Recently, the Supreme Court made a significant decision that many view as a setback for religious freedom in America. By choosing not to hear the case Apache Stronghold v. United States, the court seemingly ignored a critical issue. This decision isn’t just about the constitutional rights of Americans; it also touches on national interests, especially as the influence of Beijing grows.
At the center of this matter is Oak Flat, a historic and spiritual site in Arizona, revered by the Apache and other tribes for generations. For the Apache, it’s not just land—it’s the essence of their faith, integral to their religious practices and identity. Without intervention, this sacred site risks being transformed into a massive mine, two miles wide and over 1,000 feet deep.
Corporate mining endeavors stand to gain significantly from this situation, with over $10 billion worth of copper beneath Oak Flat, all while impacting an area valued at a mere $10 million for other purposes.
This case goes beyond an unfortunate outcome; it’s about how much America values religious freedom, particularly when it conflicts with commercial interests. The Supreme Court’s decision to not hear the Apache’s appeal signals a troubling reminder of the constraints imposed by the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which asserts that religious practices should not be significantly burdened without a compelling justification.
It raises questions, really. How could the court conclude that destruction of sacred sites doesn’t impede religious faith? Justice Neil Gorsuch pointedly noted that if a government were to demolish a well-known Christian cathedral, the public outcry would be palpable. He has a point. If this precedent stands, religious activities on federal land could end up with little to no protection.
This isn’t a minor issue. The government previously utilized similar legal reasoning to block a mass at a national cemetery in Virginia. It’s worth considering what other sacred spaces might be at risk. All churches in national parks, including historical ones associated with figures like Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., could potentially face jeopardy. Ignoring this case sets a precarious stage for how the government interacts with religious life.
Moreover, the implications extend beyond religious freedom into the geopolitical arena. The Oak Flat mining project doesn’t merely threaten Apache sacred grounds; it also compromises valuable American resources, likely shifting them into the hands of communist China. The U.S. lacks a domestic copper refinement facility, which means the ore extracted could soon fall under Beijing’s control. Rio Tinto, the parent company of Resolution Copper, has significant ties to China’s state-owned enterprises. Amidst ongoing economic and political tensions with China, exporting American resources to them seems reckless.
The timeline is critical, as the land transfer is slated for June 16th. It’s crucial for Congress to intervene and for the executive branch to take action. All necessary measures should be taken to halt this transfer, defend this sacred land, and uphold religious freedom and national integrity. Allowing this transfer would not only betray the faith of the Apache and their supporters but would also undermine America’s moral and strategic interests.
If this occurs, what does it say about us? Are we a nation that respects faith and freedom, or are we sacrificing these principles for the benefit of foreign companies? China is observing, and history awaits our response. It’s never too late to take a stand for the right thing. The land and its copper are significant, yes, but more importantly, it reflects who we are and what we stand for as a nation. We cannot compromise on faith, freedom, and American sovereignty.
