"Indians Struggle for their Heritage"  The Seattle Times, Nov. 22, 1987, B3 by 
Marsha King  (copyright)

The atmosphere in the Tulalip ceremonial house on this rainy night overpowers 
the senses.

Two roaring fires light the dark; pungent smoke fills the air, stinging the 
eyes.  Sparks fly up through openings in the high-pitched cedar ceiling like 
bright souls to the black, starless sky.  Men with painted faces beat on skin 
drums.  They shake carved sticks called "kuich-meins" tied with hundreds of 
rattling deer hooves.  Women slap wooden paddles and chant.

A thousand Indians from Washington's coastal tribes -- from babies to 
grandmothers wrapped in blankets -- gathered on the Tulalip reservation last 
week (note date at top) to bid farewell to Fred Cayou Sr., a Swinomish Indian 
who died four years ago.  They came to sing Cayou's "Seyowen" song one last 
time, then send it to join him in the spirit world on the other side.

It was a second burial of sorts, and a spiritual catharsis for Cayou's family.  
According to tradition, after this night they would mourn no more.

For decades, traditional Indian rituals like the Cayou memorial were deemed 
heathen and outlawed in the United States.  Government agents punished and 
imprisoned practitioners.  Indian children, taken from their homes, were 
placed in boarding schools and taught to forget their heritage.  Missionaries 
ardently set out to Christianize their parents.

The native religions went underground.  Believers buried their masks and 
ceremonial regalia.  The ceremonial houses fell into disrepair.  Only through 
secret rituals in private homes or the deep backwoods did the old ways 
survive. The Cayou family was one that kept the religion alive.

Though restrictions were loosened through the years, Congress did not 
repudiate the suppression until 1978, with the American Indian Religious 
Freedom Act.


_A BINDING OF OLD WOUNDS_

This weekend, regional church leaders apologized to Northwest native Americans 
for Christianity's part in their persecution.  The gesture is an attempt to 
bind up old wounds.

"It's something that needs to be done," says the Rev. Dr. William Cate, 
president of the Church Council of Greater Seattle, who believes too many 
Christians consider Indian religion inferior to their own.

In the Tulalip ceremonial smokehouse, the Indians carried pictures of Cayou 
around the room while chanting with great dignity in slow procession.  There 
were two images:  Cayou -- the handsome soldier in an army uniform; and Cayou 
-- the Indian painted on a drum.

Young initiates of the smokehouse religion, considered too fragile in spirit, 
were not permitted to gaze at his pictures.

"The person who has died might take their power from them," explains Maxine 
Williams, aunt to Cayou.  "They're not strong enough to hang onto it."

Indians say these traditional rituals are enjoying a revival in the Northwest, 
especially among younger people who are turning to their elders to rediscover 
the language, the ancient ceremonies, the lost sense of themselves.

"We can safely say there are 4,000 to 5,000 Seyowen people in the Northwest," 
says Williams, who claims both Swinomish and Samish ancestry.  Seyowen or the 
smokehouse religion is one of about five Native American religions practiced 
in this region.  Many have strong Christian ties.  At the family's request, a 
Catholic priest opened the Tulalip smokehouse ceremony saying the "Our Father" 
and passing out rosaries.

Traditionalists center their beliefs in strength and purity of body and mind
which comes from the right relationship with Mother Earth.


_QUEST FOR A PURE PLACE_

"The outdoors or nature is our temple," says Sam Cagey, an elder of the Lummi 
tribe.  "We need a pure, clean place for questing and seeking a vision, but 
now you find garbage, raped areas, all violated."

Still, Cagey knows where to find that purity.  He has come deep into the Mount 
Baker Forest, to stand in the early snow.  Below, a clear creek rushes over 
boulders down the mountain.

"We bring our initiates up here," says Cagey, pointing upstream.  "For 
purification, cleansing and whatever else might come with it."

In winter, the water is so cold "when you get out your body feels like it's on 
fire," he says.

A truck pulls up on the dirt road.  Dick Green and Dave Oreiro, both Lummis, 
have come to kill an elk for a naming ceremony.

"I don't want to kill this elk, but I gotta do it," Green explains.  "It's 
part of what I believe.  It's sort of low down to have turkey or beef on an 
Indian table for such an important thing as an Indian naming ceremony."

Green says the woman to be honored searched for years before she finally found 
the right Indian name.

Cagey, 63 and suffering from diabetes, grabs a thin walking stick and 
unsteadily hikes 20 minutes into the snowy woods to show off an 800-year-old 
cedar tree.

According to ancient tradition, every part of the cedar tree is used:  bark 
for clothing, the trunk for canoes, paddles and spear handles.  Even its buds 
were medicine.

"What the buffalo was to the Plains Indians, the cedar was to us," says Cagey.


_LAWSUITS FOR SANCTITY_

Some Indians work hard against what they consider threats to their forest 
sanctuaries and ancient burial sites.

The fight stretches from the U.S. Supreme Court to Orcas Island.  The high 
court will hear arguments Nov. 30 (1987) in "Lyng vs. the Northwest Indian 
Cemetery Protective Association," a California sacred-sites case. he dispute 
lies over the Department of Agriculture's plans to put a road through a 
national forest area which Indians claim is a sacred "high ground."

On Orcas, the Lummi tribe is negotiating with Northwest Building Corp. over 
development of Madrona Point.  The Indians believe the site is an ancient 
burial ground, though an archeologist hired by the development corporation 
could find no scientific evidence of such use.

The Indians explain their ancestors were interred in canoes amidst the tree 
branches, destroyed by a fire a century ago.  What remains are their ancestors' 
spirits.

The corporation is willing to cooperate with the Lummis, says project manager 
Wayne Reisenauer, and may sell the land to the Indians if they can come up with 
$2 million.

Some say even when evidence proves that Indians worshipped a particular place, 
the Christian society has difficulty accepting the validity of that worship.

As Ralph Johnson, professor of Indian law at the University of Washington, puts 
it:  "If Christ had been crucified on a cross on a mountain in Kansas, you can 
bet your boots nobody would be logging it.  The Judeo-Christian society has 
great difficulty believing the Indians can be worshiping something that doesn't 
fit the pattern of Christian religion."

In the past five years, court cases over sacred sites have gone both ways.

"The courts have been split," says Johnson.  "Some courts have said Indians are 
entitled to preservation of timber and stopping Forest Service roads because it 
interferes with their religious freedom.  Other courts take the opposite view."

The Forest Service, trying to comply with the American Indian Religious Freedom 
Act, has worked with tribes to inventory sacred sites within the Mt. Baker- 
Snoqualmie National Forest.  When activities such as road building might disturb 
these areas, the Forest Service consults with the Indians.

"That's working pretty well, from our side anyway," says Doug MacWilliams, 
forest supervisor.

Activists with the Lummi tribe disagree.

"They've walked into tribes and said, 'These are your options.  Pick one or 
we'll go on without you,'" says Kurt Russo, a white employee of the Lummi tribe 
for the last 10 years.

Tribes eagerly await the Forest Service's draft land-management plan due out 
next month.  Open for a 90-day public comment period, the plan will suggest 
various alternatives for managing the 1.7 million-acre forest over the next 10 
to 15 years.  That includes balancing Indian needs with other groups' desires.

Somehow, Indian passion over old trees, pure creeks and undisturbed grave sites 
makes more sense by the light of the fire in the smokehouse.

Before the memorial, the family of Fred Cayou prepared for four days and nights, 
singing with and counseling each other.  To strengthen their power, the younger 
generation journeyed to the mountains to cleanse themselves at private places 
along the rivers and creeks.

"It's important to my people to preserve this.  It's all we have left that the 
white man has never taken away," Williams says.

In the end, they burned Cayou's cherished belongings -- a drum, paddle jacket, 
hair hat and "kuich-mein."  Observers were forbidden to look into the fire so as 
not to disturb Cayou's spirit coming to claim what was being burned.

Certain believers, chosen for their spiritual strength, sang his song.  The 
young relatives, releasing their own spirit voice, moaned and sighed out their 
sorrow.

According to custom, when the song ended, the family distributed a roomful of 
gifts.  Then all who wished danced to the drums until dawn.


-------------===============***************================--------------


"Prejudice Recalled:  Churches pledge to support Indian spiritual practices" by 
Marsha King   The Seattle Times, 22 Nov. 1987   copyright

An eloquent apology was extended yesterday to Indian and Eskimo peoples of the 
Pacific Northwest by the bishops and leaders of nine Christian denominations.

The document will be mailed to 26 tribes and 1,800 congregations across the 
region -- with a request that it be shared this Thanksgiving season.

"Dear Brothers and Sisters," Episcopal Bishop Robert Cochrane read at a quiet 
ceremony yesterday.  "This is a formal apology on behalf of our churches for 
their longstanding participation in the destruction of traditional Native 
American spiritual practices."

The declaration was delivered to Indian leaders at a gathering of about 25 
people at the corner of First Avenue and Spring Street in Settle, a site 
believed to have been an ancient Indian burial ground.

To the noise of city buses and the stares of passersby, Lummi elder Joe 
Washington began the event with a prayer and a song.

"The god that we pray to is the same god you pray to," he said.

The apology will be controversial, predicted the Rev. Dr. William Cate, 
president of the Church Council of Greater Seattle, which drafted the letter.

"Some people will say we're selling out to paganism, that we ought to be 
converting them," said Cate.  "There's liable to be quite a little fuss."

But, in his view, it will give American Indians hope "that this society will 
become less racist and begin to treat them with more justice."

The church leaders' letter said, "We have frequently been unconscious and 
insensitive and have not come to your aid when you have been victimized by 
unjust federal policies and practices.  In many other circumstances, we 
reflected the rampant racism and prejudice of the dominant culture with which we 
too willingly identified."

The letter called on Christians to respect traditional Indian ways of life, and 
pledged to help protect sacred places and support the right to use ceremonial 
objects such as feathers, tobacco, sweet grass and bones.

"As the Creator continues to renew the earth, the plants, the animals and all 
living things," the letter said, "we call upon the people of our denominations 
and fellowships to a commitment of mutual support in your efforts to reclaim and 
protect the legacy of your own traditional spiritual teachings."

It asked for forgiveness and blessing.

In the past, the church council has supported American Indians in matters of 
treaty rights, but Cate said this apology is "fundamental and basic."

It is "a first formal step that will probably frame debate and action at the 
national level," said Russell Barsh, a non-Indian attorney who has represented 
Indian tribes and been an adviser on American Indian issues to the U.S. Forest 
Service and the church council.

This is not the first Christian pledge of support in recent months to Indian 
peoples.  In September, Pope John Paul II declared to tribal leaders of the 
Northwest Territories that the Roman Catholic Church "extols the equal human 
dignity of all peoples and defends their right to uphold their own cultural 
character, with its distinct traditions and customs."

A good-faith gift of $1,000 will be sent by the church council to the Native 
American Rights Fund, an advocacy group in Colorado.  The money will be 
earmarked for litigation and support of American Indian spiritual traditions in 
the Northwest.

Signatures on the document represented these denominations in the Pacific 
Northwest:  Lutheran Church in America, American Baptist, Christian Church, 
Episcopal, United Church of Christ, Catholic, Presbyterian, American Lutheran 
Church and the United Methodist Church.

Before signing, church leaders revised the document four times, as they 
conferred with their own contacts in the Indian community.

"It had to do with a commitment to providing advocacy and mediation," explained 
Jon Magnuson, co-chair of the church council's American Indian task force. "They 
didn't want to say something they couldn't deliver."

The apology was proposed last March in a letter to the Church Council from Lummi 
activist Jewell Praying Wolf James.

Persecutions from the past, and continuing conflicts, plagued him.

"If we're going to have a long-term relationship, we need to start with a clean 
slate," James says he told himself.  His idea grew after seeing a 1969 report 
from the Anglican Church of Canada, which acknowledged the problems of Canadian 
Indians and the complicity of missionaries, and called for solutions.

James wrote to the church council:

"As you know, the Lummi tribe, like other tribes in the United States, has in 
the past been subject to both persecution and prosecution for practicing its 
traditional Indian religion."  The potlatch was banned.  Indian people -- 
including religious leaders -- were jailed, the James letter said.

Indeed, according to a 1921 circular from the Office of Indian Affairs: "The Sun 
Dance and all other similar dances and so-called religious ceremonies are 
considered Indian offenses under existing regulations and corrective penalties 
are provided."

"Indian people are still struggling to maintain their traditional beliefs and 
practices," James wrote.

Access to sacred sites, required for bathing and spiritual quests, is limited by 
logging and development, leaving "us little ground to find the purity, privacy 
and isolation we require," he said.

"What is required is a new beginning," wrote James, "...that is a declaration on 
the part of the Christian community that mistakes, misunderstandings and 
injustices have occurred in the past with respect to Indian religion."

Jewell James said he was shocked that the churches responded, but he greeted 
their letter with great pleasure and hope.

"It kind of restores faith in all the possibilities," he said.

-------------===============*****************===============----------------



Excerpted from:  The American Indian Religion Act Report P.L. 95-341,
                 Federal Agencies Task Force;  Chairman, Cecil D. Andrus,
                 Secretary of the Interior, August 1979.


I. _Introduction - Historical overview_

     A missionary once undertook to instruct a group of Indians
     in the truths of his holy religion.  He told them of the
     creation of the earth in six days, and of the fall of our
     first parents by eating an apple.

     The courteous savages listened attentively, and, after thanking
     him, one related in his turn a very ancient tradition concerning
     the origin of the maize.  But the missionary plainly showed his
     disgust and disbelief, indignantly saying:

     "What I delivered to you were sacred truths, but this that
     you tell me is mere fable and falsehood!"

               (_The Soul of the Indian_ -- Charles Eastman)


   _Historical Treatment of Native American Religions_

The incident involving the exchange of creation stories gives an eloquent 
testimony to the manner in which non-Indians have generally received the Indian 
religious tradition.  While proclaiming their own traditions to be infallible 
and literal truths, non-Indians have not accorded other religions the same 
courtesy.  Indeed, Eastman's story continues with the Indians reproving the 
missionary for his lack of manners and his violation of the rules of civility.

The Spanish, uncertain about the theological status of the Natives, and to make 
certain that conquests proceeded according to Christian principles, adopted the 
famous "Requirement," which had to be read formally to the Indians they 
encountered before any hostilities could commence.  The _Requiremento_ began 
with a brief history of the world since its creation, continued with an account 
of the establishment of the Papacy and described the donation by Pope Alexander 
IV of the lands then occupied by the Indians to the kings of Spain.  The 
Indians, after hearing these sacred words, were supposed to acknowledge the 
lordship of the kings of Spain and to allow the Christian faith to be preached 
to them.  Failure to surrender to the Spanish by the Indian justified whatever 
cruelties then followed and made the ensuing war theologically proper.  While 
harsh in the extreme, this formalization of religious conflict at least had a 
theological and doctrinal base that Europeans understood and which Indians came 
rapidly to understand and abhor.

The Pilgrim Fathers adopted a similar posture.  They lacked the absolute 
authority which the Papacy gave to the Spanish but consoled themselves with 
sermons by John Cotton, Cotton Mather and Increase Mather, or the strong 
opinions of William Bradford.  Conflict was not long in coming after the landing 
of the Pilgrims.  When John Robinson wrote to William Bradford in 1623, he 
expressed great concern about the killing of several Indians: "Concerning the 
killing of those poor Indians, of which we heard first by report, and since by 
more certain relation.  Oh, how happy thing had it been, if you had converted 
some before you killed any!"  Later, when the whites of Massachusetts surrounded 
the principal village of the Pequots and burned it with all the Indian 
inhabitants, Bradford was to remark in his _History of Plymouth Plantation_:

     Those that scaped the fire were slaine with sword; some
     hewed to peeces, others rune throw with their rapiers, so
     as they were quickly dispatchte, and very few escaped.  It
     was conceived they thus destroyed about 400, at this time.
     It was a fearful sight to see them thus frying in the fryer,
     and the streams of blood quenching the same, and horrible
     was the stink and sente there of; but the victory seemed
     a sweete sacrifice, and they gave the prayers thereof to
     God, who had wrought so wonderfully for them, thus to
     inclose their enemise in their hands, and give them so
     speedy a victory over so proud and insulting an enimie.

Repulsive as this history must be, it is important that it be understood in the 
broader historical perspective.  The adoption of the United States Constitution, 
with its prohibition of any governmental establishment of religion and 
guarantees of religious freedom, signified a new sense of religious maturity 
greatly transcending previous views of the relationships of Christians and 
Natives.

Post-Revolutionary pressures on the tribes east of the Mississippi presented 
great difficulties.  During the first three-quarters of American political 
existence, Christian missionaries were critically important in providing 
educational services to the tribes and interceding for them with government 
officials.  Indeed, the Rev. Samuel Worcester and some other committed 
missionaries, learning of the dilemma presented by the Supreme Court decision in 
_Cherokee Nation v. Georgia_, which denied the Cherokees standing to bring a 
suit against the state, voluntarily accepted the laws of the Cherokees, thereby 
suffering arrest and imprisonment by the state and initiating the companion 
case, _Worcester v. Georgia_, which upheld the treaty rights of the tribe.

Involvement of the missionaries in tribal affairs was not on the basis of Indian 
religious freedom, but primarily for the purpose of converting the natives.  
Freedom of religion became quickly submerged when missionary endeavors and 
government policy became synonymous.  Andrew Jackson, in his second Annual 
Message, described the progress in removing the Five Civilized Tribes from their 
homelands in the South and justified the Removal policy with the optimistic 
prediction that:

     It will separate the Indians from immediate contact with
     settlements of whites; free them from the power of the
     States; enable them to pursue happiness in their own way
     and under their own rude institutions; will retard the
     progress of decay, which is lessening their numbers, and
     perhaps cause them gradually, under the protection of the
     Government and through the influence of good counsels, to
     cast off their savage habits and become an interesting,
     civilized, and Christian community.

The coalescense of government and religious goals, which was achieved before the 
Civil War, became the predominant theme of interpretation for both churches and 
government agencies.  Commissioner Taylor, a member of the Indian Peace 
Commission of 1867-68, remarked in 1868 in his annual report as Commissioner of 
Indian Affairs:

     ...Assuming that the government has a right and that it is
     its duty to solve the Indian question definitely and
     decisively, it becomes necessary that it determine at once
     the best and speediest method of its solution, and then,
     armed with right, to act in the interest of both races.

     If might makes right, we are the strong and they the weak;
     and we would do no wrong to proceed by the cheapest and
     nearest route to the desired ends and could, therefore
     justify ourselves in ignoring the natural as well as the
     conventional rights of the Indians, if they stand in the way,
     and, as their lawful masters, assign them their status and
     their tasks, or put them out of their own way and ours by
     extermination with the sword, starvation, or by any other method.

But Taylor, recognizing that such a course of action would be a step backwards 
unworthy of the United States, argued:

     If, however, they have rights as well as we, then clearly
     it is our duty as well as sound policy to so solve the
     question of their future relations with us and each other,
     as to secure their rights and promote their highest interest,
     in the simplest, easiest, and most economical way possible.

     But to assume they have no rights is to deny the fundamental
     principles of Christianity, as well as to contradict the
     whole theory upon which the government has uniformly acted
     towards them; we are therefore bound to respect their rights,
     and, if possible, make our interests harmonize with them.

That Christianity and federal interests were often identical became an article 
of faith in every branch of the government and this pervasive attitude initiated 
the contemporary period of religious persecution of the Indian religions.  It 
was not, to be certain, a direct attack on Indian tribal religions because of 
their conflict with Christianity, but an oblique attack on the Indian way of 
life that had as its by-product the transformation of Indians into American 
citizens.  Had a Christian denomination or sect, or Jewish community been 
subjected to the same requirements prior to receiving affirmation of their legal 
and political rights, the outcry would have been tremendous.  But Indians, 
forming an exotic community which few understood, were thought to be the proper 
object of this concern.  Thus the Supreme Court, in deciding an important law 
suit involving a conflict between the Missouri, Kansas, and Texas Railroad 
Company and the Osage Indians, justified its decision as follows:

     Though the law as stated with reference to the power of the
     government to determine the right of occupancy of the
     Indians to their lands has always been recognized, it is
     to be presumed, as stated by this court in the _Buttz_ case,
     that in its exercise the United States will be governed by
     _such_considerations_of_justice_as_will_control_a_Christian_
     _people _in_their_treatment_of_an_ignorant_and_dependent_race_.
                                               ( Emphasis added )

Legislation also bore the imprint of this attitude.  Mr. Perkins, Representative 
from Kansas, warmly endorsed the Dawes Severalty Act on the floor of the House 
of Representatives, proclaiming:

     This bill is in keeping with the sentiment of the country,
     as it is, in my judgment, responsive to the best interests
     of the Indians, the best interests of the whites, and the
     best interests of the country generally.  It has the warm
     indorsement and approval of the Secretary of the Interior,
     of the Commissioner of Indian Affairs, and of all those
     who have given attention to the subject of the education,
     the Christianization, and the development of the Indian race.

Church groups enthusiastically endorsed the Dawes Act and pushed for its 
passage.  Bishop Hare of the Episcopal Church, when informed of its enactment, 
was heard to remark that "time will show whether the world or the Church will be 
more alert to take advantage of the occasion."  The Church came in a distant 
second.

The executive branch, charged with administering the Indian agencies, 
represented the government's most persistent presence in suppressing the tribal 
religions.  Most agents were political appointees, chosen for a long time with 
the consent of Church groups, and their religious bias was enhanced and 
strengthened by a dreadful ignorance of the parameters of tribal religions. 
Interpreting religion as primarily a belief system according to the familiar 
outlines of institutional religion with which they were familiar, many of the 
agents were horrified with the Indian ceremonial life and sought ways to 
suppress it.  Very few non-Indians could distinguish between a war dance and any 
other kind of dance.  Since the war dance in popular fiction, from James 
Fenimore Cooper to dime novels, was characterized as a prelude to savagery, 
dancing was particularly distasteful to non-Indians who were charged with 
performing various functions dealing with the tribes.

Examples of the sustained campaign conducted by federal employees against Indian 
dancing are numerous and in almost every instance the dances are characterized 
as representing barriers to government objectives in an unrelated field such as 
economic development, education, and reservation government.  The prohibition 
against dancing was, in a larger context, the effort to transform Indian social 
life into a replica of the non-Indian social life since dancing was only the 
external and most obvious expression of a deeper, more sublime, and more 
sophisticated social manifestation of the Indian personality.  In 1877, the 
Indian Agent for the Yankton Sioux reported his attempt to educate the Sioux to 
a different form of economic activity. He identified their social functions as a 
handicap in their progress toward this goal:

     As long as Indians live in villages they will retain many
     of their old and injurious habits.  Frequent feasts,
     community in food, heathen ceremonies and dances, constant
     visiting -- these will continue as long a the people live
     together in close neighborhoods and villages ... I trust
     that before another year is ended they will generally be
     located upon individual lands of farms.  From that date will
     begin their real and permanent progress.

This then was taken up by officials in the Bureau of Indian Affairs.  When the 
regulations under which the Indian courts were to be operated were revised by 
Commissioner Thomas Morgan in 1892, the first offense specified in the new 
regulations read:

     (a)  Dances, etc. -   Any Indian who shall engage in the
     sun dance, scalp dance, or war dance, or any other similar
     feast, so called, shall be deemed guilty of an offense,
     and upon conviction thereof shall be punished for the
     first offense by the withholding of his rations for not
     exceeding ten days; and for any subsequent offense under
     this clause he shall be punished by withholding his rations
     for not less than ten nor more than thirty days, or by
     imprisonmnet for not less than ten nor more than thirty days.

Suppression of religious practices by the reservation agents was a major factor 
in the reluctance of the Indians to adopt the white man's ways and, since it 
alienated the people unnecessarily, inhibited government programs during the 
time it was enforced.  Indians quickly found ways to subvert the Bureau of 
Indian Affairs regulations.  The Lummi and Nooksack peoples of Washington State 
performed their most important ceremonies on national holidays deliberately 
informing their agent that they were performing these rituals to honor the 
United States.  The suppression of Indian dancing continued until the Indian 
Reorganization Act of 1934 and Indian religious freedom was one of the most 
important reforms initiated by John Collier as Indian Commissioner.  A scant 
twelve years before Collier's reform, however, the Office of Indian Affairs 
released Circular No. 1665 (April 26, 1921) which read:

     The sun-dance, and all other similar dances and so-called
     religious ceremonies are considered "Indian Offenses" under
     existing regulations, and corrective penalties are provided.
     I regard such restriction as applicable to any dance which
     involves ... the reckless giving away of property ...
     frequent or prolonged periods of celebration ... in fact any
     disorderly or plainly excessive performance that promotes
     superstitious cruelty, licentiousness, idleness, danger to
     health, and shiftless indifference to family welfare.

In reviewing the history of federal treatment of Indian religions, it is 
important to note that little deliberate effort was made to eliminate religious 
practices because of their theological content.  In this respect, the American 
treatment has been significantly more intelligent and responsive than previous 
treatment of Indian religions by both the Spanish and English colonial 
officials.  There is one significant exception to this rule, however, and that 
consists of the violation of the sacred Pipestone Quarry in Minnesota.  The 
quarry was a religious site of great importance to tribes for nearly a thousand 
mile radius.  The quarry was under the protection of the Yankton Sioux people 
and in their treaties they took particular pains to ensure its sanctity.  
According to research done by their attorney, Jennings C. Wise (at one time an 
Assistant Attorney General of the United States), this quarry was deliberately 
damaged by the construction of a railroad through it in 1891 at the instigation 
of federal officials and missionaries who wished to destroy its value as a 
religious site.  According to Wise, the sacred ledges which created the falls 
were deliberately blasted to erase all traces of their former outlines and to 
render them useless for ceremonial purposes.

In recent decades, there has been considerable interest in restoring both sacred 
lands and access to sacred places within the various federal lands to the 
religious leaders of the respective tribes.  A major positive step in this 
respect was the return of the Blue Lake area to Taos Pueblo in 1973 and Mount 
Adams to the Yakima Nation in 1974.  Although these land restorations were 
controversial at the time, they have been accepted as a tangible expression of 
the desire by the federal government and non-Indians to make amends for the 
previous suppression of Indian ceremonial life.  Neither sacred site was 
diverted to other uses because of its religious significance, however, and so 
the solution of these specific problems is more in line with the types of 
continuing problems suffered by practitioners of Indian religions than the 
Pipestone Quarry situation.

The most critical aspect of past federal treatment of Indian religious 
activities, practices, and sacred locations is that abuses have for the most 
part arisen because of ignorance or misunderstanding on the part of the non- 
Indian.  The treatment exemplifies what can happen to a religious minority when 
its tradition is radically divergent from that of a majority in a society.  
Fortunately, there are no major theological barriers to confront but only the 
lack of precise knowledge, coupled with a lack of respect which such ignorance 
brings.  In order that the progress already made be used as a cornerstone for 
enduring and fundamental changes, it is necessary to probe deeper in to the 
theoretical gulf which presently separates the Indian religious tradition from 
that tradition which is commonly accepted by the non-Indian majority.  Only when 
some of the assumptions and presuppositions are clarified and each side can 
understand and communicate with the other can true understanding occur to 
prevent future conflicts in this delicate area of religious practice and 
freedom. One of the present difficulties plaguing non-Indians is the question of 
when protection of religion becomes its establishment.  The next section deals 
specifically with this question.


_Religion and Culture_

A vast difference exists between the major or "world" religions and the 
religions of smaller tribal groups.  This difference can be seen in every 
instance of contact, whether between the western religious traditions and the 
tribal peoples they have encountered or the established eastern religions and 
the corresponding tribal people they have encountered.  The larger religions can 
best be described as "commemorative" religions.  That is to say, these religions 
trace their origins back to a specific person or event (The Exodus, Jesus, 
Mohammed, Buddha, etc.) and the major portion of the religion deals with 
commemorating these sacred events in the proper ceremonies and rituals (Holy 
Communion, Passover, etc.).

The larger religions have as the mainstay of their beliefs the doctrine that 
their particular interpretation of reality is the most accurate expression of 
ultimate truth.  In most instances this truth is revealed by the founder of the 
religion to a specific group of disciples with instructions to preach and teach 
others to accept the body of truths which has been set down.  From this 
orientation, doctrines, dogmas, creeds, and catechisms have been derived which 
are said to express the truth of the religion in more expanded and intelligible 
form.  Doctrines concerning the person of Jesus and Buddha each took nearly half 
a millenium to formulate.  In each generation, the theological enterprise of 
most major religions -- but these two in particular -- has been to restate the 
sacred truths for the society of its time.

Because of the extreme complexity of this enterprise and the absolute nature of 
the claims made by the major religions, in each instance religious institutions 
have been necessary so that the beliefs and formulas of the religion are not 
diluted by succeeding generations.  Religion in many traditions, but 
particularly in the tradition of the west, has become an institutional activity 
and whenever this institution has too closely aligned itself with the political, 
social, economic, or educational structures, dissident groups seeking to return 
to the tradition have been produced.  The religious tradition thus grows and 
expands through the production of beliefs and interpretations, heretical in one 
generation, the accepted interpretation in later generations.

Since these religions are commemorative and depend upon a reenactment of the 
original revelation, the location of rituals and ceremonies is not nearly as 
important as the continuing tradition in which the original truth is manifested.   
History and cosmic process thus become critical to these religions and 
eventually the claim is advanced that their conception of deity includes 
dominance over the historical process.  Whether this process is conceived as an 
inexorable motion of a series of events, chronology of the religion is 
critically important and appeals are continually made to the "Faith of Our 
Fathers" with efforts in worship devoted to as close a recapture of original 
events as possible.  The "laws" of God, as expressed in doctrine, dogmas, creeds 
and catechisms, are infallible guidelines for relating to the march of history 
or the cosmic process.

Western peoples, particularly those presently inhabiting the United States, 
originate from this tradition.  Many of the first people to arrive on these 
shores came because of the oppression they experienced when a select group of 
individuals dominated their religious institutions and forced them to accept 
beliefs and practices which they considered foreign, heretical, or unfaithful to 
the tradition.  From these bitter experiences came the demand, upon the adoption 
of the Constitution, but first incorporated in Virginia's Bill of Rights, that 
no religious institution could be established by or become the official religion 
of the political institutions.  Thus religious controversy which has plagued 
Europe and Christendom and which had flourished briefly in established 
denominational expressions in the colonies, had to be laid to rest permanently.

The smaller or tribal religions represent the opposite pole of human experience.  
Instead of commemorating events, these religions are what could best be 
described as "continuing" religions in that they are not traced to a founding or 
founder.  Their origin is clouded beyond recovery and almost all of them can be 
said to be older, in a chronological sense, than the founded religions wince we 
must assume that they existed in one form or another before the founding of any 
of the major religions, almost all of which can be dated with a fair degree of 
accuracy.

The tribal religions do not incorporate a set of established truths but serve to 
perpetuate a set of rituals and ceremonies which must be conducted in accordance 
with the instructions given in the original revelation of each particular 
ceremony or ritual.  Of critical importance in this respect is the manner in 
which ceremonies arise.  These religions have the ability and propensity to 
experience new revelations and each new ceremony which is received by the 
religious community is given for a specific purpose and must be performed at the 
place and in the manner, and wherever the original revelation demands, at the 
time designated.  American Indian tribal religions, in many instances, have 
acknowledged that the present ceremonies, given to them at the beginning of this 
world, must be performed continuously or great harm and destruction will come to 
the people.

No doctrines, dogmas, creeds, or catechisms are premitted in these religions 
since these statements are secondary to the ceremonies and basically 
commentaries on them or interpretations of the original revelations and this 
kind of speculation is an absolute violation of the ceremony itself. 
Instructions are passed from individual to individual as tribal elders perceive 
the personalities, capabilities, and temperments of younger tribal members.  
Since the instructions generally pass from individual to individual, and since 
the test is the successful transmission of the task, no institutions can arise 
in these religions.  Only one interpretation is possible in each generation.

Religious growth is possible when a tribal individual receives a particular 
ceremony and instructions respecting it.  Heretical and dissident groups, until 
very recently, did not exist because there was no central set of beliefs against 
which such contentions could have been measured.  Either the ceremonies helped 
to fulfill tribal existence or they didn't and the test was in their efficacy, 
not their logic or rationality.  Divergent traditions within a tribe, because 
they were all acceptable ceremonies, came to share the ceremonial year and were 
recognized as dealing with specific situations.  Unlike the larger religions, 
there ceremonial year did not commemorate specific chronological historical 
events, and some ceremonies were reserved for occasions that warranted them.  
Not all ceremonies needed to be performed each year in the manner that the 
Christian year follows the life and passion of Jesus, for example.  Some tribes 
in the Pacific Northwest had a "rain dance" in a region where it rains 
continually.  The purpose of this dance was severely restricted, however, and 
was used only one or twice in each generation on those occasions when an unusual 
snow had made travel impossible.  The dance brought rain which melted the snow 
and restored conditions to normal.

The most distinctive difference between the tribal religions and the larger 
religions in theological terms must certainly revolve about the idea of 
creation.  For the larger religions the diety is the Creator who institutes 
natural laws which then govern the operation of physical nature, in most 
instances placing within our species an ability to recognize although not always 
fulfill the requirements of the moral dimension of the natural law. This natural 
law is the basis of the Declaration of Independence and it is to the free 
exercise of human conscience recognized in this law that the signers of the 
Constitution appeal.  The ethics of other large religions have similar versions 
whereby they incorporate cosmic process and human conscience. But in this 
understanding a critical distinction is made between the world as created and 
the actual processes by which it operates.

The tribal religions regard the world as a continual process of creation and 
their concept of creator is simply on of identity, not one of function.  With 
the world in a continual state of growth, creation being continuous, the 
requirement laid upon the human species is to move with cosmic growth and 
participate in it since we are part of it and do not stand outside it.  The 
primary essence of the tribal religions is to remain in a constant and 
consistent relationship with nature and moral and ethical responsibility. 
Customs which adjust to the natural world and its inhabitants thus dominate the 
tribal religions where laws and institutions are the dominant factors in the 
larger religions.

When the freedom of religion is discussed in the context of the tribal 
traditions, it is the right to adjust to and maintain relationships with the 
natural world and its inhabitants that is addressed.  Since each living entity 
is unique no authority can determine in advance what the specific occasion will 
require apart from the tradition which is being passed down.  The ceremonies and 
rites themselves set fairly precise rituals and reveal in the performance of the 
acts their continuing efficacy.  While no future revelations can be ruled out, 
it would be the rarest of events for a new ceremony to be introduced.  Except in 
the most remote areas of Indian country, the urbanization of North America has 
precluded both Indian and non-Indian from the constant relationship with the 
natural world that would be conducive to the revelation of further ceremonies.

The establishment of a religion is not a problem when viewed from with the 
tribal context although tribes today live within the larger society. 
Establishment is fundamentally the imposition by the political institution of 
forms of belief and practice which are in conflict with or are distasteful to 
people of a different tradition.  Protecting Indian religious practices from 
curiosity seekers, casual observers, and administrative rules and regulations is 
the only practical way that religious freedom can be assured to Indian tribes 
and Native groups.  It is not the establishment of their religion because their 
religions, not being proselytizing religions, seek to preserve the ceremonies, 
rituals and beliefs, not to spread them.

Complaints occasionally arise that Native American religions have an exclusivity 
which, if protected, would mean the establishment of a tribal religion, in 
contrast to the separation of church and state which forms the basis of American 
civil freedoms.  But this complaint is based upon the transfer of cultural 
attitudes and beliefs, most of which reveal the lack of understanding of Indian 
tribal religions, to the actual practices of the religions themselves.  Not only 
are non-Indians excluded from some tribal religious ceremonies, but the 
unpurified Indians from outside the particular tribal traditions are excluded 
also.  Unlike institutional religion, the tribal religions do not depend upon 
community participation, but upon the proper performance of the ceremonies.  
Exclusion is central to many ceremonies because participation is restricted to 
designated religious figures within the community according to the nature of the 
ceremony.  Just as certain figures are the only ones ordained or designated to 
perform certain functions in the institutional religions, so in the tribal 
religions, there can be no ceremonies unless the proper person performs them.

_Native American Religious Freedom_

The American Constitution represented a milestone in human thought.  Separation 
of church and state and the guarantee of the sanctity of individual religious 
belief were radically new concepts in human government uniquely American in 
operation if not origin.  The American experience has been one of building upon 
the foundations established by the Constitutional fathers and each generation 
has improved upon and sharpened the understanding of religious freedom in this 
country.

The Indian Reorganization Act recognized the difference in the cultural base of 
American Indian communities and established a principle of non-interference in 
Indian religious activities.  Lifting the treat of intervention did not, 
however, guarantee religious freedom for American Indians because the nature of 
religious differences precluded proper understanding of the elements involved in 
tribal religions.  During the 1970s with the restoration of the sacred lands of 
Taos Pueblo and Yakima Nation, additional recognition was given to the Indian 
religious traditions and its sometimes special needs for preserving intact those 
places sacred to particular Indian religions and communities.

House and Senate religious freedom resolutions enacted in the 95th Congress made 
explicit sentiments and understandings which had been implicit and growing 
during the preceding half century.  It marked a formal recognition that 
interpretation of the freedom of religion and establishment clauses in the 
American Constitution were sufficiently broad to include religions of 
historically and culturally different peoples.  This resolution recognized also 
that past treatment of American Indian religious ceremonies and practices had 
been uneven and has been conducted in an atmosphere of misunderstanding and lack 
of information which had at times produced hardships unnecessarily.

In recent decades, American society has become more sophisticated about the 
nature of religious conscience and more concerned about establishing guidelines 
for institutional activities so as to preclude them from unnecessarily creating 
hardships for individuals who sincerely attempt to live full and constructive 
lives based on a mature understanding of human existence.  The modern period can 
be said to have originated with the dissenting opinions in the _Macintosh_ case 
in 1931.  That case dealt with the question of whether the statutory 
requirements for naturalization were satisfied by an applicant who testified 
that he was not willing to commit himself beforehand to bear arms in defense of 
the United States since he wished to reserve the right of moral judgment until 
confronted with a specific factual situation that demanded solution.  Thereafter 
a line of cases leading directly to _U.S. v Seeger_, which affirmed the 
exemption from the Universal Military Training and Service Act of 1948 for 
conscientious objectors, served to expand public awareness of the social value 
of informed individual conscience.  Today there is considerable concern with 
protecting the right of individual choice and personal growth in all areas of 
law.

The western tradition is based largely upon the principle of individual choice 
with the assumption that individuals honestly searching for solutions will 
arrive at understanding not radically variant from the teachings of the major 
religions as they have been traditionally experienced.  The case of the American 
Indian has strong parallels to this principle, its only caveat being that the 
choice has already been made, by a community, prior to contact with other 
societies, and that communal conscience requires that the ceremonies be 
continued as they have traditionally been constituted and practiced.  Once this 
parallel is understood, the problem of religious freedom of tribal peoples 
should present little difficulty.  A few examples of misconception of the 
situation should illustrate the manner in which shortsighted or misguided 
interpretation of the behavior and beliefs of Indian communities hs precluded 
Indian religions from assuming their rightful place in the mosaic which 
constitutes the American religious freedom tradition.

In 1882 the Sioux medicine man Crow Dog killed a leading chief of his tribe, 
Spotted Tail.  Under the tribal traditions Crow Dog and his family made adequate 
compensation for the killing and the matter was considered closed by the Sioux.  
Since Spotted Tail was a well-known chief who had consistently sided with the 
United States, his murder set off a wave of public concern and Crow Dog was 
tried by a federal court in Deadwood, South Dakota and found guilty of first 
degree murder.  His case was taken to the Supreme Court on a question of 
jurisdiction over the subject matter and the Court found for Crow Dog's 
position.  Noteworthy is the comment by the Court in its opinion that imposition 
of an external federal law upon the Sioux:

     ...  tries them, not by their pers, nor by the customs
     of their people, nor the law of their land, but by
     superiors of a different race, according to the law
     of a social state of which they have an imperfect
     conception, and which is opposed to the traditions
     of their history, to the habits of their lives, to
     the strongest prejudices of their savage nature;
     _one_which_measures_the_red_man's_revenge_by_the_
     _maxims_of_the_white_man's_morality_.
                                  ( Emphasis added )

Viewing the Indian religious tradition through culturally-biased glasses, the 
Court characterized the Sioux penalty for murder as the "red man's revenge," 
describing the federal law as the "white man's morality."  In point of fact, the 
Sioux tradition required that compensation be made to the family of the victim 
and did not require retribution except in the most severe circumstances. The 
"white man's morality," however, demanded retribution in the form of capital 
punishment.  The descriptions of each way of dealing with the crime derive not 
from an understanding in the jurisprudential sense but from popular 
misconceptions about who the people are.  Today, the two different approaches to 
the crime might be characterized in reverse order, describing the white man's 
morality as savage and barbaric and the Indian approach humane and 
sophisticated.  Indeed, several states have adopted compensation to victims of 
crimes as a principle of their criminal and civil codes.

In 1884, Senator Henry Dawes of Massachusetts visited the Five Civilized Tribes 
of Indian Territory (now the state of Oklahoma) to examine their method of land 
tenure, a practice which derived directly from their religious understanding of 
human relationships to the earth.  Reporting the next year to the 1885 Lake 
Mohonk Conference which concerned itself with the formulation of Indian policy, 
Dawes remarked:

     The head chief told us that there was not a family
     in that whole Nation that had not a home of its own.
     There was not a pauper in that Nation, and the Nation
     did not owe a dollar.  It built its own capitol ... and
     it bild its schools and its hospitals.  Yet the defect
     of the system was apparent.  They have not got as far
     as they can go, because they own their land in common.
     It is Henry George's system, and under that there is
     no enterprise to make your home any better than that
     of your neighbors.  There is no selfishness, which
     is at the bottom of civilization.  Till this people
     will consent to give up their lands, and divide them
     among their citizens so that each can own the land
     he cultivates, they will not make much more progress.

Discovering a political system with complex institutions which did not owe a 
cent and experienced no poverty within its society should have made Senator 
Dawes take notice and learn.  With his predetermined idea of civilization, 
however, he could only describe the state of well-being of the Indians in a 
negative situation.  Today as we strive to create Great Societies and resolve 
the problems of poverty, education, health care and the like, most Americans 
wish they could achieve the standard of civilized existence enjoyed by the Five 
Civilized Tribes in the 1880s.

These examples should forewarn us that application of a rigid set of criteria to 
human behavior without considering alternatives is dangerous at best and 
generally hazardous in its contemplation.  The dreadful poverty and crime 
statistics which plague American Indian communities today are the result of 
misinformed neglect of the Indian religious tradition and the imposition of a 
set of external institutions and criteria on Indian communities.  No deliberate 
effort was made to destroy the Indian institutions because of their divergent 
religious beliefs and practices.  Yet few people in the previous century 
understood the larger parameters of social reality and tended to prejudge the 
Indian tradition according to the principles of their own cultural tradition.

With the enactment of the American Indian Religious Freedom Act, our Nation is 
being afforded the opportunity to correct past injustices and to begin anew with 
regard to treatment of those who adhere to the tenets of traditional Native 
religious.  In countless ways in the past and present, both our government and 
our people have proved themselves equal to challenges inherent in new 
beginnings.  This will be no exception.



-------------===============***************================--------------



_BIBLIOGRAPHY_


1.  _THE SOUL OF THE INDIAN_, Charles Eastmen, Houghton Mifflin Co.
        Cambridge, Massachusetts

2.  _ARISTOTLE AND THE AMERICAN INDIANS_, Lewis Hanke, Indian University
        Press, Bloomington, Indiana, 1959

3.  _THE INDIAN AND THE WHITE MAN_, Wilcomb Washburn, Anchor-Doubleday,
        New York, 1964

4.  _THIS COUNTRY WAS OURS_, Virgil J. Vogel, Harper & Row, New York, 1972

5.  Richardson, J.D. ed _A Compilation of the Messages and Papers of the
        Presidents_, II

6.  _Report of the Commission of Indian Affairs_, 1869

7.  _Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway Co. v. Roberts_, 152 U.S. 114, (1894)

8.  _Congressional Record_, 49th Congress, 2nd Session, December 15, 1886.

9.  _Reports of the Commissioner of Indian Affairs_, (1877)

10. _Report of the Commissioner of Indian Affairs, (1892)

11. 283 U.S. 605 (1931)

12. 380 U.S. 163 (1965)

13. _Ex Parte Crow Dog_, 19 U.S. 556 (1883)

14. _Lake Mohonk Conference Proceedings_, 1885

------------------------------------------------------------------- fin.


