Say Anything Blog

As with every story, there are always two sides and two viewpoints.

Or more.  I find it interesting that you criticize what you call a one-sided story, then you tell your own one-sided story.  Why is yours better?
From my point of view, you have criticized someone for doing what you have done, and yet you are self-righteous about it, but the first person was simply telling a story from their point of view.  What was wrong with that, other than the fact that you didn’t agree with their opinion?  Why is your opinion any better?

"Give the lefties a pile of money, and they’ll spend it buying votes.” - Rush Limbaugh on the “bailout”.

BTW, “reclaimed” sewage is not the same thing as raw sewage.  You don’t make that difference clear in your article at all; in fact, you give a mistaken impression.

"Give the lefties a pile of money, and they’ll spend it buying votes.” - Rush Limbaugh on the “bailout”.

If you want to make a case that the water may not be safe, then I’m listening.

If you’re trying to make a religious case, then you lost me.

When I read things like this (from the article):

According to Benally, the conflict is a “throwback to the days of racism and disrespect” toward American Indians and created deep divisions within the Flagstaff community.

That tells me that their case is weak. They’re attempting to deflect and to manufacture a controversy.

The idea of losing the case “is painful, considering the legacy indigenous people have faced,” says Benally. “You have to acknowledge the context of genocide, the cultural degradation, the racism.”

He got all of that over a case about fake snow? What a looney toon.

Btw Creasy - I saw that you, or maybe the software, had accidentally double posted this story. I don’t know if you couldn’t delete it or if you just didn’t notice, but I took care of it for you. I made sure to keep the one with the comments.

There are some bugs to the ExpressEngine blogging software that is used here. If you run into one of those bugs and find that you can’t edit (to correct a bad link or to add an update or to delete a post has been doubled), just send me or Rob an e-mail to @sayanythingblog.com and we’ll be happy to help.

Yeah, I made a spelling mistake in my original post.  When I went to edit it I tried to repost and something went wrong.  So I just decided to post it again.

Thanks.

robert108-

I find it interesting that you criticize what you call a one-sided story, then you tell your own one-sided story.  Why is yours better?

In my postings, I try to give attention to each side.  However, this posting is different for one reason.

Justin B. presented one side of this story.  I was simply stating another viewpoint.  With this posting, all I am saying is there are always two sides to every story.

Yeah, maybe my posting is one sided, but so was Justn B’s.

We come here to debate, isn’t debating all about presenting viewpoints and opinions on topics?

No problem Creasy. I figured it was a goofy problem with ExpressEngine. It’s happened to a few of us.

robert108-

BTW, “reclaimed” sewage is not the same thing as raw sewage.  You don’t make that difference clear in your article at all; in fact, you give a mistaken impression.

This is why I included the article.  I do that in all of my postings.  I didn’t write an article, I gave my opinion about an article written by Chelsea Ross

I said in my posting:

The Arizona Snowbowl Ski Resort wants to use water that is reclaimed from sewage treatment plants to create fake snow.

I didn’t say anything about sewage being used in the Peaks.

Yeah, maybe my posting is one sided, but so was Justn B’s.

That was my point, remember?

We come here to debate, isn’t debating all about presenting viewpoints and opinions on topics?

Absolutely.  Your “side” seemed to come with a self-righteous attitude; you seemed to be doing more than just giving your opinion on the subject.  BTW, in most cases, there are many sides to any particular “story”, not just two.  I recommend the move “Rashomon”.

"Give the lefties a pile of money, and they’ll spend it buying votes.” - Rush Limbaugh on the “bailout”.

likwidshoe-

If you want to make a case that the water may not be safe, then I’m listening.

If you’re trying to make a religious case, then you lost me.

I am making a case for a little of both.  I believe that for one, all of the environmental effects of using reclaimed water have not been fully studied.  Who really knows of any long term side-effects?

Two, I believe that everyone’s religious beliefs should be protected.  You have the right to beleive in whatever religion you believe in.

I am not Navajo, Hopi or Havasupai.  Why are the Peaks sacred to them?  I am not sure.  However, if they don’t want fake snow made from reclaimed sewer water in their sacred lands, I think they have a right to voice that concern and fight it.

r108-

Your “side” seemed to come with a self-righteous attitude; you seemed to be doing more than just giving your opinion on the subject.

Let’s not pull any punches here, what do you mean?  I seemed to be doing more than giving and opinion?

Yes.

"Give the lefties a pile of money, and they’ll spend it buying votes.” - Rush Limbaugh on the “bailout”.

r108-

If you are insinuating I’m turning this into a racial issue or calling Justin B. a racist, I’m not.

Justin B. has a right to post what he wants to, I happened to find this article and I remembered that he had posted a similar article a few days ago.

I thought that another side of the story had to be presented.

Creasy - Two, I believe that everyone’s religious beliefs should be protected.  You have the right to beleive in whatever religion you believe in.

Sure. But you don’t have the right to demand that we follow it or even listen to it.

That’s why I say that you lose me at the religious considerations. I don’t play the religious game. I certainly respect it and defend it so often that I’m often mistaken for a Christian, but I draw the line at being forced to follow anybodies religious beliefs.

If the religious belief happens to be something like “thou shalt not steal”, then yeah. We agree there. If the religious belief is “that mountain is sacred to our people and you can’t do anything on it”, that’s where I draw the line. At that point, I want to see an ownership deed. That determines who gets land rights in this country.

Btw Creasy - I like ya. I hope you enjoy these tangos and stick around. I know we didn’t start off on the best foot, but I’ve come to appreciate your viewpoint.

Creasy: I’m not insinuating anything.  I said what I said.  You seem to indicate that your opinion is superior to Justin’s, which isn’t unusual in an argument.  Personally, I would prefer hard facts to emotions.  Saying that reclaimed sewage has not been environmentally tested is disingenuous.  It has been used to irrigate some crops for decades, with no known health problems, for instance.  The truth about reclaimed water, in general, is that it shouldn’t be ingested, but is safe for bathing, so you might have been misleading on that count.  That doesn’t mean that skiers should be subjected to snow made with it, but that can be determined factually, I think.
You seemed to be a bit self-righteous about your stance on presenting your side of the story, by doing exactly the same thing Justin was doing, but claiming to be superior by doing it.  But then, I have already said that.

"Give the lefties a pile of money, and they’ll spend it buying votes.” - Rush Limbaugh on the “bailout”.

likwidshoe-

If the religious belief is “that mountain is sacred to our people and you can’t do anything on it”, that’s where I draw the line.

The Snowbowl Ski Resort is there.  Navajo, Hopi and Havasupai tribes aren’t trying to take that away.

What they don’t want is fake snow from water reclaimed from sewage treatment plants up on the Peaks, for both religious and environmental concerns.  What effects will it have on the ecosystem?  What are the health effects to humans and animals?

I like the quote from the judge in the article, he
compared the spraying of such snow on the Peaks to the government requiring that “baptisms be carried out with ‘reclaimed water.’”

r108-

If I came off as superior to Justin B. that wasn’t my intent.  I happened to stumble upon this article and it struck me because it made a case that was completely opposite from the side Justin B. presented.  He presented a side, I wanted to show another side. 

I was hoping that it would stir up some honest debating on this issue.  I think that the readers on this blog are intelligent enough to make their own decisions. 

I would also hope that the readers on this blog are open minded.  I would hope that maybe viewpoints would change or atleast be open to broadening their horizons just a little bit.

Do I expect to totally change your mind or likwidshoe’s on issues and have you believing the exact same things I do?
No.

But do I want you to understand where I am coming from? Yes.  Do I want to provide a perspective from a different culture? Yes.  We all grew up differently, had different experiences, different lives.  Can we learn from one another?  I believe so.

We might just have a little fun in sorting things out as well. 

What they don’t want is fake snow from water reclaimed from sewage treatment plants up on the Peaks, for both religious and environmental concerns.  What effects will it have on the ecosystem?  What are the health effects to humans and animals?

Out in California, they’ve used this stuff for a long time to irrigate golf courses and landscaping along highways. There are no adverse effects on health to man or beast.

Better to have it and not need it than need it and not have it.

My opinion on indigenous considerations and special rights can be found here. Anyone who reads it will find it very even handed.

Yun Chu said, “You must strictly not express in words what is very significant. Both dragon and snake are killed in one blow.”

Creasy:

I am making a case for a little of both.  I believe that for one, all of the environmental effects of using reclaimed water have not been fully studied.  Who really knows of any long term side-effects?

You lose me on the argument that water from sewage is somehow different than any other water.  Physically, water is water regardless of where it originated from. 

In fact, snow made from purified water from a sewage treatment plant is likely more pure and have less organic content than snow falling from the sky, which picks up air particulates such as pollution, dust, mites (and other tiny airborne insects) as well as airborne bacteria as it passes through the atmospheric boundary layer.

As an aside, that’s part of why you melt ice, if available, rather than snow for drinking, btw.  This is even if you’re going to boil it first, since boiling doesn’t remove non-organic particulates.  ‘Nuff said.

http://www.ski-blog.com/2006/06/how_to_support_democracy_and_t.html

Flagstaff Mayor Joe Donaldson got a nasty surprise after attending a candidate’s forum where his support of snowmaking at the Arizona Snowbowl was a point of contention.

Vandals had littered his car with toilet paper, and placed a urine-filled commode on top.

Donaldson took it as an extreme example of opposition to using reclaimed Flagstaff wastewater to make snow on the nearby mountaintop.

He’s a backer of the plan, and it wasn’t popular with many in the audience at the Wednesday evening forum sponsored by Native Americans for Community Action.

http://www.ski-blog.com/2006/05/the_sierra_clubs_snowbowl_hypo.html

Using reclaimed wastewater on the San Francisco Peaks’ Snowbowl amounts to desecration of a sacred Holy site of the Navajos, said Navajo Nation President Joe Shirley Jr. By allowing this desecration “the United States of America will commit genocide.” ... Navajo Nation President Joe Shirley Jr. told a U.S. District Court on Wednesday that proposed development of the sacred Dook’o’sliid would be like having a child witness the brutal violation of its mother, leaving it emotionally and psychologically scared forever. According to Communications Director George Hardeen, the President testified, “It’s like someone coming in and violating and raping our mother. It hurts me. She’s already got scars.”

Or maybe this:

Shirley and other Native American leaders from cultures as diverse as the Navajos, Hopis and the various Pai tribes have been united on at least one thing: Not only should there not be snowmaking and other changes at the ski area, they would like to see the ski area go away. They say the peaks should return to their natural state in keeping with their federal wilderness designation.
“To Native Americans, desecrating the San Francisco Peaks with wastewater is like flushing the Koran down the toilet. . . . The federal government is ignoring the pleas and wishes of the Native people,” Shirley said.

Hopi attorney Scott Canty said it is up to the deities, not man, to make snow.

“To usurp their authority is a crime, an insult,” he said. “It desecrates the entire mountain that the Hopi believe is a living entity.”

The tribes say Snowbowl is an affront to their religion and its existence may have caused the Sept. 11 attacks and other universal calamities. The resort, one of two in the state, might go out of business because of a lack of snowfall.

Please Creasy, let the Navajo tribal chairman tell his own story.  You are minimizing the flushing of Korans, the genocide, the mothers being raped in front of their children, and the 9-11 connections.

You agreeing with their claims where the shouted at the top of their lungs “RACISM!!!!” and then proceeded to cover people that disagree with them’s cars in feces and make the kind of comments they have shows all we need to know.  Since you are Indian, you probably feel compelled to give them the benefit of the doubt.  But you may want to read the Environmental Impact statement located here:

http://www.reclaimthepeaks.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=view_template&templateID=72

The City of Flagstaff has agreed to provide the ski area with up to 1.5 million gallons per day (gpd) of Class A reclaimed water from the Rio De Flag Water Reclamation Plant (WRP) between November 1st and the end of February, for a period of five years from March 20, 2002. Terms of the agreement allow for renewal for three (3) additional five (5) year periods. Currently, reclaimed water from the Rio De Flag WRP is used to irrigate city parks, school playgrounds, and golf courses during the summer, but goes unused throughout the winter, being allowed to flow down Rio de Flag channel. The Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) allows reclaimed water with an “A” rating to be used for snowmaking purposes. The reclaimed water produced by the Rio de Flag WRP currently exceeds this standard (Should additional water quality standards be promulgated by EPA and/or ADEQ subsequent to, or following, an approval to use reclaimed water, the Arizona Snowbowl would be held in compliance with this standard).

Which part of your post do you want to debate?  I am glad to debate the water quality, the sacred religious aspects, or the “Religious Freedom Reform Act” as well as the supporting case law including City of Boerne v Flores that was not followed by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals as well as the original Forest Service approval process that was followed to the letter.

Oh, and you might want to post info from the original district court decision that affirmed the snowmaking before the appeal to the 9th Circuit.

But we are talking about the 9th Circuit.  I assume that you know what the 9th Circuit is and some of their other rulings.  Perhaps you want to defend the 9th Circuit that has by far the largest number of cases reversed by the SCOTUS on appeal.  Good lawyers those folks in San Francisco that sit on the 9th. 

Even Secretary of the Interior under Clinton, Bruce Babbitt, came out on Snowbowl’s side and he is A. Notoriously Liberal and B. Nortoriously pro-Indian as they were the force that kept getting him elected in Northern Arizona. 

But you just keep on posting an alternative viewpoint and get back to me on any or all of these things.  I would suggest that you start with Boerne and the RFRA and Scalia and Thomas’s comments when they reversed that decision invalidating the RFRA for all local and state jurisdictions but didn’t write the opinion broad enough to make clarify to the 9th Circuit that this law was bad law.  Findlaw is an excellent resource for the case, but there are plenty of law schools that have great papers on that decision.  You can go to the snowbowl section on my site and read all of them because I have hyperlinks to both the legal aspects as well as the rulings in full.

Take me on on this.  Please take up the baton and debate me.  This will be fun.  Talking out of your ass on this will only make you look foolish, so now might be a time to just stop talking.

First, sorry I am late to the party! Justin and Creasy, between you all the elements of the issue have been put forward. Good job! R108, quit being so testy, I’m trying to.

Creasy, reclaimed water has been in use for agriculture, landscaping, and consumption for quite some time now. Does the facility in question meet the regulated standards for this use? If so this is a non-issue. As for the religious implications, sorry, if raw sewage is not being sprayed on the mountains there are no implications. Don’t want reclaimed water used for making snow? Build an industrial complex in close proximity of the waste treatment plant and use all the available output there.

Or is the big plan to shutdown this facility entirely, a point Justin has alluded to. I can not see that as being of any benefit to the Tribe members in that area at all.

Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem

Here are some excerpts from the original decision that the tribes appealed:

In 1979, the Forest Service conducted an extensive process pursuant to NEPA to evaluate proposed upgrades to the Snowbowl, which included the installation of new lifts, trails and facilities… The Forest Service’s decision to approve the proposed action was challenged in court by several Indian tribes. The tribes asserted that development of the Peaks would be a profane act, and an affront to the deities, and that, in consequence, the Peaks would lose their healing power and otherwise cease to benefit the tribes. Wilson v. Block, 708 F.2d 735, 738 (D.C. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 956 (1983). In addition, the tribes argued that development would seriously impair their ability to pray and conduct ceremonies upon the Peaks. Id. However, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals eventually upheld the Forest Service’s decision to move forward with the upgrades. Id. at 760.

Since 1979, the Snowbowl has operated under the direction of the EIS upheld in Wilson. Many of the improvements authorized by the Forest Service in 1979, and later upheld by the Wilson decision, have been implemented over the years. However, in September of 2002, ASR sought to implement the remaining previously authorized upgrades (including cutting certain ski runs), and submitted a formal proposal to implement snowmaking at the facility using A+ reclaimed water. After an extensive environmental review under NEPA that spanned several years of public participation, tribal consultation and input, and analysis, the Forest Service ultimately approved ASR’s proposal.

Creasy’s other side was that wastewater was used so let’s let the original ruling answer that:

Next, the Plaintiffs contend that the Forest Service failed to conduct a reasonable scientific analysis of the environmental impacts of the proposed snowmaking. However, the Defendants and Intervenor maintain that the Forest Service took a hard look at the impacts of snowmaking using reclaimed water. The Court concludes that the record shows that the Forest Service conducted a reasonable scientific analysis of the environmental impacts of the proposed snowmaking based on the best available scientific evidence.

First and foremost, it is important for the Court to note that the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality ("ADEQ") has adopted water quality standards for the direct reuse of reclaimed water aimed at protecting health and the environment. Furthermore, the ADEQ specifically allows Class A+ reclaimed water–the class of water to be used at the Snowbowl–for direct reuse in snowmaking. As such, the Forest Service properly relied, in part, upon the ADEQ’s determination that snowmaking is an acceptable and safe use of reclaimed water. In addition, the Forest Service evaluated extensive data monitoring Class A+ reclaimed water from the Rio de Flag WRF for wastewater constituent, as well as monitoring for metals, organic chemicals, and other parameters. Furthermore, the Forest Service also retained experts in hydrogeology to evaluate the effects of reclaimed water use on the quantity and quality of groundwater. In sum, the Court determines that the agency took a hard look at the effects of using Class A+ reclaimed water to make artificial snow at the Snowbowl.

Specifically, my column was written and the title was “The Hopi Tribe Goes All Jerry Falwell Over Arizona Snowbowl” and my thesis statement at the end was:

I consider these kind of comments to represent the most reprehensible kind of rhetoric possible.  To use a national tragedy to advance ones own religious or political views is just sickening.  Every action that we take that someone does not agree with now affects some other person’s “GODS”.  If the Hopi Gods are that upset with the ski industry, maybe we should all give up skiing to appease them.  I hate to think that I might personally be responsible for 9-11 because I have never used a box cutter to hijack an airplane.  And if I offended anyone by posting Jerry Falwell’s statements (for which he later appologized), please just explain the difference between what he said and what the Hopis said.  At least Falwell appologized for his outrageous statements.  No one is asking the Hopis to.

Creasy has decided to attack the court ruling or the Forest Service Action of using reclaimed wastewater at a resort where he has never skied in a state that he has probably never been to.  Furthermore, he has no personal religious beliefs that are impacted by this and his only interest in this case is A. because he is a Native American though one could argue that his tribe is in no way related culturally to either the Hopis or the Navajos and B. as some way of showing solidarity with another Tribe.

Creasy, I asked specifically at the end of my article whether folks would denounce the rhetoric that I posted in that article as well as in my follow up comments above.  You wish to present another “side of the story” regarding wastewater snowmaking.  That is not at issue.  The issue is in pending litigation and has been ruled on by the Forest Service, District Court and now the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.  I believe in the rule of law and support our court system making these decisions and the rights of both parties to appeal.  We have both sides of the story, but in 1979 the tribes sued Snowbowl in Brock v. Wilson making almost the same argument regarding the very existence of the resort being an affront to their deities.  So if you want to talk about Native American religious freedom on nation forest service lands as opposed to Reservation lands, I am willing to engage in that debate.  However, before we get there, please respond to this:

Was it appropriate for the Tribal Chairman Joe Shirley to claim that 9-11 was caused by Snowbowl and the Hopi Gods, to compare the snowbowl to genocide and a mother being raped in front of their child, and for supporters to vandalize the mayor’s car to make their points?  Also, is the hate mail that I posted here appropriate:

http://sayanythingblog.com/readers/entry/hate_mail_to_ski_blogcom/#comments

There are worse examples at my site, but these are the ones in my previous post.  A+ quality reclaimed water is not the issue, it is the religious freedom of the Navajos and Hopis to effectively put their religion over multi-use land doctrine, which in effect gives not only Indian tribes, but every single religious belief system out there the veto power to fight and possibly kill any building, permit, or zoning law across the country because it violates their religious freedom.  The Catholic Church in Boerne used the same law to try to fight local zoning that blocked them expanding their church because they claimed it violated their religious freedom, hence why this poorly written law that the entire Snowbowl ruling hinges on was struck down by the Supreme Court in 1997. 

Perhaps the next step is for the Hopis to ban me from their reservation for my “safety” like they did Rob.  I mocked their religion, rob just talked about the living conditions on their Rez.  Or maybe they will just make threats of physical violence like several have done on Rob’s threads.  Why not claim that they need to ban me from Snowbowl because my presence on their sacred mountain offends their deities?  And make sure to do it without due process because it is an “emergency” to ban me.

Justice Kennedy writing the majority opinion in Boerne about the Religious Freedom Reform Act that was the primary issue that the 9th Circuit ruled on (joined by Scalia, Rheinquist, Thomas, Stevens, Ginsburgh, and O’Connor):

Its sweeping coverage ensures its intrusion at every level of government, displacing laws and prohibiting official actions of almost every description and regardless of subject matter. Its restrictions apply to every government agency and official, §2000bb+2(1), and to all statutory or other law, whether adopted before or after its enactment, §2000bb+3(a). It has no termination date or termination mechanism. Any law is subject to challenge at any time by any individual who claims a substantial burden on his or her free exercise of religion. Such a claim will often be difficult to contest.

You want to respond to the Constitutional issue of allowing religions veto power over any law at any time by any individual who claims a substantial burden?  We can get into the Consititutional issues of it, but considering you are from a tribe that just banned a person for exercising their “Freedom of Speech” rights under the First Amendment, I would love to hear your argument on what “Freedom of Religion” means to Native Americans.  That whole First Amendment thing does not apply when Indians have a vested interest, right?

Even Secretary of the Interior under Clinton, Bruce Babbitt, came out on Snowbowl’s side and he is A. Notoriously Liberal and B. Nortoriously pro-Indian as they were the force that kept getting him elected in Northern Arizona. 

Please clarify your statements about Babbit.  I never knew him to be notoriously liberal, and as for the pro-Indian, that’s questionable.  He works for the Bureau of Indian Affairs, first of all, and from what I understand, BIA and DOI employees are never immune from being on the take.  And, just because Clinton appointed Babbit, doesn’t mean everything is right with the world.

Everyone always assumes Indian people are lefty and democrat.  Wrong.  We have our proclivities, like everyone else.  The issue concerning the snow bowl has nothing to do with democrat/republican, righty/lefty, or cat/dog for that matter.  It is an Indian issue, in our minds, and that is something totally different.  That, I believe, is the basic fundamental issue in understanding Indian thought that most people don’t understand.

Take me on on this.  Please take up the baton and debate me.  This will be fun.  Talking out of your ass on this will only make you look foolish, so now might be a time to just stop talking.
Justin B. on May 18, 2007 at 10:56 pm

A challenge?  Wow, great!

Perhaps the next step is for the Hopis to ban me from their reservation for my “safety” like they did Rob.  I mocked their religion, rob just talked about the living conditions on their Rez.  Or maybe they will just make threats of physical violence like several have done on Rob’s threads.  Why not claim that they need to ban me from Snowbowl because my presence on their sacred mountain offends their deities?  And make sure to do it without due process because it is an “emergency” to ban me.
Justin B. on May 19, 2007 at 09:14 am

Apples and oranges, Justin.  Apples and oranges.  Great try though.

Creasy - Two, I believe that everyone’s religious beliefs should be protected.  You have the right to beleive in whatever religion you believe in.
Sure. But you don’t have the right to demand that we follow it or even listen to it.

If the religious belief happens to be something like “thou shalt not steal”, then yeah. We agree there. If the religious belief is “that mountain is sacred to our people and you can’t do anything on it”, that’s where I draw the line. At that point, I want to see an ownership deed. That determines who gets land rights in this country.
likwidshoe on May 18, 2007 at 07:54 am

Ownership?  Hmmm.  Let’s see.  Religious rights?  Hmmm.  Let’s see.  These issues are serious.  Religious freedom?  Where have we heard that before?

Lik, you seem to have a definite opinion on how anyone should profess their faith and what their belief systems should be.  Encroachment, this seems to be your issue.  You don’t profess to be particularly religious, but declare “respect” for the tenets of others.  Then, in the same declaration start drawing lines.

There’s one big problem I see here.  Lack of historical prospective.  Where do any of us come from, spiritually?  Why is religion protected in the US Constitution?  Why don’t those protections apply to Tribal peoples?  Why doesn’t the American Indian Religious Freedom Act have any teeth.  Why did the RFRA fail so miserably?  What is the underlying agenda for the Forest Service, the Corps of Engineers, the Department of Interior?  Where do we go from here?

As you can see, I am inclined to view the snow bowl issue, and other similar issues, with great suspicion.  We may all be on the same page here, but, as an Indian, with evident bias, I don’t think a clear solution concerning the snow bowl issue can ever be worked out in this forum.

We also have greater issues “out there”.  These issues are spiritual, and will require a great deal of restraint by everyone.  Respect is the key word for all parties.  Struggle is a key word for Tribal peoples, and survival is the goal.

Justin B. can site any number of cases, lawyers, judges, politicians, and the constitution.  It doesn’t change the fact that this issue revolves around people’s beliefs.  If the Indians in Arizona don’t want snow made from reclaimed sewage water, then they don’t want it.  If those who disagree want snow, then maybe they should respect the Indian’s beliefs and 1) find a different water source or 2) find a different place to put a ski resort.

An example...the Supreme Court has ruled that a woman has the right to abort her unborn child.  Many state governments, lawyers, politicians, and judges have agreed.  Does that mean that I, too, have to believe that it is okay for a woman to abort her unborn child?

If those who disagree want snow, then maybe they should respect the Indian’s beliefs and 1) find a different water source or 2) find a different place to put a ski resort.

And ultimately that is the response the Indians have taken.  Only problem is that the only other Arizona resort happens to be on the White Mountain Apache reservation where they make snow with a lesser quality reclaimed water on their own sacred mountain.

Snowbowl is probably going to use a different water source and are already in the planning stages of doing that.  They will use potable water from wells that they drill for pumping which take drinking water from the aquifer that feeds Flagstaff, at least that is the option.  And they have every right to do that.  Problem is that the City of Flagstaff wants them to use reclaimed water like the parks and golf courses use because water in Arizona is a precious commodity.

Net is that snowmaking is going to happen on the sacred mountain and in all probability it will happen because the Supreme Court uses this case to strike down the RFRA which effectively allows any religion to assert their cultural beliefs over the executive branch.  The legislative branch used their power to strip the executive branch, in this case the forest service, of their power to administer lands.  But it is not just the forest service, but every other federal agency that is subject to the RFRA.

But again, not a single comment from Andy, RaeMarie, or Creasy on the rhetoric used by the tribal chairman or the vandalism.  Because you support the religious beliefs of the Indian Tribes as paramount, you fail to address the nature of the way that they conducted themselves and instead make an argument about their religious beliefs.  You are walking on dangerous ground.  This law may provide the Hopis with the ruling that they want in this case, but it opens a door for lots of other stuff that is far more dangerous.  And while this may be a boon to Indians in being able to stop the Federal Government from allowing actions on sacred ground, let’s take it to its logical conclusion:

The Forest Service allows a mining permit on ground that an environmental, Indian, or other religious group simply claims is “sacred”.  We have two issues--how do we decide which things are sacred?  How many believers must a religion have?  1, 5, 10, 100?  How do we define what is sacred versus less sacred versus not sacred?  That is so highly subjective that a court has no guidance in the law to interpret it.  Add in that it requires “least restrictive alternatives” but there is no definition to what that means and you put every single federal decision subject to judicial interpretation of how spiritually important the land or area or beliefs are.

This all came about because of the Religious Right viewing a specific ruling with contempt.  So the knee jerk reaction was for Congress to try to preempt the SCOTUS with a new law telling the SCOTUS how they had to interpret the First Amendment.  This was a law to clarify what the First Amendment really means.  But the funny thing is that regular laws passed by Congress cannot override the Constitution or alter the meaning.  The SCOTUS will in all probability use Boerne to reverse the 9th Circuit, something that they do quite frequently and with Roberts and Alito running the show and Kennedy writing the original Boerne decision, expect that to happen.  Then expect the cries of racism.

Question for you--how does religious descrimination equate to racism?  Hypothetically, if I have absolutely no respect for Indian religion, does that mean that I am a racist and hate Indians or just that I hate all religions or even just this one?  Compare that to the fact that 80-90% of Mexicans are Catholic and hypothetically I have no respect for Catholocism.  Maybe I hate the Mormon religion.  Does that make me a racist?

Religion is different from “race”.  There are plenty of Christian, Catholic, Mormon, and so on, Indians.  And for that matter, each tribe has its own religion that is usually quite different from even their neighboring tribes.  And the vast majority of Indians are Catholic--or better yet, the vast majority of Indian descendents or indigenous peoples are spread across Central and South America and even in the Southwest and the Catholic Church through forced conversions have completely eliminated the religions of south and central America.  Why is one single religion afforded special status so that they can take away the viability of someone else’s property?  And why do you fail to speak out on the rhetoric used by these folks?

I get the historical context and how wrong many of the forced conversions and the reservation system are.  But the way that we fix it is what is important.  When we set precedence with bad law, it has bad ramifications.

Rob commented that the reservation system needs to be done away with.  Talk about sparking some controversy and getting him banned.  It isn’t apples and oranges.  It is that Indians feel so deeply wronged by whites that every opportunity to show how wrong things were must be taken.  Every decision or conversation is racist.  These wounds are very real and I acknowledge that.  The problem is that none of this is dealing with the real issues.

The Hopi and Navajo chairman has bigger problems than snowmaking:

According to the Navajo Nation’s 2000-2001 Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy, the nation’s unemployment rate is 44 percent, the median family income is $11,885, and the per capita income is $6,217. Over 56 percent of Navajos live below the poverty level, the highest poverty rate in the U.S., even among American Indians.

This case was a diversion for tribal leadership to show that they are trying to do something positive for their people.  Why is it that every single reservation has the same problems of poverty and unemployment, yet the only thing generating controversy is when Rob points out living conditions or wants the reservation system done away with, or when a sacred mountain may have snowmaking?

We have more comments on Rob’s threads than any other on this site ever.  There are so many bigger problems to get your panties in a bundle over.

Why is one single religion afforded special status so that they can take away the viability of someone else’s property?  And why do you fail to speak out on the rhetoric used by these folks?
Justin B. on May 19, 2007 at 01:43 pm

Read your words, Justin.  Then think back.  History.  Same thing happened to tribes long ago, Christianity, Manifest Destiny.  You know the story.

So it was wrong when the whites did it, but it’s not wrong when the Indians do it?

Two wrongs don’t make a right, Andy.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

This case was a diversion for tribal leadership to show that they are trying to do something positive for their people.  Why is it that every single reservation has the same problems of poverty and unemployment, yet the only thing generating controversy is when Rob points out living conditions or wants the reservation system done away with, or when a sacred mountain may have snowmaking?
We have more comments on Rob’s threads than any other on this site ever.  There are so many bigger problems to get your panties in a bundle over.
Justin B. on May 19, 2007 at 01:53 pm

You’re the one with panties, buster.  Of course, we have problems.  We are addressing them.  It takes time.  Rob’s article wasn’t an eye opener for us, our eyes have been open for centuries.

The only thing Rob’s article has done for tribal people is to open their eyes to the bigotry and hatred that is out there against tribal peoples and reservations.  We can see each of you clearly now, and it ain’t pretty.

The ugliness Rob has pointed out in his article is small compared to the ugliness demonstrated by Rob’s cohorts in this blog.  Your hearts are black.

So it was wrong when the whites did it, but it’s not wrong when the Indians do it?
Two wrongs don’t make a right, Andy.
Rob on May 19, 2007 at 02:27 pm

Huh?

andy l - Lik, you seem to have a definite opinion on how anyone should profess their faith and what their belief systems should be.  Encroachment, this seems to be your issue.

I don’t know what you’re talking about there. Encroachment? It seems that you’re just talking shit.

You don’t profess to be particularly religious, but declare “respect” for the tenets of others.  Then, in the same declaration start drawing lines.

The line I draw is having to follow or even respect anybodies particular religious beliefs. I only respect that you may have beliefs and will defend your right to have them.

There’s one big problem I see here.  Lack of historical prospective.  Where do any of us come from, spiritually?  Why is religion protected in the US Constitution?  Why don’t those protections apply to Tribal peoples?

That a case about land-use rights gets these kinds of comments is nothing short of amazing. It’s as if many of the Indians believe that “protections” of their religious beliefs means that we have to follow their religious beliefs.

RaeMarie70 - If those who disagree want snow, then maybe they should respect the Indian’s beliefs and 1) find a different water source or 2) find a different place to put a ski resort.

Or we could just ignore the goofy beliefs seeing as how the Indians have no claim on the land. At this point, that looks to be the best course of action.

I don’t know what you’re talking about there. Encroachment? It seems that you’re just talking shit.

No, poor boy.  You’re the only one that talks “shit” around here.  Everyone with a heart and clear mind that visits any of the threads here knows that.  Give up little boy, you’re way out of your league.  Try to remember, you’re dealing with Indians here, not your everyday leftards or trolls, or whatever name you can devise. 

Lik, has anyone ever told you that you need professional help?  Find a mental health clinic, or, better yet a priest.  Get help.  For your own good.

You don’t profess to be particularly religious, but declare “respect” for the tenets of others.  Then, in the same declaration start drawing lines.
The line I draw is having to follow or even respect anybodies particular religious beliefs. I only respect that you may have beliefs and will defend your right to have them.

Read your previous comment, this thread.  Quit denying what you’ve said.  And, quit interpreting for me, I can read. If you’re not getting your ideas or opinions through clearly, take more time writing them.

By the way, get some help.

Or we could just ignore the goofy beliefs seeing as how the Indians have no claim on the land. At this point, that looks to be the best course of action.
likwidshoe on May 19, 2007 at 07:57 pm

More outright hatred from the sick OHIO boy.

I must apologize for not responding earlier.  I do have a life outside of this website, believe it or not.

Justin B. wants me to debate and respond, I will.  But let’s dispense with the childish insults:

Talking out of your ass on this will only make you look foolish, so now might be a time to just stop talking

I’ll start with the vandalism and rhetoric issue that Justin B. alluded to earler:

But again, not a single comment from Andy, RaeMarie, or Creasy on the rhetoric used by the tribal chairman or the vandalism.

I will counter that with the quote from Flagstaff Mayor Donaldson (the one who had the commode and toilet paper dumped on his car):

“I don’t consider this prank, this garbage going on, as a statement by our community, nor do I consider it a statement by the Native American community,” Donaldson said.

If Mayor Donaldson says this isn’t the feeling or statement of all the Native Americans who support the Save the Peaks coalition, then why do you blame them for this Justin B?  Did you see one of the members do it? 

If it is one of the members who did it, that doesn’t mean that every member who is on the side of the tribes would do the same thing. 

I think that it is disgusting that this happened to the Mr. Donaldson.  This is not the way to handle things. 

I can’t explain the actions of another.  If you think that I agree with the vandalism, you are mistaken.

However, the rhetoric used by Joe Shirley I say this:  I can’t make you understand what their cultural beliefs are.  If they deem these peaks sacred, I can’t sit in judgment of them.  I do understand a little because I have cultural and religious beliefs that you would not understand as well.

Joe Shirley and his group of supporters have chosen to use certain examples to try to relate their feelings across to those who do not understand.  This is pretty much all I can tell you.  I can tell you what I think he is trying to get across with his comments and what they mean to me.

But if you are asking me to explain what he means or justify his comments, I cannot.  I can’t speak for another person; I can only tell you what their words mean to me.

Justin B. said:

You are agreeing with their claims where the shouted at the top of their lungs “RACISM!!!!” and then proceeded to cover people that disagree with them’s cars in feces and make the kind of comments they have shows all we need to know.  Since you are Indian, you probably feel compelled to give the m the benefit of the doubt.

Again, I cannot speak for others.  If they are making that claim, those are their words not mine.  Did I call you a racist?  Did I say everyone who supports the Snowbowl expansion plans a racist?  No.

I am not against the Snowbowl being there.  If they followed all of the legal processes that grant them permission to operate a ski resort, that is just fine.  What I am saying is maybe there are other ways to create manmade snow.  Maybe there are other alternatives that would appeal to both sides.

Justin B said:

There are worse examples at my site, but these are the ones in my previous post.  A+ quality reclaimed water is not the issue, it is the religious freedom of the Navajos and Hopis to effectively put their religion over multi-use land doctrine, which in effect gives not only Indian tribes, but every single religious belief system out there the veto power to fight and possibly kill any building, permit, or zoning law across the country because it violates their religious freedom.

Let’s not go overboard here. The main difference is that federally recognized tribes are to be dealt with by the Federal and State Government on a “government to government” basis. This is a law. Saying that every single religious belief system will have a say in stopping whatever they want to is not realistic.  All I am saying is that the government gave the Tribes more power.

“Government to Government” is what it means; State and Federal Governments dealing with private organizations as opposed to dealing with Tribes are two completely different things.  Tribes are sovereign nations. 

I have heard the argument on this website that tribes are not sovereign because they take federal tax money.  The money supplied to tribes are part of treaties and agreements that the U.S. Government entered into.  It is not like the Tribes forced the U.S. Government to give them money.  It is the U.S. Government that gives the money and made these agreements and then gave the Tribes the power to govern themselves.

Justin B’s comments:

Creasy has decided to attack the court ruling or the Forest Service Action of using reclaimed wastewater at a resort where he has never skied in a state that he has probably never been to.  Furthermore, he has not personal religious beliefs that are impacted by this and his only interest in this case is A. because he is a Native American though one could argue that his tribe is in no way related culturally to either the Hopis or the Navajos and B. as some way of showing solidarity with another Tribe.

Who are you to judge and decide what I want to debate about?  You commented on Rob’s opinion piece regarding the Turtle Mountain Reservation.  Have you ever been to the Turtle Mountain Reservation?

With this type of logic, anyone who hasn’t been to the Turtle Mountain Reservation or affiliated with it has no basis or right to comment about it. 

By the way, I have been to Arizona, and it may surprise you to learn that I am a snowboarder.  However, I haven’t been to the Snowbowl. 

I am not planning to go there anytime soon because its existence caused 9-11 to happen.  I believe this in my heart and if it wasn’t because of that stupid resort, all of those people wouldn’t have died that day.  I will pray to the Hopi Gods to come and take away the Snowbowl. (I hope everyone caught on to the sarcasm there...)

If I was a supporter of the Snowbowl, I would spend a little less time complaining about the claims made by Joe Shirley and his supporters and a little more time fighting this in the courts. 

You seem like an educated man Justin B.  This issue means more to you than it does to me.

However, mocking another’s religion isn’t as extreme as dumping a commode on a Mayor’s car, but it is also not the most productive way to get things done. 

I have read your blogs, I have read your words and feelings.  If this is important to you I wish you the best of luck. 

I feel in my heart that you are not a racist, you are like most of the people on this website, myself included, passionate in your feelings towards a certain issue. 

However, like I had stated before, I found this article and it didn’t mention anything about 9-11 or flushing the Koran down the toilet.  It struck me as being totally opposite of your posting. 

I am not Hopi or Navajo, but there is a cultural sense of togetherness that I cannot fully explain to you.  If they didn’t have a voice on this website of their own, I felt that I had to be theirs.  I have admitted that I cannot speak for them, but I can relay what their words mean to me.

By the way:

Rob and others have extended invitations to others from my culture to provide perspective.  I have taken them up on their offer.

I have signed up for a reader’s blog not to call people racists or accuse them of being bigots, but to provide perspective from my culture. 

If I can get those who are not Native American to understand where I am coming from that is all I am after. 

I do not want to have you do a 180 and say you agree with the Hopi and Navajo beliefs.  That is not realistic or what I want.  Just to provide you with another viewpoint and engage in honest debate.

Let’s not go overboard here. The main difference is that federally recognized tribes are to be dealt with by the Federal and State Government on a “government to government” basis. This is a law. Saying that every single religious belief system will have a say in stopping whatever they want to is not realistic.  All I am saying is that the government gave the Tribes more power.

Not the case.  The SCOTUS wrote about the RFRA that this ruling hinged on and Kennedy said in Boerne (and Scalia, Rhenquist, Thomas, O’Connor, and Stevens concurred):

Its sweeping coverage ensures its intrusion at every level of government, displacing laws and prohibiting official actions of almost every description and regardless of subject matter. Its restrictions apply to every government agency and official, §2000bb+2(1), and to all statutory or other law, whether adopted before or after its enactment, §2000bb+3(a). It has no termination date or termination mechanism. Any law is subject to challenge at any time by any individual who claims a substantial burden on his or her free exercise of religion. Such a claim will often be difficult to contest.

I respect that this is a sensitive cultural area.  But if the water is deemed safe, I cannot see how it is the job of private industry to alter their approved plans and use a different water source.  But while you agree that as long as the appropriate process was followed to approve the resort in the first place, its very existence should be a settled matter.  However, the tribes do not agree and did not agree in 1979 in Brock v. Wilson and in this current case.

I support the right of all Americans to adhere to their spiritual beliefs.  And I understand that you may not have called me a “racist” but the term “racist” has been thrown around dozens of times on different threads here recently by your cohorts.  And I point you back to the article that you posted the quote from that was in “In These Times”:

According to Benally, the conflict is a “throwback to the days of racism and disrespect” toward American Indians and created deep divisions within the Flagstaff community…

The idea of losing the case “is painful, considering the legacy indigenous people have faced,” says Benally. “You have to acknowledge the context of genocide, the cultural degradation, the racism.”

How is a ski resort a throwback to days of racism and disrespect and why does this case require us to “acknowledge the context of genocide, the cultural degradation, the racism”?

Creasy, I’m glad you’ve started a reader blog here and wish others would do so.

I may not always agree with your perspective, but I (and others) do appreciate it.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

Creasy,

I get where you are coming from.  Here is my issue:

Calling a ski resort or an article in a paper “racism” diminishes from what racism really is.  And Native Americans have been subjected to all sorts of really shitty stuff.  But to equate a ski resort or someone saying “nappy headed ho’s” to Slavery or genocide diminishes the evils of slavery and genocide.

The tribal leaders like Joe Shirley and others have presided over the fleecing of the reservation system for their own enrichment.  The corruption that is rampant is perpetuated by the BIA and other groups.  Sure, America has a racist past, but almost all of the atrocities occured in the 1800’s.  The 1900’s was a century of advancement and trying to undo the damage of America’s past.

I won’t take responsibility for slavery or genocide or racism or the migration of whites onto Indian lands.  I did none of these things.  Perhaps my ancestors did, but more realistically, these deeds were done by folks with white skin and white skin does not equate to me.  I share a skin color, but I will not share a guilty conscience for actions that I did not commit.  Just as others should not share a sense of injustice for having land stolen from “them” when in fact it was stolen from folks that simply had the same skin color as them over a century ago.  And sure their are treaties that were violated and others that are still in effect, but in the end, the injustices of racism and hate may still be occuring, but compared to last century, one cannot argue that the progress made is immense.

Tribal leaders feed upon this sense of anger and bitterness and helplessness.  And it is the same feelings that are prevalent in black and hispanic ghettos.  We see that so many of the people that live in these places are my equals--smart, hard working, dedicated.  But in order to be those things, they must break the helpless victim mentality.  But the tribal leadership and the leadership of folks like Jackson and Sharpton sell this concept of maintaining their “culture” as paramount instead of selling the notion that “culture” does not feed your children of provide jobs.  And the Navajo Nation has obscene unemployment and poverty rates.  Instead of fixing this, the rhetoric turns instead to genocide and racism that not one single living member of any of these tribes endured during the late 1800’s when it actually occured.  Having a historical context is important, but I am no more responsible for the Holocaust in Europe just because I am white and may have some German blood than I am responsible for genocide and racism because I am white.  And because I have no reason to feel a collective guilt for the actions of others, I have no reason to feel a sense of duty to respect the beliefs of other religions and their desire to take land that belongs to someone else now simply becuase it is “sacred”.  Property rights are more important than guilt and until we move beyond the victim mentality, the problems and the powerless and helpless feelings of Native Americans will never go away.  And it isn’t hurting me.  It is hurting Native Americans the most.

BTW, Rob is right.  I am glad that you have a reader blog.  It is only through talking about problems and issues that we gain greater understanding.  And that is what this site is about.

Unfortunately, the Turtle Mountain Reservation banned Rob for wanting to facilitate debate because they didn’t like his opinion.  This forum is free for anyone to express their opinions short of outright slander or inciting violence.  I am glad that you decided to participate.

Creas, Justin, allow me to take this on a different tack. Justin, how large an area will this snowmaking cover? How many acres? I have been trawling this story and have not found any decent maps, none showing streams and run off routes. Is this going to substantially increase overall snowpack and subsequent run off and elevation of regional watertable? What are the potential gains beyond just skiing and snowboarding?

Creas, snowboarder? How is a man supposed to hunt with all you wildmen swooshin’ through the forest, whooping and hollerin’? Not to mention all them scantily glad women following y’all around all the time! 

I’ve liked your posts, glad to have another regular. Hope you hang around.

All of the TMR threads tipped over the edge into absurd pretty quick. That happens. And yea, I threw gas on that one. People sling crap at me, I sling it back doubled. Just how I is. You know the old saying,"Life gives you lemons, you freeze them hard as rock and throw the fuckers back.”

Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem