Muslims and Native Americans in America: Religion V. Politics

Dating back to the early 17^th century, religion's intersection with politics has been a central issue of debate in America. Whether it is the right to practice religion freely or the right to be accepted as a religious community at all, different sides of the debate have been arguing their points for years. Since 1965, however, the tension over religion's role in politics has taken on new meanings in the wake of various events and developments. Through the examination of the tension caused by Native American spirituality rituals as well as the growing presence of Muslims in America, it becomes evident that while Christian principles are sometimes interchangeable with political principles, the tension surrounding peripheral religions such as Islam and Native American spirituality has largely favored the government.

One conflict in particular brings out the polarized nature of the conflict between the separation of church and state. Many Native Americans participate in peyote rituals because they believe the practice brings them closer to the divine spirits. The practice of doing peyote, however, was explicitly outlawed in the U.S. until 1978, when Congress passed the American Indian Religious Freedom Act.[i] This act exempted Native American peyote rituals from laws that outlawed the drug. So for a time, it seemed as though the line between the church and state had been clearly drawn on the issue of peyote rituals. It appeared to be a victory for freedom of religion everywhere. Specifically, it appeared as though the U.S. government had sided decisively with the right to practice religion. In reality, the government had not yet promised not to place a burden on people wishing to practice religion. This guarantee would come over a decade later.

In 1988, a member of the Native American Church named Alfred Smith was fired from his job at a drug and rehabilitation center in Oregon for participating in peyote rituals. After his termination, the state refused to provide Smith with unemployment benefits. When Unemployment Division v. Smith was appealed, the Supreme Court sided with the Unemployment Division.[ii] It appeared as though freedom of religion had been dealt a serious blow in the U.S. The decision by the Supreme Court, though, gave new life to the issue of religion's intersection with politics.

The decision also marked the beginning of a contemporary power struggle between two branches of American government as Congress and the Supreme Court would each assert their positions on the issue again soon. After the Supreme Court's decision in Unemployment Division v. Smith seemingly damaged the Constitutional right to freedom of religion, Congress responded with the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993. This act "restored the standard for the protection of religious liberty and free exercise"[iii], but the Supreme Court rejected it as unconstitutional soon thereafter. This tension between the legislative and judicial branches of the government still exists around this issue today, just as the conflict over freedom of religion extends back to 17^th century Massachusetts Bay Colony. Roger Williams once argued for religious toleration, but he was exiled for his beliefs. He could come to no compromise with the leaders of the colony, just as the Supreme Court and Congress seem unwilling to compromise with each other. Yet, even Williams, a champion of religious toleration, acknowledged that laws of the state should reign superior to religious practices.[iv] Over three centuries later, the same conflict still rages on, as other conflicts enter the mix as well.

Since the attacks on September 11, 2001, the religion of Islam has played an increasingly important role in American politics. Politicians today, particularly Republicans, sometimes cite "Islamic extremism" as a threat to national security. In doing so, these politicians perpetuate prejudice against all Muslims, including those in the U.S. Even religious figures have denounced the religion as a whole. Franklin Graham (b. 1952), a notorious evangelist, generalized in his book, The Name, that "Islam often relies on force, intimidation, or conquering of entire nations to recruit converts."[v] Due in part to misrepresentations such as this one in the media, much of the American public fosters prejudice against Muslims and will believe they are responsible for terrorist attacks, such as the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995, despite the presence of counter-evidence.[vi] The result is a deep-rooted fear of Muslims that is evident in government policy. The USA PATRIOT act, for example, was enacted in 2001 with the stated purpose of helping to fight terrorism, despite the arguably unconstitutional repercussions of a violation of personal privacy. This act would have been thoroughly rejected by the public, however, if there did not exist a public sentiment that Muslims in America may be dangerous and that it may be worth sacrificing some civil liberties in order to monitor these people.

Whether it is the contemporary controversy surrounding Native American peyote rituals or the conflict surrounding prejudice against American Muslims, there have been various developments since 1965. Progress has not necessarily been made, at least in the political realm, toward accepting these religions and their customs as one of our own. However, the issues have been debated repeatedly, and the American public's awareness of these issues has been elevated. One can only hope that, in the struggle to reach an equilibrium between peripheral religions and politics, the conflict will eventually be resolved.

[i] Gaustad, Edwin, & Schmidt, Leigh. The Religious History of America. New York: HarperCollins (2002). P. 372

[ii] Ibid.

[iii] Ibid., P. 373

[iv] Williams, Roger. "Letter to the Town of Providence on the Limits of Religious Liberty." Reprinted in Griffith, R. Marie. American Religions: A Documentary History. New York: Oxford University Press (2008). P. 76

[v] Graham, Franklin. The Name. Reprinted in Griffith, R. Marie. American Religions: A Documentary History. New York: Oxford University Press (2008). P. 604

[vi] Haddad, Yvonne Yazbeck. Muslims on the Americanization Path? New York: Oxford University Press (2000). pp. 22-23