Case To Protect Sacred Apache Site In Arizona Goes Beyond One Tribe Or Religion
(ANALYSIS) On Oct. 22, representatives from an Apache tribe were heard in federal court in Arizona defending almost 2 square miles of land that they consider to be sacred against destruction from a mining company.
Apache Stronghold v. United States is a case with a complex history, but there will be simple and concrete consequences if the court does not uphold the religious freedom of the San Carlos Apache Tribe.
“If the court doesn’t intervene, the government will turn this historically protected land over to a foreign-owned mining company that will obliterate the sacred ground where the Apaches conduct their most important religious ceremonies,” argued Becket Law, a public-interest law firm that fights for religious freedom and represents the Apaches.
What to know about the Oak Flat case
Oak Flat is regarded as holy by the San Carlos Apache Tribe, which calls it “Chi’chil Bildagoteel.” But it rests on about 40 billion pounds of copper. In 2014, legislation was passed by the U.S. government that contained advanced plans for a transfer of 2,422 acres of federal lands — including Oak Flat — to the Resolution Copper mining company, which is backed by a foreign mining interest, Rio Tinto.
In exchange, the federal government would be given thousands of acres currently owned by the corporation. Following completion of the land transfer, the process of forming a copper mine on the site would eventually obliterate Oak Flat, transforming it into a vast chasm.
The public land on which Oak Flat sits had been protected for over six decades, set aside by President Dwight Eisenhower in an executive order that ended mining in the area.
On Jan. 12, Apache Stronghold — a spiritually based nonprofit advocacy group with a mission to protect Native American sacred sites — filed suit in federal court to protect Oak Flat. The suit alleged multiple violations of the law, including an allegation that the federal government violated the First Amendment’s religious freedom protections as well as the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
The organizer of Apache Stronghold and former chairman of the San Carlos Apache Nation, Wendsler Nosie Sr., wrote in a 2014 letter, “Oak Flat ... is a central part of our prayers, songs, stories and spiritual practices. It is from here that we emerged. It is who we are.”
He went on to summarize how Oak Flat’s historic original people have faced systemic depopulation, displacement, relocation, and oppression of their religious freedom.
In a video from 2010, Nosie explained why the site is sacred to the tribe:
“The example I can give close to that is … Mount Sinai. … It is a religious place, a holy place that gives that teaching of God to all of us. … We can’t forget that there’s a generation yet to be born. This is their identity. This is their religion. This is what God blessed this side of the world, first, with.”
Why does this case matter?
The taking up of this case by Becket Law, viewed by some on the left to be a more ideologically conservative organization, marks a significant moment beyond just legal outcomes. It demonstrates that religious freedom — when it advocates for those of all faiths and spiritual beliefs and of none — is a foundational principle upon which a healthy, pluralistic commons can be cultivated.
Religious freedom arguably serves as a necessary precondition to advance a shared human flourishing based — in the case of the U.S. — not on common theological beliefs but on a shared moral ethos centered around human dignity.
So, why does the Oak Flat case matter to adherents of other faith traditions? Because it tells us all something about what it means to be human and what it looks like when the fullness of sacred human dignity is denigrated.
As Becket senior counsel Luke Goodrich states, “The brazen destruction of a sacred site like Oak Flat is a tragic reminder of how terribly the United States government has treated, and still treats, Native peoples. This kind of abuse would never be tolerated for other faith groups, and it is long past time for the courts to stop this injustice.”
What can be done now
What can you do, beyond reading this article? Consider taking small, incremental steps to reframe your own understanding of religious and spiritual freedom so that you become more equipped to advocate for those with different spiritual commitments and practices. Here are a few steps to consider:
Gain a deeper understanding of those with different faith-based or spiritually based commitments from you. Consider, for example, a recent study that demonstrated people who feel highly connected to a higher power — whether or not they identify as explicitly religious — are more likely to take community, civic and political action. These actions include voting, speaking out on political and social issues, and getting involved in politics and social movements. Consider partnering in solidarity with those of diverse spiritual beliefs to advocate for religious and spiritual freedom for all people.
Consider praying for the Native American sacred site Oak Flat. The Native American group advocating for the preservation of Oak Flat — Apache Stronghold — is asking people of all faiths for their prayers: “Calling all people of faith, all religions to pray for Oak Flat. … Pray in your own manner, organize others to pray with you. Reach out to your religious and spiritual leaders and congregations to ask for prayers for Oak Flat. Set intention for the safety and well-being of Oak Flat, of all life and water of that Sacred site and of all who defend it, for the passing of the Save Oak Flat Act by Congress.”
Consider researching a challenge that a religious or spiritual group — other than your own — is facing in your local community. This may be a challenge accessing COVID-19 relief, a religious freedom violation of a sacred site or a social challenge that a local faith group is helping to address. Then, consider forming a political discipleship group to advocate for justice for the “religious other” in your community.
Chelsea Langston Bombino is a believer in sacred communities, a wife, and a mother. She serves as a program officer with the Fetzer Institute and a fellow with the Center for Public Justice.