The Unfinished Crusade: Native American Spiritual Freedom in America
In the vast tapestry of American history, few threads are as complex, contentious, and deeply personal as the struggle for Native American religious freedom. For centuries, the spiritual practices of Indigenous peoples were not merely misunderstood but actively suppressed, deemed "savage" or "pagan" by colonizers and later, by the U.S. government. From the forced conversions of the mission era to the coercive assimilation policies of boarding schools, Native American spirituality faced an existential threat, a deliberate campaign to sever the ties between people, land, and the sacred.
It was against this backdrop of historical trauma and ongoing discrimination that the American Indian Religious Freedom Act (AIRFA) was passed in 1978. Hailed as a landmark piece of legislation, AIRFA was intended to rectify past injustices and finally guarantee Native Americans the same religious protections afforded to other citizens. Yet, over four decades later, the promise of AIRFA remains largely unfulfilled, a testament to the persistent challenges Indigenous communities face in exercising their inherent spiritual rights. The story of Native American spiritual freedom is, therefore, not one of triumph, but an ongoing crusade, a continuous battle fought in courtrooms, legislative halls, and on sacred lands.
A Legacy of Suppression: The Dark Precedent
To understand the significance of AIRFA, one must first grasp the depth of the historical oppression it sought to remedy. For generations, U.S. policy aimed to dismantle tribal structures and assimilate Native Americans into mainstream society, and religion was a primary target. Ceremonies like the Sun Dance were outlawed, traditional spiritual leaders were imprisoned, and children in federal boarding schools were forbidden from speaking their languages or practicing their ancestral beliefs, often punished severely for doing so.
"The federal government engaged in a systematic policy of cultural genocide," explains Walter Echo-Hawk (Pawnee), a prominent Native American legal scholar and attorney. "They banned Native religions, they punished our spiritual leaders, they took our sacred objects, and they removed our children from their homes to eradicate our cultures. This was all done under the guise of ‘civilizing’ Indians." This era established a chilling precedent: Native American spirituality was seen not as a legitimate religion to be protected, but as an obstacle to be overcome.
The Birth of AIRFA: A Beacon of Hope (1978)
The passage of AIRFA in 1978 emerged from the burgeoning Native American rights movement of the 1960s and 70s, a period of increased awareness and advocacy for Indigenous sovereignty and self-determination. Civil rights advancements for other minority groups also fueled the push for similar protections for Native Americans.
The Act itself, a joint resolution of Congress, was seemingly unambiguous in its intent. Its preamble states: "Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That henceforth it shall be the policy of the United States to protect and preserve for American Indians their inherent right of freedom to believe, express, and exercise the traditional religions of the American Indian, Eskimo, Aleut, and Native Hawaiians, including but not limited to access to sites, use and possession of sacred objects, and the freedom to worship through ceremonials and traditional rites."
This language was groundbreaking. It recognized the "inherent right" to practice traditional religions, explicitly included "access to sites" and "possession of sacred objects," and acknowledged the unique nature of Indigenous spiritual practices. For many, AIRFA represented a long-overdue apology and a clear commitment from the federal government to respect Native religious freedom.
The Promise Unfulfilled: AIRFA’s Fatal Flaw
Despite its noble intentions, AIRFA quickly proved to be a paper tiger. Its fatal flaw lay in its designation as a "joint resolution" rather than a statutory law with an enforcement mechanism. It declared a policy of protection but provided no legal teeth to compel federal agencies or state governments to adhere to that policy.
This meant that when Native Americans sought to protect sacred sites from development, or secure access to traditional lands, or use sacred objects, they still faced the same legal hurdles as before. Federal agencies could, and often did, argue that their governmental interests—such as timber harvesting, mining, or road construction—outweighed the religious interests of Indigenous communities. The "compelling government interest" test, a legal standard meant to protect religious freedom, was rarely applied in favor of Native Americans.
Critical Blows: Landmark Court Cases
The limitations of AIRFA were starkly exposed in a series of devastating Supreme Court decisions that effectively gutted its protective power.
-
Lyng v. Northwest Indian Cemetery Protective Association (1988): This case involved the proposed construction of a logging road through sacred lands in the Six Rivers National Forest in California, lands traditionally used by the Yurok, Karok, and Tolowa tribes for spiritual ceremonies and vision quests. The tribes argued that the road would devastate their religious practices.
The Supreme Court, however, ruled 5-3 against the tribes, stating that the First Amendment (and by extension, AIRFA) did not protect "incidental effects" of government actions on religious practices, even if those effects were severe. Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, writing for the majority, concluded that "however much we may sympathize with the Native Americans’ plight, the Constitution does not require the Government to conduct its internal affairs in ways that comport with the religious beliefs of particular citizens." This ruling set a dangerous precedent, making it incredibly difficult to protect sacred sites on federal lands. -
Employment Division v. Smith (1990): This case proved to be the most devastating blow to Native American religious freedom. It involved two members of the Native American Church who were fired from their jobs as counselors for ingesting peyote, a hallucinogenic substance used in their religious ceremonies. They were subsequently denied unemployment benefits because their dismissal was for "misconduct."
The Supreme Court, in a controversial 6-3 decision authored by Justice Antonin Scalia, ruled that a state could deny unemployment benefits to workers fired for illegal drug use, even if the drug use was part of a religious ceremony. Crucially, the Court held that the First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause does not require states to grant religious exemptions from "neutral laws of general applicability." This ruling essentially removed the "compelling government interest" test for such laws, making it much harder for religious minorities, particularly Native Americans, to challenge laws that incidentally burdened their religious practices.
The Smith decision sent shockwaves through the Native American community and beyond. It effectively stripped AIRFA of any remaining legal force, leaving Indigenous spiritual practices vulnerable to any state or federal law, regardless of its impact. As Echo-Hawk observed, "The Smith decision was the single greatest setback for Native American religious freedom in modern history. It essentially said that Native religions were second-class religions."
The Aftermath: RFRA, NAGPRA, and Ongoing Struggles
The outrage over the Smith decision was so widespread that it prompted a bipartisan response from Congress, leading to the passage of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) in 1993. RFRA aimed to restore the "compelling government interest" test, requiring the government to demonstrate a compelling interest and use the least restrictive means when burdening religious exercise. While RFRA was a broad law applicable to all religions, it was particularly vital for Native Americans, as it attempted to reverse the impact of Smith. However, RFRA’s effectiveness has been limited by subsequent court challenges and its applicability to state governments.
Other important, though distinct, pieces of legislation have also emerged:
- Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) (1990): This act requires federal agencies and museums to return Native American human remains, funerary objects, sacred objects, and objects of cultural patrimony to lineal descendants and culturally affiliated Native American tribes. While not strictly a religious freedom act, NAGPRA is profoundly important for spiritual practice, as many sacred objects and ancestral remains are central to traditional ceremonies and beliefs.
- Executive Orders: Various executive orders have been issued to protect sacred sites or facilitate access, but these lack the force of law and can be rescinded by subsequent administrations.
Despite these efforts, the struggle for Native American spiritual freedom endures. Contemporary battles highlight the persistent challenges:
- Sacred Sites Under Threat: Places like Oak Flat (Arizona), a sacred Apache site threatened by a proposed copper mine; Bears Ears National Monument (Utah), a landscape rich in Native cultural and spiritual significance whose protected status has been contentious; and the Black Hills (South Dakota), sacred to the Lakota, remain focal points of conflict. These battles underscore the fundamental difference in understanding: for many Native Americans, land is not merely property but a living entity, interwoven with identity, ceremony, and history. Destruction of these sites is seen as an assault on their very spiritual existence.
- Access to Traditional Lands: Even when sites are not directly threatened, gaining access to federal lands for ceremonies, hunting, or gathering traditional medicines can be fraught with bureaucratic hurdles and restrictions.
- Eagle Feather Laws: The use of eagle feathers is central to many Native American ceremonies, but federal laws protecting eagles (like the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act) make possession and use highly regulated, requiring permits that can be difficult to obtain. This creates a tension between conservation efforts and religious practice.
- Commercialization and Misappropriation: The commodification of Native American spiritual practices by non-Natives—from "spirit quests" to selling "sacred" items—further disrespects and trivializes deeply held beliefs, often without understanding their true meaning or origin.
The Heart of the Matter: Land, Identity, and Healing
For Native Americans, spirituality is not confined to a building or a specific day of the week. It is a holistic way of life, inextricably linked to the land, the natural world, community, and ancestral knowledge. Ceremonies are often seasonal, tied to ecological cycles, and conducted outdoors at specific, ancient sites. The land itself is a spiritual teacher, a source of power, and a repository of history and memory.
"Our religion is not separate from our life," explains a Navajo elder. "It is our life. It is in the mountains, the rivers, the air we breathe. When they destroy the land, they destroy us." This profound connection makes the fight for sacred sites not merely a legal battle but a fight for cultural survival and spiritual integrity. The ability to practice traditional ceremonies is vital for healing from historical trauma, for cultural revitalization, and for maintaining distinct Indigenous identities.
The Path Forward: Advocacy, Education, and True Reconciliation
The unfinished crusade for Native American spiritual freedom continues. Advocacy groups, tribal nations, and legal experts persist in their efforts to strengthen protections through legislative amendments, executive actions, and direct legal challenges. There’s a growing recognition that true religious freedom for Native Americans requires more than just non-interference; it demands active protection, respect for sovereignty, and an understanding of Indigenous worldviews.
Ultimately, the journey towards true spiritual freedom for Native Americans is intertwined with the broader national conversation about reconciliation, justice, and respect for Indigenous sovereignty. It challenges the United States to live up to its ideals of religious liberty for all its citizens, recognizing that for its first peoples, freedom of worship is inseparable from the land, the community, and the right to exist on their own terms, rooted in their ancient and enduring spiritual traditions. Only then can the promise envisioned by AIRFA finally begin to take root and flourish.
