Commerce and Religion Collide on the Mountainside-NYT

Sven Golly wrote:
Ted Waldron wrote:

"The kachinas are the snow makers," she said. "When man makes snow what
does that tell the deities?"

What astounds me is that the courts are quick to remove crosses from little
tiny patches of public land sighting separation of church & state but they
seem very willing to place entire mountains off-limits effectively merging
the two. Seems it's OK to be a native american pantheist but not a
Christian.

Or a follower of His Noodly Majesty the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Once the
government recognizes -- and makes significant allowances for, not just those of
a purely ceremonial nature, although I might quibble about those too -- any
religion then that opens the door to, well, the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

If I were in any way religious, would I see a difference that should make a
difference?

--
Cheers,
Bev
************************************************
Horn broken. Watch for finger.

Sven Golly wrote:
Ted Waldron wrote in news:ecw1216-
:


"The kachinas are the snow makers," she said. "When man makes snow what
does that tell the deities?"


What astounds me is that the courts are quick to remove crosses from little
tiny patches of public land sighting separation of church & state

When that was done in Massachusetts, it was done _citing_ the wish to
avoid creating shrines (with or without crosses) that, in some cases,
glorified extremely preventable fatalities.

Ted Waldron wrote:
http://tinyurl.com/eyug4

Commerce and Religion Collide on a Mountainside
By RANDAL C. ARCHIBOLD

FLAGSTAFF, Ariz. - In the view of American Indians here, the spirits
that inhabit the San Francisco Peaks, towering 12,000-foot-plus
mountains rising from the desert here, certainly did not appreciate it
when a ski run was built a quarter of a century ago on one slope.
So imagine, tribal leaders ask, what the spirits will think - or worse,
do - when treated wastewater is piped up from Flagstaff and sprayed on
the mountain so the resort, the Arizona Snowbowl, can make more snow to
ski on? A lawyer for one of the tribes likened it to "pouring dirty
water on the Vatican."

Last year they didn't need voo-doo snow. The place was covered with a
couple feet of fluffy white before December. The upper portion of the
mountain creates its own storms so I suspect they need the man-made
stuff around the lodge. More than anything, the Snowbowl could use more
acres. It could more aptly be called the Snowquarterbowl. Much of the
unused portion can best be characterized as balls-steep.

My migratory patterns seem to land me in Arizona every couple of years.
I hope to ski in a larger area next time. A friend told me the Snowbowl
is trying to expand but the Feds stand in the way. Does anybody know
how that fight is going?

Cheers,
Jeff

"AstroPax" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 23 Oct 2005 23:54:41 -0600, Bob Lee wrote:

The only places I'm aware of where that happened were where the Indians
had 'claims' (for lack of a better word) that pre-dated the US gov't
ownership, like on the Taos Pueblo/reservation. Got any others?

Well, seeing how most (if not all) American Indian tribes pre-date the
US Government, then I guess *any* Indian claim would meet your
criteria.

Funny, I wonder why the ACLU twits never challenged this executive
order:

http://www.achp.gov/EO13007.html

Why would they waste their time? Sections 3 & 4 all but nullify any effect
it might have anyway.

Sven Golly wrote:
Bob Lee wrote:

I dunno. It's a funny thing, the federal government is the
(self-)appointed legal guardian of Indians. I wonder if I - a white
guy - can consider the fed gov't my legal guardian. But clearly
there's a different legal status for Indians. OTOH, it's not like
they didn't get the hell screwed out of them.


My ancestors got screwed by the Huns. There's always a justification ain't
there?

Yeah yeah yeah. We're all victims now. I feel your pain.

//Walt

I'm just wondering if anyone knows what the market value of Snowbowl
might be and who actually owns it?

Why not solve this problem the old-fashioned way - with money? If the
tribes could buy out the present owner of the ski resort, would they
not be allowed by the Forest Service to make any d*mn decision they
want regarding snowmaking or lack thereof?

It could well be that the Navajo and Hopi don't have bluging coffers
like many other tribes, but I'm curious about whether or not anyone has
considered a buyout.

Bob

AstroPax wrote:
On 24 Oct 2005 14:50:41 EDT, Sven Golly
wrote:


My ancestors got screwed by the Huns. There's always a justification ain't
there?


My ancestors got screwed by Russia.

My ancestors got screwed by the Normans... and back then they weren't
even French !

Bob Peters wrote:
I'm just wondering if anyone knows what the market value of Snowbowl
might be and who actually owns it?

Why not solve this problem the old-fashioned way - with money? If the
tribes could buy out the present owner of the ski resort, would they
not be allowed by the Forest Service to make any d*mn decision they
want regarding snowmaking or lack thereof?

Don't know about Snowbowl, but most western resorts are on Federal land
- the "owner" doesn't own the land, just the lifts, the equipment, the
lodges, etc. The Feds grant a concession to the "owner" and the Feds
make the decision whether to have skiing on the property (or not). So
the "buy it to close it down" would meet a roadblock - if one
concessionairre won't run the concession, they'll give the concession to
someone else.

If the Indian tribes were to try such a move, it wouldn't be a gimme.
Actually, it would be a mess, a nasty, loud, expensive, protracted
political mess.


//Walt

BrritSki wrote:
AstroPax wrote:
On 24 Oct 2005 14:50:41 EDT, Sven Golly wrote:

My ancestors got screwed by the Huns. There's always a justification
ain't there?

My ancestors got screwed by Russia.

My ancestors got screwed by the Normans... and back then they weren't
even French !

My ancestors screwed each other.
I come from a long line of serial fornicators.


//Walt

AstroPax wrote:
On Sun, 23 Oct 2005 23:54:41 -0600, Bob Lee wrote:

But still, forcing "Intelligent
Design" or school prayer down peoples' throats isn't considered cool, so
you may be right.

That's one think that Ahnold can't be blamed for, but the teachers' unions are
accusing him of it anyway. According to them he wants to fire teachers for
political reasons (I guess there isn't a single incompetent in the bunch) and
they cite a number of instances of such firings in the first quarter of the 20th
century as if they were relevant.

They also claim that he wants to keep them from contributing to union political
causes ("silence the teachers") and several other things that I'm ashamed to
even think about. Goddam liars as well as incompetents. Reagan had the right
idea. Fire every single one of them. Draft parents to work in their place.
Fsck the union. /rant

Well, some people don't like the idea of public schools forcing Sex
Education down their kids throats either. So I guess it works both
ways.

BTW, FWIW, as far as I can remember no one ever "forced" me to pray in
school (or recite the pledge of allegiance).

Me neither, but I think that's a southren thang. If I were a god, I'd be really
ashamed of what I'd made.

--
Cheers,
Bev
================================================== =====================
"Lord, grant me the serenity to accept the things that I cannot change,
the courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to hide the
bodies of the people who ****ed me off."