Freedom, Law, and Prophecy: A Brief History of Native American Religious Resistance

Abstract

In August 1978, American Indian Religious Freedom Act (AIRFA) was passed by Congress as a guarantee of constitutional protection of First Amendment rights for Native Americans. This act was passed as an attempt to redress past wrongs by federal government or its agents. That history of legal suppression was due to the lack of a clear, comprehensive and consistent Federal policy [which] has often resulted in abridgement ofreligious freedom for traditional American Indians. The summary text of this act' states: Henceforth it shall be policy of United States to protect and preserve for American Indians their inherent right of freedom to believe, express, and exercise traditional religions of American Indian, Eskimo, Aleut, and Native Hawaiians, including but not limited to access to sacred sites, use and possession of sacred objects and freedom to worship through ceremonials and traditional rites. It is perhaps hard for those unfamiliar with history of Native American religious oppression to realize that in our own lifetimes it continues to be difficult or impossible for Native Americans to freely practice their religions. The suppression of those practices has been pervasive to such a degree that AIRFA has proven to be insufficient to grant freedom that many Native Americans feel is necessary for complete affirmation of their respective religious identities. What is background that necessitated AIRFA and what directions have issues of religious affirmation taken since this act became law? Perhaps most suppressive laws regarding religious freedom were those promulgated by Bureau of Indian Affairs for Indian Courts, known as Indian Religious Crimes Code. These laws were first developed in 1883 by Secretary of Interior Henry Teller as a means to prohibit Native American ceremonial activity under pain of imprisonment. Teller's general guidelines to all Indian agents ordered them to discontinue dances and feasts as well as instructing them to take steps with regard to all medicine. men, who are always found in anti-progressive party . . to compel these impostors to abandon this deception and discontinue their practices, which are not only without benefit to them but positively injurious to them.2 Religious offenses on reservations were later codified by CommisLee Irwin is an Associate Professor of Religious Studies at College of Charleston in South Carolina.