Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'm of the opinion that no religion should be held exalted, and although I am empathetic to First Nations, I don't see their beliefs to be any more valid than any other ones.
Now, give me an ecological or environmental reason for that area to be exempt from drilling, I'm all over that. And I suspect, that is much, much easier to prove than something imaginary.
So, I don't consider that land having special rights, nor the Kaaba in Mecca, nor the Al-Aqsa Mosque or Wailing Wall in Jerusalem, nor the burial site of the three Kings in Cologne, nor Palmyra for Mormons, nor any other such places.
The problem is, billions of adherents to their favorite spiritual fantasies will disagree, and some of them violently. Society therefore has agreed to keep the peace, they would recognize those "sacred" places. As such, yes, the area of Montana should have the same respect given to all the other places whose myths have grown over time.
On this I disagee. Important scared sites are historical sited and are really there for more than followers of that religion. Thevwhole Earth lost when the Taliban blew up the giant Buddas. And having visited tje Battle of Little Big Horn, a death camp in Austria and many standing stones and religious ruins in Scotland as well as Writing On Stone Provincial Park we need to perserve scared places as well as historical buildings and natural areas ad best we can so as not to erase our past.
We certain do not need to accept the beliefs of any of these religiins or faiths tp see value in not destroying them. And so far only one theist has expressed an opiniin and it was a positive one. And nt having heard much about the destruction of old burial grounds and other scared places in the rush to build their border wall I was wondering if theists view indigeous folks sacred lands as worthybas their own..
I'm of the opinion that no religion should be held exalted, and although I am empathetic to First Nations, I don't see their beliefs to be any more valid than any other ones.
Now, give me an ecological or environmental reason for that area to be exempt from drilling, I'm all over that. And I suspect, that is much, much easier to prove than something imaginary.
So, I don't consider that land having special rights, nor the Kaaba in Mecca, nor the Al-Aqsa Mosque or Wailing Wall in Jerusalem, nor the burial site of the three Kings in Cologne, nor Palmyra for Mormons, nor any other such places.
The problem is, billions of adherents to their favorite spiritual fantasies will disagree, and some of them violently. Society therefore has agreed to keep the peace, they would recognize those "sacred" places. As such, yes, the area of Montana should have the same respect given to all the other places whose myths have grown over time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by badlander
On this I disagee. Important scared sites are historical sited and are really there for more than followers of that religion. Thevwhole Earth lost when the Taliban blew up the giant Buddas. And having visited tje Battle of Little Big Horn, a death camp in Austria and many standing stones and religious ruins in Scotland as well as Writing On Stone Provincial Park we need to perserve scared places as well as historical buildings and natural areas ad best we can so as not to erase our past.
We certain do not need to accept the beliefs of any of these religiins or faiths tp see value in not destroying them. And so far only one theist has expressed an opiniin and it was a positive one. And nt having heard much about the destruction of old burial grounds and other scared places in the rush to build their border wall I was wondering if theists view indigeous folks sacred lands as worthybas their own..
Note the bolded, where I became more nuanced.
I've been to most of the places you mentioned (not the ones in Scotland), and they are deeply moving. I was surprised at my reaction at the site of the battle of Little Big Horn. I thought the presentation was exceedingly well done, where memorial stones were placed not only for Custer's soldiers, but the First Nation's people. I'm not sure if we need to give the same reverence to "sacred" sites, as we do to historical ones. I would argue that the historical ones are even more important, and recognize that sometimes the historical and "sacred" are one and the same.
BTW, I actually agree the Buddhas the Taliban blew up was a travesty. Obviously they didn't have the same reverence for a different philosophy other than their own.
My point is, we have placed too much stock on "sacred" places. The reality is, my viewpoint will never change this, as too many people subscribe to and revere them.
And also, again, if we are going to route around cemeteries, then we need to consider the beliefs of the First Nations also.
On this I disagee. Important scared sites are historical sited and are really there for more than followers of that religion. Thevwhole Earth lost when the Taliban blew up the giant Buddas. And having visited tje Battle of Little Big Horn, a death camp in Austria and many standing stones and religious ruins in Scotland as well as Writing On Stone Provincial Park we need to perserve scared places as well as historical buildings and natural areas ad best we can so as not to erase our past.
We certain do not need to accept the beliefs of any of these religiins or faiths tp see value in not destroying them. And so far only one theist has expressed an opiniin and it was a positive one. And nt having heard much about the destruction of old burial grounds and other scared places in the rush to build their border wall I was wondering if theists view indigeous folks sacred lands as worthybas their own..
fortunately the world is moving in the direction of honoring and respecting sacred sites.
In the land currently known as Australia, the indigenous Anagnu have lived for tens of thousands of years. The Anangu people belong to the oldest living culture on the planet known to man dating back 60,000 years. The oldest in North America continuously inhabiting the same area are the indigenous Hopi, for several thousands of years. Old Oraibi in the Hopi nation is considered the oldest village in North America continuously inhabited.
Regarding the wisdom of humanity in recognizing, honoring, protecting, and respecting sacred land, in Australia in recent history, the land was given back to the indigenous Anangu.
"When the government handed back the title deeds for the Uluru-Kata Tjuta National Park to the Anangu people in October 1985, it ended decades of determined lobbying by the traditional owners to have their rights recognized. The ceremony to handback the title took place at the base of Uluru (what Europeans named "Ayers Rock") in 1985. Hundreds of Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people looked on as the Governor-General passed over the title deeds to Uluru–Kata Tjuta. The traditional owners then signed an agreement to lease the park back to the Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service for 99 years. A board of management was established with a majority of Anangu members. The park continues to be jointly managed."
It would be another 34 years later before climbing of Uluru was banned, not until 2019 did this finally happen. The Anangu have always believed that climbing Uluru is a violation of sacred Tjukurpa. And "as celebrated as the closing has been as a landmark for Aboriginal people, it also points to the limits to Australia’s efforts to right its historical wrongs against them. It is a partly symbolic gesture that does nothing to address the myriad social problems endured by Indigenous Australians."
Last edited by Tzaphkiel; 09-11-2022 at 03:16 PM..
Drill--unless it ruins endangered species, If it was up to the Indians, no drilling would be done. What isn't sacred to them?
No, we have only their word on this anyway. They could be faking. Where is it written?
I am usually an environmentalist in many ways, not here. Why must religious halos be above reproach?
On this I disagee. Important scared sites are historical sited and are really there for more than followers of that religion. Thevwhole Earth lost when the Taliban blew up the giant Buddas. And having visited tje Battle of Little Big Horn, a death camp in Austria and many standing stones and religious ruins in Scotland as well as Writing On Stone Provincial Park we need to perserve scared places as well as historical buildings and natural areas ad best we can so as not to erase our past.
We certain do not need to accept the beliefs of any of these religiins or faiths tp see value in not destroying them. And so far only one theist has expressed an opiniin and it was a positive one. And nt having heard much about the destruction of old burial grounds and other scared places in the rush to build their border wall I was wondering if theists view indigenous folks sacred lands as worthy as their own..
and it would also be interesting to see if those responses "against" honoring the sacred sites of the indigenous are from non-believers or believers. Because non-believers on CD have often ardently and stridently expressed the view that there is no need to honor the sacred in any arena. For instance the posts below are a sample "they could be faking" "we only have their word" "no religion should be held exalted" the beliefs are "not valid" "imaginary" "no special rights" "myth" "fantasy"
and yes there have also been a couple non-believers in support of honoring sacred land of the indigenous. So support for it (so far in this thread, a handful of responses), is a mixture of believers and and non-believers. However those in the thread voicing against it, are all non-believers so far.
Quote:
Originally Posted by carnelian
Drill--unless it ruins endangered species, If it was up to the Indians, no drilling would be done. What isn't sacred to them? No, we have only their word on this anyway. They could be faking. Where is it written? I am usually an environmentalist in many ways, not here. Why must religious halos be above reproach?
Quote:
Originally Posted by phetaroi
I tend to agree with you on this. I think -- in many instances -- it has become what they see as a way to take back control of what was once theirs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by normstad
I'm of the opinion that no religion should be held exalted, and although I am empathetic to First Nations, I don't see their beliefs to be any more valid than any other ones. Now, give me an ecological or environmental reason for that area to be exempt from drilling, I'm all over that. And I suspect, that is much, much easier to prove than something imaginary.So, I don't consider that land having special rights...
Last edited by Tzaphkiel; 09-11-2022 at 05:01 PM..
Drill--unless it ruins endangered species, If it was up to the Indians, no drilling would be done. What isn't sacred to them?
No, we have only their word on this anyway. They could be faking. Where is it written?
I am usually an environmentalist in many ways, not here. Why must religious halos be above reproach?
I tend to agree with you on this. I think -- in many instances -- it has become what they see as a way to take back control of what was once theirs.
and it would also be interesting to see if those responses "against" honoring the sacred sites of the indigenous are from non-believers or believers. Because non-believers on CD have often ardently and stridently expressed the view that there is no need to honor the sacred in any arena. For instance the posts below are a sample "they could be faking" "we only have their word" "no religion should be held exalted" the beliefs are "not valid" "imaginary" "no special rights" "myth" "fantasy"
and yes there have also been a couple non-believers in support of honoring sacred land of the indigenous. So support for it (so far in this thread, a handful of responses), is a mixture of believers and and non-believers. However those in the thread voicing against it, are all non-believers so far.
How did you know if that one poster was a believer or not? He or she has never posted in the religious forrums. Also I was curious as to how believers react to the threat to the scarded lans of indigious peoples.
Thanks for diverting this thread into your believers vs non believers instead of my intension. And those are rhe Blackfeet Blackfoot creation myths we are discussing. All creation stories are myths as by definition no one was around for the creation. Not even Keith Richard.
How did you know if that one poster was a believer or not? He or she has never posted in the religious forrums. Also I was curious as to how believers react to the threat to the scarded lans of indigious peoples.
Thanks for diverting this thread into your believers vs non believers instead of my intension. And those are rhe Blackfeet Blackfoot creation myths we are discussing. All creation stories are myths as by definition no one was around for the creation. Not even Keith Richard.
the opening post clearly states an intention of viewing through the lens of how believers react to protecting sacred land of the indigenous. additionally a later post specifically commented on a believer seeing it as positive to protect sacred land. Since the opening post and subsequent post introduce and states clearly the distinction to view the issue through the lens of belief, then it applies as well to how non-believers respond as well.
it is not a diversion at all. it is providing additional data summary on a topic already introduced, and pertinent to the thread topic, opening post, and subsequent post as well.
regarding how to evaluate whether someone is a believer or not, it is based on their posting history. all 3 of the posts listed as representing non-believers against protecting sacred land, have posted on CD yes in the Religion and Spirituality section of CD and yes revealed their views. Search function allows anyone to search posting history for a user.
Last edited by Tzaphkiel; 09-11-2022 at 06:08 PM..
I read but cannot link to a story where a US judge re moved a ban on drilling in a ten square mile section of northern Montana.
The piece of land is sacred to the Blackfeet and Blackfoot nations as it is supposedly the site of creation in their myth/religion. The Blackfeet have been trying to get the land declared a historical site.
Does the indigenous peoples religions deserve as much respect and protection as your own religion?
Of course.
All Beliefs of what is sacred and what is Divine is to be given the utmost respect.
Only lesser sorts do not extend respect in that regard.
...not for special treatment but for equal respect. Lots of cemetaries have roads re routed around them or lands exchanged.
Yes just prioritizing some things over unbridled capitalism's insatiable need to constantly expand.
I don't think it's an issue that tribes just manufacture outrage to try to hang onto even what little land they have, as that their lands tend to be the last unspoiled wildernesses and there's always some entrepreneur who wants to extract something from it.
Here in upstate NY some of the tribes are trying to get back ancestral lands on the basis that they are better stewards of nature and know how to manage it. Many of these lands are still wilderness with no practical value to agriculture or whatever anyway. Why not let them have lands that we once took from them, that we aren't using anyway, and that they would be better stewards of?
But Western notions that it's even possible to own land flies in the face of native American thinking, and never the twain shall meet.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
