« "Black" is an Adjective, Not a Noun | Main | A "Disgruntled" Ex-Confidante Keeps Talking »

July 02, 2007

A Native American Writes to Iran

I was drawn this weekend to an op-ed in the Tehran Times by an imprisoned Native American that has to be one of the most fascinating pieces I've seen in a long time. Rarely do so many conflicting threads run through a single item. This one includes issues related to religious freedom, prisoner rights, Native American citizenship and loyalty to the U.S. and its government, and the reasons for our military actions in the Middle East. It seems to me that for many people, particularly conservatives, the sort of routine, pat stance on any one of these issues could easily conflict with the standard stances taken on the others, and so I have been playing through all the related angles in my mind all weekend.

Many thanks to Ted Piccolo, whose unique insight helped me understand this better (Ted offered the perspective of a proud and actively involved Native American who is also a Christian and a conservative/libertarian-minded Republican activist).

The prisoner in question is Leonard Peltier. His is not a story I've researched to any degree, but his guilt in the slaying of two FBI agents in the early 1970s has been debated ever since, and his allies include Amnesty International. He was an active member of the American Indian Movement (AIM), which at the time was aggressive and even violent. Let me say right up front that if he did murder the agents, he is where he belongs. If he was set up, then his case ought to be reconsidered. I haven't taken sides here because I don't know the facts.

Peltier's letter is written to the people of Iran. Entitled, "No freedom of religion for Native American inmates," it begins:

“No human being should ever have to fear for his own life because of political or religious beliefs. We are all in this together, my friends, the rich, the poor, the red, white, black, brown and yellow. We share responsibility for Mother Earth and those who live and breathe upon her… never forget that.”

He concludes his letter to the Iranian people thus:

Yours in the struggle, Until freedom is won

Clearly, the letter is intended to tap into Muslim fears of persecution by a Christian nation. It is intended to enhance the notion that America's current interactions in the Middle East are a religious conflict, an extension of a Christian crusade that we have been conducting against the Native American people since Christopher Columbus brought Christianity to their shores. "For over 500 years our religion has been trampled on and disrespected by those who invaded our lands, and who have tried to take away our culture, our traditions, our language, our history, and our religion," he writes.

Quite clearly, Peltier does not see himself as a citizen of the United States of America, else he would understand that to many U.S. citizens, sending such a message of solidarity, in what he characterizes as a religious "struggle," to another country with which we appear to be ready to engage in war would make him appear almost traitorous. For many of us who, sadly, do not spend much time educating ourselves as to the experience of Native Americans, this could be very surprising and even shocking. I would expect this would particularly be the case for conservatives, who, in my experience anyway, tend to be less interested in accommodating other cultural beliefs and ways, and who equate their views with patriotism. Obviously, this is not a universal statement.

Ted pointed out another interesting angle on the matter of Peltier's having written to the Iranians:

I have a feeling that if he were found guilty in Iran for killing a member of their government that he probably would not still be alive today, let alone taking a sweat for four hours a week.

Which brings us to another angle in the letter relating to Peltier's ability to practice his religion and the purported disregard throughout the prison system for Native American religion. The conflict here is similar to recent conflicts we have seen over facilitating Muslim religious beliefs. Many Americans seem perfectly willing to allow airports to spend public dollars hiring Christian clergy to be on-hand to serve the public, but react quite negatively to the notion of installing foot washing facilities in airport restrooms to serve the religious needs of Muslim travelers. Similarly, banning menorahs from public grounds would seem fine to many Americans, but ban the display of a Nativity scene on public property and these people would cry "religious persecution!" And so we find many Americans who believe prisons ought to supply Christian chaplains, but if they allow a Wiccan priestess or a Native American shaman to have contact with the inmates, then surely the Devil himself has taken over the prisons. In other words, religious persecution against non-Christian religions is legitimate, but religious persecution as an ethereal concept is not.

This discussion is not complete, however, without taking a look at the specific discrimination that Peltier believes he is experiencing. He claims that the amount of time that Native American prisoners are allowed to participate in inipi ceremonies (in sweat lodges), talking circles and spiritual gatherings is limited, the ceremonies must be conducted in English, firewood for the ceremonies is rationed, tobacco for the sacred pipe ceremony is limited, and the traditional meal following the ceremony is not allowed, thereby undermining the sacredness of the ceremonies and displaying racism. Many people might dismiss these rituals as unimportant, saying that God is not impressed with form and ritual, but by the heart (rituals serve human needs, not God's needs), or that the inmates simply want a break from prison life for a day and want to smoke tobacco (an ignorant statement, of course). Every religion has its unique traditions and rituals. The more interesting question here is how much freedom inmates ought to be given to practice their faith. Should Christian inmates be allowed to partake of communion and celebrate Easter? Should Jewish inmates be accommodated in the rigors of Passover and be fed a kosher diet? Should Muslim inmates be served food that is free of pork and be allowed to wash their feet and pray several times a day? Many of the same individuals who would vigorously defend the Constitution would at the same time scoff at the notion of granting such rights to prisoners. After all, one must generally infringe upon the rights of another in order to land in prison.

Despite that seeming common sense, recent history demonstrates a very strong belief by both parties in protecting religious rights, even those of inmates. Oregon's treatment of two Native Americans and their religious practices back in the 1980s triggered a flurry of legislative activity. Their case was decided in 1990 by the U.S. Supreme Court, which upheld Oregon's refusal to grant them unemployment benefits after their use of peyote resulted in a positive drug test, leading to their firing. Both Republicans and Democrats were so outraged they banded together in Congress to pass the Religious Freedom Restoration Act making restrictions of religious worship extremely difficult, even when dealing with inmates. That legislation was later overturned by the Supreme Court, and Congress responded in 2000 by passing the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, which is itself working its way through the court system. More information can be found at the First Amendment Center, but here is a simple explanation as to why inmates' religious rights should be respected:

Let’s face it. Most inmates do get out of prison at some point. And the single best predictor of whether an inmate will do OK when they reenter society is whether they maintain community ties when they are in prison. There are many reasons why we should recognize the religious rights of inmates. Our country was founded on principles of religious freedom. Many people came to this country to flee religious persecution in other countries. As long as a prisoner’s practice of religion does not interfere with prison security, there is simply no reason to deny an inmate’s religious rights.

The site also links to information about several specific cases affecting Native Americans, Muslims, Jews, and Christians.

So are Peltier's religious freedoms being impinged upon? Again, Ted's insight was very helpful.

I know folks here who take a sweat and I know they don't take four hours. Some do, but I know many who don't. And the lodge is by the creek so they need to haul in their own wood, chop it and haul in their own water and everything. The point here is that I am betting a lot of Peltier's work is done for him before he takes his sweat. I am actually impressed that they are allowing him to do that. I think that definitely meets the criteria of being humane.

The sweat lodge is really a big deal here in Indian Country and I have great respect for folks that practice that element of our culture. To tell the truth I don't know anyone who smokes anymore. I'm not saying they don't I am just saying that it is not as big an element as the sweat. So again I think he is getting the extra mile here as far as some respectful treatment.

I have many more thoughts here than I possibly could find time to write. Thanks again for your lengthy response to my questions, Ted. I hope you'll chime in some more now that this is posted.

To maybe spark discussion, here are some things that come to my mind as possible conflicting beliefs that people might hold that are applicable to this story:

Religious freedom is one of the most important freedoms under the Constitution.

Mind-altering substances should be banned even when used in religious ceremonies.

Public funds should be used to accommodate Christian beliefs.

Public funds should not be used to accommodate pagan religions or Islam.

Religious leaders should be allowed to proselytize in prisons to help rehabilitate prisoners.

Native Americans and Muslims don't worship the "real" God; therefore, no rehabilitative benefit could actually come from accommodating the practice of their religion.

Native Americans are citizens of the United States of America and are protected by the Constitution.

Native Americans are citizens of sovereign nations whose interests, when at odds with the U.S. government, must come first.

Allying oneself with an enemy nation is treason.

Comparing one's own nation's perceived religious struggles to the perceived religious struggles of another nation at the hands of the same U.S. government is justified.

Prisoners justifiably lose their rights for having interfered with the rights of others.

Sometimes prisoners are unjustly convicted.

Any thoughts?

Posted by Becky at July 2, 2007 12:36 PM