This summer, I found myself back in my hometown, much like many other Americans. The landscape felt so familiar—the Great Lakes, the sand dunes, and the lush forests. Those places stir memories from my childhood, but it runs deeper than that. The land carries meaning, a sense of identity. When this connection is tied to religious beliefs, it deserves our utmost respect.
Religious freedom cannot merely be about shielding individuals from penalties or incarceration. It must also safeguard sacred spaces from harm.
That brings me to the plight of the San Carlos Apache tribe and their coalition. It’s truly disheartening.
The U.S. government has greenlit relocation plans for Oak Flat, a site of deep spiritual significance within Tonto National Forest in Arizona. This decision aims to facilitate copper mining, involving interests that include foreign stakeholders. Just recently, a three-judge panel from the 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals issued a temporary order halting the land exchange right before it was finalized. The panel did not evaluate the substantive challenges posed by environmental groups and tribal members.
In a previous response, President Trump labeled dissenters as “anti-American.” With all due respect, this pause offers a critical chance for reconsideration.
Sacred Rights
For generations, the Apache people have held ceremonies at Oak Flat. Developing a large copper mine in that area would not only devastate the environment but also obliterate a central element of their faith.
Another lawsuit underscores this concern.
The Apache coalition has argued under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, claiming the government’s actions conflict with the First Amendment’s protections. A federal court dismissed this case, astonishingly suggesting that the government’s actions didn’t impose a burden under the act since the land isn’t designated for religious use.
This interpretation misses the point entirely and reflects a lack of moral clarity.
Enacted in 1993 with bipartisan backing, the RFRA mandates strict judicial scrutiny for any federal actions limiting religious practices. If the law fails to shield the Apache tribe from losing their sacred lands, then what good is it?
Religious freedom seems meaningless if it only protects believers from fines or prison sentences. Additionally, sacred sites should not be subject to destruction, especially when foreign interests, backed by government support, are involved.
Hear Their Cry
The mismanagement of Oak Flat has not gone unnoticed by all Justices on the Supreme Court.
When the court opted not to consider the Apache petition earlier this year, Justices Neil Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas expressed dissent, indicating that the government should not overlook the concerns over the sacred sites.
And they’re correct. It’s the judiciary’s role to defend rights like religious freedom, and it cannot remain passive when those rights are threatened.
Now, the Apache coalition has filed another petition this summer, appealing the court’s earlier decision.
In a recent case, the court ruled in favor of religious families who opposed exposing their children to materials they believed contradicted their beliefs. If the principle protects them from compliance in educational settings, it should likewise safeguard the Apache tribe from losing their holy sites.
Not for Sale
The Trump administration made strides against perceived anti-Christian bias in federal policy. This same commitment should extend to safeguarding the rights of the Apache people. This isn’t about favoring one faith over another; it’s about honoring America’s foundational promises. Faith, regardless of its manifestation, is crucial, and we must listen to those in need.
Religious freedom isn’t a government concession; it’s a God-given right safeguarded by law. Political trends come and go, but the land remains resilient. We have a responsibility to nurture this beautiful country for both its economic potential and its deeper significance.
Oak Flat isn’t merely a historical site; it embodies the enduring faith of the community. Destruction here harms not just the topography; it also strikes at the very conscience of the people.
There’s still a chance to redirect our course.
The 9th Circuit can respond favorably if the environmental concerns are acknowledged. The government could halt the relocation plans. And everyday Americans have a voice to uphold principles that are older than our nation itself. Some places should remain sacred, and some values should never be for sale.
Let us be a nation that listens to the cries of faith, even when they echo from the mountains of Arizona, regardless of whether we are paying attention or not. Land is more than just property; it is a part of who we are.
