to a federally protected self-governing nation-within-nation to do so. Not simply those who are of a certain religion or ethnicity. Our treaties with certain native tribes require certain things. There is no Aztec reservation but if there was I am sure the Feds would not sign an agreement giving them the ability to raid others for the purposes of grabbing sacrifices :P
Which is a weird thing in itself. These nations are not sovereign. Allowing these treaties to stand (both to the detriment of these "nations", and flying in the face of the principle of equality under law) is a mistake that is unnecessary.
Quote from: Martinus on March 31, 2011, 03:32:38 AM
Which is a weird thing in itself. These nations are not sovereign. Allowing these treaties to stand (both to the detriment of these "nations", and flying in the face of the principle of equality under law) is a mistake that is unnecessary.
Might as well. The native peoples are used to the white man breaking all his treaties with them, might as well do it one more time.
Quote from: Martinus on March 31, 2011, 03:32:38 AM
Which is a weird thing in itself. These nations are not sovereign. Allowing these treaties to stand (both to the detriment of these "nations", and flying in the face of the principle of equality under law) is a mistake that is unnecessary.
Well they don't have full sovereignty but they do have sovereignty.
Quote from: wikitasticThese tribes possess the right to form their own government, to enforce laws (both civil and criminal), to tax, to establish requirements for membership, to license and regulate activities, to zone and to exclude persons from tribal territories. Limitations on tribal powers of self-government include the same limitations applicable to states; for example, neither tribes nor states have the power to make war, engage in foreign relations, or coin money (this includes paper currency)
Quote from: Martinus on March 31, 2011, 03:32:38 AM
Quote from: Valmy on March 30, 2011, 03:04:22 PM
Quote from: Martinus on March 30, 2011, 02:50:00 PM
You are looking at it from a wrong side. What it really does is that it allows one religion/ethnicity to commit acts that are illegal for the rest of the populace. That's the very antithesis of equality under law.
What's next? Descendants of Aztecs can perform human sacrifice?
Um it allows those who belong to a federally protected self-governing nation-within-nation to do so. Not simply those who are of a certain religion or ethnicity. Our treaties with certain native tribes require certain things. There is no Aztec reservation but if there was I am sure the Feds would not sign an agreement giving them the ability to raid others for the purposes of grabbing sacrifices :P
Which is a weird thing in itself. These nations are not sovereign. Allowing these treaties to stand (both to the detriment of these "nations", and flying in the face of the principle of equality under law) is a mistake that is unnecessary.
The right to be welfare junkie trumps all.
I am surprised at the surprise over this ruling.
It seems pretty straighforward to me.
The state has an interest in protecting an endangered species. So they make laws to do so, which include a law against posessing eagle feathers. In and of itself, this is largely not that interesting.
But now we see their is a competing interest - some peoples religious beliefs include the use of eagle feathers. So we have conflicting interests between the states desire to protect an endangered species and individuals desires to practice their religion.
Seems pretty normal for the court and legislators to figure out how to balance those two interests in a reasonable way.
There is a finite supply of eagle feathers, so it seems pretty reasonable to restrict their distribution, and to do so on the basis of actual membership in tribes that have a known and certain interest in the use of these items for religious purposes. Does that mean that some people who have just as profound religious views are going to get screwed? Sure - but what is the alternative? If you let anyone claiming membership in a religious group that like feathers, then I would guess the federal attempt to protect eagles would fail, hence that solution would not protect the states interest in protecting eagles.
Comparing this to aztecs performing human sacrifice is a bit silly - this is at the end of the day a practical[/i solution to competing interests. I am pretty sure we established a long time ago that nobody's freedom to practice their religion extends to the freedom to kill anyone.
Poland has a central repository for Jew carcasses.
Berkut is making complete sense here.
Quote from: Ed Anger on March 31, 2011, 04:34:15 PM
Poland has a central repository for Jew carcasses.
myth
I guess asking the Indians to grow the fuck up is out of the question.
Quote from: Jacob on March 31, 2011, 05:21:27 PM
Berkut as always is making complete sense here.
FYP
Quote from: The Brain on March 31, 2011, 05:24:21 PM
I guess asking the Indians to grow the fuck up is out of the question.
Perhaps we can ask them to do that when everyone else in the world does too.