Is the Miner's Canary Silent?: Implications of the Supreme Court's Denial of American Indian Free Exercise of Religion Claims
Felix S. Cohen, the distinguished synthesizer of American Indian law, prophetically proclaimed more than a generation ago:Like the miner's canary, the Indian marks the shifts from fresh air to poison gas in our political atmosphere; and our treatment of Indians, even more than our treatment of...
| Published in: | Journal of law and religion |
|---|---|
| Main Author: | |
| Format: | Electronic Article |
| Language: | English |
| Check availability: | HBZ Gateway |
| Journals Online & Print: | Drawer...
|
| Fernleihe: | Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste |
| Published: |
Cambridge Univ. Press
1988
|
| In: |
Journal of law and religion
|
| Online Access: |
Volltext (lizenzpflichtig) Volltext (lizenzpflichtig) |
| Summary: | Felix S. Cohen, the distinguished synthesizer of American Indian law, prophetically proclaimed more than a generation ago:Like the miner's canary, the Indian marks the shifts from fresh air to poison gas in our political atmosphere; and our treatment of Indians, even more than our treatment of other minorities, reflects the rise and fall in our democratic faith …Since these words were written the practice of Indian law and of law among Indians has greatly expanded. Indian litigants have made some notable advances and suffered some setbacks. But, as the most recent revisors of the Cohen Handbook point out, "the abiding principles of Indian law have changed little" since Cohen articulated them in 1942. Included among these principles or doctrines are acknowledgement of the federal government's "trust obligation to Indians" and recognition that "Indian tribes and individuals are entitled to be free of invidious discrimination under federal and state laws." The implications and even the truth of these principles have been extensively debated and litigated. Their relevance for the practice of Indian religions remains hazy. With the passage of the American Indian Religious Freedom Act (hereinafter AIRFA) a decade ago, there was some reason to believe that that practice might at last fall under the aegis of the trust responsibility, but the Act has been interpreted by the Courts to add nothing substantial to Indian rights and protections under the religion clauses of the First Amendment, rights and protections enjoyed by all Americans. And the Congress has done nothing since the passage of AIRFA to counter that view. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 2163-3088 |
| Contains: | Enthalten in: Journal of law and religion
|
| Persistent identifiers: | DOI: 10.2307/1051061 |