<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:comic sans ms,sans-serif;font-size:small;color:#000000">From the law you quote it seems to me that 'access to the site' does not include sole possession of it or ability to determine the use of it. Just access. bill w</div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Thu, Sep 19, 2019 at 11:29 PM Stuart LaForge via extropy-chat <<a href="mailto:extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org">extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><br>
Quoting Rafal Smigrodzki:<br>
<br>
> On Thu, Sep 19, 2019 at 2:02 AM Stuart LaForge via extropy-chat <<br>
> <a href="mailto:extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org" target="_blank">extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org</a>> wrote:<br>
><br>
>> The telescope is only a casualty if the money is spent somewhere else.<br>
>> If astronomers are patient, they may not have to settle for the second<br>
>> best locale.<br>
>><br>
><br>
> ### So any harm is the astronomers' fault, after all.<br>
<br>
<br>
What? No. How did you get that from what I wrote above? The <br>
astronomers are getting screwed, Rafal. All I am saying that the <br>
astronomers should not give up. How is that blaming the astronomers?<br>
<br>
<br>
>> Game or dirty fight, they are winning this round because federal law<br>
>> is on their side:<br>
<br>
> ### Really?<br>
<br>
Yes. I posted a link to the wikipedia article about the federal law in <br>
question earlier.<br>
<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Indian_Religious_Freedom_Act" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Indian_Religious_Freedom_Act</a><br>
<br>
And here is a link to the actual law:<br>
<br>
<a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/1996" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/1996</a><br>
<br>
Relevant quote: "On and after August 11, 1978, it shall be the policy <br>
of the United States to protect and preserve for American Indians <br>
their inherent right of freedom to believe, express, and exercise the <br>
traditional religions of the American Indian, Eskimo, Aleut, and <br>
Native Hawaiians, including but not limited to access to sites, use <br>
and possession of sacred objects, and the freedom to worship through <br>
ceremonials and traditional rites."<br>
<br>
The Hawaiians claim that Mauna Kea is a religious site for them. Is it <br>
really a religious site for them? Maybe or maybe not, but that doesn't <br>
matter because we are talking about religion. Religion is not based on <br>
fact it is based on belief. And if the law does not require Christians <br>
to PROVE that Jesus was the son of God, then the government cannot <br>
require Hawaiians to prove that Muana Kea is sacred to them.<br>
<br>
Therefore, so long as the Hawaiians BELIEVE it is a sacred site to <br>
them, then the First Amendment and the American Indian Religious <br>
Freedom Act (which explicitly includes the native Hawaiians) clearly <br>
guarantees them access to the site.<br>
<br>
I am not a lawyer or a judge, but the language that the law is written <br>
in is not all that obscure for legalese. If you interpret the law that <br>
I quoted differently than I do, please explain.<br>
<br>
>> We must reconcile with the native Hawaiians or risk violating our own<br>
>> laws to remove them from the mountain by force. That is the reality of<br>
>> the situation for the time being.<br>
> ### "We" need to reconcile with violent lawbreakers?<br>
<br>
So far the protests have been tense and volatile but there hasn't been <br>
any violence yet, as far as I know, from either side. If the <br>
alternative to reconciliation is violent conflict, then yes I prefer <br>
reconciliation by all means. Not because I am a pacifist necessarily, <br>
but because the USA is in precarious situation right now. I have never <br>
seen such toxic partisanship in domestic politics like I have in the <br>
last few years drawn along socioeconomic and racial lines.<br>
<br>
The hostility is palpable and it feels like a powder keg ready to go <br>
off. Sending in the military to forcibly quell the Hawaiian protests <br>
could be the spark that sets off civil war in the U.S. And that would <br>
be devastating to our civilization. If you think that these protests <br>
hinder astronomy then imagine what kind of set back to all of science <br>
an all out civil war would be.<br>
<br>
> So let me ask you just one political question:<br>
><br>
> On whose side are you?<br>
<br>
I am annoyed by the protestors, and I wish they would just go home and <br>
let the TMT be built. In fact, I agree with John Clark that they <br>
probably didn't really decide the mountain was sacred until they found <br>
out it was valuable to the Haoles. But there is no way to prove what <br>
somebody does or does not believe when it comes to religion.<br>
<br>
So ultimately, I am on the side of the U.S. Constitution and holding <br>
the republic together. Therefore I prefer to find a solution to the <br>
standoff that doesn't involve shooting American citizens (which the <br>
Hawaiians are) even if it involves delay or compromise. After all to <br>
quote Benjamin Franklin, "There never was a good war or a bad peace."<br>
<br>
Stuart LaForge<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
extropy-chat mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org" target="_blank">extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat</a><br>
</blockquote></div>