- Oct 17, 2011
- 33,295
- 36,611
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Legal Union (Other)
“Oak Flat is like Mount Sinai to us — our most sacred site where we connect with our Creator, our faith, our families and our land,” Wendsler Nosie Sr., an Apache elder and leader of the group, said in a statement. “Today’s ruling targets the spiritual lifeblood of my people, but it will not stop our struggle to save Oak Flat.”
Apache Stronghold had asked the court to block construction of the planned mine on the grounds that it would violate their constitutionally protected religious rights and an 1852 treaty between the United States and the Apache. The group said Oak Flat — on the edge of the Tonto National Forest outside Phoenix, not far from the San Carlos Apache Indian Reservation — is a unique and biodiverse archaeological site used for religious ceremonies they cannot hold anywhere else.
According to federal planning records, the multibillion-dollar mine would transform Oak Flat — which the Apache call Chí’chil Bildagoteel — into a nearly two-mile-wide, 1,000-foot-deep industrial crater to access one of the largest untapped copper ore deposits in the world.
In a 6-5 ruling by the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, Judge Daniel P. Collins wrote that Apache Stronghold’s religious claims failed because, while the government’s transfer of federal land to Resolution Copper would significantly interfere with their ability to practice their religion, it would not “coerce” them into acting contrary to their religious beliefs, “discriminate” against or “penalize” them, nor deny them rights or privileges afforded to other citizens.
Collins ... wrote that Apache Stronghold had not only asked for the government to allow their free exercise of religion, but for “de facto” ownership of a “rather spacious tract” of public property — a request he said had to be rejected.
In a dissent joined fully or in large part by the remaining judges of the panel, 9th Circuit Chief Judge Mary H. Murguia, an Obama appointee, wrote that the “utter destruction” of Oak Flat clearly represented a “substantial burden” on the Apache’s religious rights under the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act and should therefore be blocked
Several other judges wrote their own dissents and concurrences, as well — reflecting a diverse array of opinions in a complex case that has created strange bedfellows, uniting religious conservatives with liberal environmental activists
Apache Stronghold had asked the court to block construction of the planned mine on the grounds that it would violate their constitutionally protected religious rights and an 1852 treaty between the United States and the Apache. The group said Oak Flat — on the edge of the Tonto National Forest outside Phoenix, not far from the San Carlos Apache Indian Reservation — is a unique and biodiverse archaeological site used for religious ceremonies they cannot hold anywhere else.
According to federal planning records, the multibillion-dollar mine would transform Oak Flat — which the Apache call Chí’chil Bildagoteel — into a nearly two-mile-wide, 1,000-foot-deep industrial crater to access one of the largest untapped copper ore deposits in the world.
In a 6-5 ruling by the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, Judge Daniel P. Collins wrote that Apache Stronghold’s religious claims failed because, while the government’s transfer of federal land to Resolution Copper would significantly interfere with their ability to practice their religion, it would not “coerce” them into acting contrary to their religious beliefs, “discriminate” against or “penalize” them, nor deny them rights or privileges afforded to other citizens.
Collins ... wrote that Apache Stronghold had not only asked for the government to allow their free exercise of religion, but for “de facto” ownership of a “rather spacious tract” of public property — a request he said had to be rejected.
In a dissent joined fully or in large part by the remaining judges of the panel, 9th Circuit Chief Judge Mary H. Murguia, an Obama appointee, wrote that the “utter destruction” of Oak Flat clearly represented a “substantial burden” on the Apache’s religious rights under the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act and should therefore be blocked
Several other judges wrote their own dissents and concurrences, as well — reflecting a diverse array of opinions in a complex case that has created strange bedfellows, uniting religious conservatives with liberal environmental activists
