3 ms·
Nations are not necessarily tied to land, nor is the sovereignty of the Native nations full sovereignty. I don't understand the full ramifications of the treat
by jljljl 13y ago
Nations are not necessarily tied to land, nor is the sovereignty of the Native nations full sovereignty.
I don't understand the full ramifications of the treaty and legal status myself. My point was just to indicate that the flippant remark about "some religions can use peyote" leaves out a lot of historical, political, and legal context.
- MichaelGG 13y agoOK, what about Sikhs and the dagger they are "required" wear at all times? I can't up and decide I must wear a knife (even if I put glue on it), then expect schools and the TSA to allow me to do so. The fact is that my "flippant" remark, while mentioning peyote specifically, applies to other such cases. Another example: conscientious objector status (which now has the religious part removed, but required a supreme court case to do so, AFAIK).
- argumentum 13y ago> but required a supreme court case to do so That's the point of the Supreme Court, which did it's job and confirmed that the government is not supposed to determine what constitutes a religion. The Sikh kirpan (knife) issue hasn't been argued before the supreme court. When it is, I expect a school's right to ban that weapon will be affirmed on the same grounds.