JACKSON, Wyo. (AP) - The Northern Arapaho Tribe and a man accused of shooting a bald eagle on the Wind River Indian Reservation say the federal government should make it easier for American Indians to apply to kill bald eagles for use in religious ceremonies
This will turn out to be a very interesting case as it impacts religious freedom of expression, the sanctity of national symbols, and the autonomy of Native American tribes.
Obviously a person's right to pursue happiness ends where it interferes with another person's pursuit of happiness. Generally, the same concept applies to the practice of religion in this country. But when the right to practice one's religion involves the slaughter of the national symbol, is that over the line? Are the Native American tribes subject to our laws? What if a religious observance involves the desecration of the U.S. flag? All of these questions will have to be taken into account.
As abhorrent as flag-burning is to me personally, I'm not in favor of a flag-burning amendment. I think it can be construed to be political speech and experession. Moreover, there is never more than an occassional isolated incident of flag-burning anyway, unless there is a public discussion on banning the practice...then every Leftist, smelly hippie type ditches their psychology classes at Berkely to burn the flag. As long as it's legal, nobody seems to want to do it.
By that logic, these Arapaho Indians should be allowed to take an Eagle or two for whatever silly, pre-historic ritual they like to preform as a religion. There are estimated to be 7,700 nesting pairs of American Bald Eagles in the contiguous 48 states, so as long as they only take one or two a year, I don't think we'll miss them. The problem is if we let the Indians kill eagles, do we not have to let anybody shoot them who claims it's for religious purposes?
(I don't know why they just can't use the eye-of-newt-and-toe-of-frog, wool-of-bat and tongue-of-dog incantation from Macbeth...it seems to have become quite popular over the years) It can't be any stupider than killing a bald eagle and using it for personal purification or whatever...but it would offend a lot fewer Americans.
Maybe all this can be avoided if when this Arapaho brave goes out into the wilderness to shoot his eagle, a black bear or a cougar eats him. How would that be for rich irony?
Post note: Even if bald eagles were removed from Endangered Species Act protection, they would continue to be protected by the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act.
2 comments:
NO religion should advocate the destruction of any animal of any kind. I would NEVER support any legislation that allows for such cruelty, even if it is under the pretenses of religious freedom. Even household animals are protected by animal cruelty laws. Surely you do not think that our national symbol of freedom shouldn't be allowed the same basic protection!
Last time I checked, hunting was in no way considered animal cruelty, so the cruelty protection laws you mentioned do not apply.
Second, we allow the hapless Eskimos to hunt seals and even whales, which fall under the same protection laws that eagles do, just to satisfy their silly tribal traditions.
That being said, it sickens me to think of anybody killing an eagle for any reason, however, I see this sort of the same way as flag burning. The more you prohibit this sort of free-speech, free expression of religion type of basic right, the more people are going to want to do it. Besides, eagles remain protected under other acts regardless of this particular ruling.
Native Americans claiming that killing an eagle is necessary to practice their religion rings sort fo hollow anyway. Shouldn't tee-pee living and smoke signal communication have to remain part of the culture as well? And how exactly to casino operations, rampant alcoholism, and failure to assimilate figure into the Indian culture of which eagle hunting plays such a vital role?
Post a Comment