Governor: A permanent buffer should be created around Bear Butte to protect this “sacred site”.
The Framers: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion

PP. Dif you forget?The Government already has a part in it. It’s called the Treaty of Laramie.

You nailed it Pat. It’s hard for me to believe Smilin’ Mike would even attempt anything this stupid, but then he’s surprised me before.

We just heard Rounds say we don’t have enough money to fund our current obligations and now he wants to waste a truckload of tax money that we don’t have on what is most certainly forbidden in the constitution?

You’ve heard that genius has its limits? Rounds has just proven to us that stupidity is unlimited.

2. Uh, what this proves is that Rounds is running for something. If he wanted to do something about this, there were plenty of opportunities in the past. He’s pandering, pure and simple. And PP is right. Let private sources take care of this.

Bear Butte is covered by treaty rights and if you want to invoke law the rules that protect national historic sites.

As harsh of a critic as I am of Gov. Rounds, I think it is never the wrong time to do the right thing even if the person who is doing it has alterior motives. And so far, there is no proof that Gov. Rounds is doing this other than to solve a problem.

I applaud Gov. Rounds for his interest in this issue and trying to find a way to solve the tricky zoning issues involved. If he does it because he’s “running for something,” so what? I can’t imagine it helps him any with the redneck bubbas that are never going to vote for a Democrat not matter what.

There’s an easy solution to PP’s concerns. Bear Butte is not only religiously significant it is CULTURALLY AND HISTORICALLY significant to the history of South Dakota and its early inhabitants. That there is a buffer zone to protect its integrity and peoples’ enjoyment (which may include prayer) is good zoning practice. I think it is also hard to argue that it is any way an establishment of religion by the state of South Dakota.

Notice if you look at the maps of the proposed Hyperion Refinery in Elk Point, they are proposing a buffer zone or transition zone. It is a way to soften the impact of the refinery on the other citizens’ surrounding land uses; here, the buffer or transition zone protects the use and enjoyment of Bear Butte. Same basic zoning principles.

What if St. Joseph’s Cathedral in Sioux Falls were being threatened by bars and casinos? Would the state or local government be able to act in a similar matter? This might make Sibby fall down dead, but I would think so for the same reasons. St. Joseph’s, while it is obviously a religious facility is also important to the history and culture of South Dakota and Sioux Falls. That people worship there is really beside the point.

I’m with Smilin’ Mike on this one.

Todd

I see no law preventing the state from paying for an easement around an existing state park.

God is dead. we might as well worship rocks.

I agree with Pat. Several years ago I warned White Face about using stategy similar to what Mike is now proposing because it would collide with the First Amendment.

Mike might be unwittingly running this issue right into the US Supreme Court. Or he is proposing a plan that is meant to fail beyond his control, all the while appearing to have been sincere. This could get interesting.

1. Why is the state involved then?

3. Could he be courting the Indian vote?

5. From here it seems Mike is proposing a doomed plan.

Bruce, if Rounds is courting the Indian vote, someone should tell him that no matter how much he panders to White Face, One Feather, et al, he won’t get any more votes from them than you did unless he switches partys. For Smilin’ Mike that wouldn’t be much of a switch. He’s been a RINO for quite some time and the transition should be easy for him.

How about a one mile buffer around the Catholic Cathedral in Sioux Falls. I got married there. It is “sacred” to me and my “Catholic people”

Furthermore, it appalls me as a Catholic that the County jail is so close. How about the State Moves it!!!

This creates an foolish precedence.

Zoning is a local decision. Not only is this an intellectual failing in terms of the appropriation, but it is also a failing of understanding what are the proper functions of the levels of government. This dip____ is once again proving why he supported adelstein, et al. He has no guiding principles.

A Governor’s seat is a terrible thing to waste!

5. This statement is going to come back to haunt you: “I think it is never the wrong time to do the right thing even if the person who is doing it has alterior motives.” Really? Next time a Republican does the “right thing” at an opportunistic time, and you trash it because it’s something you don’t like, we’ll remind you of that statement. (BTW, it’s Ulterior.) Rounds is doing this because it is politically expedient. On the other hand, I guess it could be argued that the rez isn’t gonna vote for him anyway, since they vote overwhelmingly Democrat and always will. Just like the Hispanic vote isn’t going to go GOP, despite their best efforts at pandering. So maybe Rounds is sincere. I doubt it, but it’s possible.

#6
If God is dead, who killed Him???

If the Indians care so much about Bear Butte, then why don’t they pay for the easements?
This is a total waste of money and I agree with PP that not only does it set a bad precedent, but probably does cross into unconstitutional. If it were challenged, the state couldn’t defend it without saying the easement dealt with religion in some way.

Why should they have to pay for an easement on land they actually own in the first place? If someone moves into my back yard and I’m not able to get rid of them, am I eventually going to have to pay for an easement to get to my garage??

The people of this state know so pathetically little about history, culture, treaty rights, AIRFA, continuing litigation, etc. , but of course, that doesn’t stop them from shooting their mouths off when another possible spot for a biker bar or a strip mall or a WalMart is foreclosed. God forbid we don’t develop every square inch of South Dakota.

Pat,
I also believe this is start of a slippery slope…

Others have suggested private money. That is a great idea! Maybe some of the same folks that helped with the Gov’s Mansion would chip in.

We could call it Great Western Bear Butte.
I think it kinda catchy.

14. Note that any tie a treaty is mentioned, everyone goes la, la, la, la la.

#12. It was suicide.

Casnt afford decent raises for state employees but waste money on Bear Butte? Let Casino profits pay for it.
maYBE THE STATE WOULD HAVE MORE MONEY IF WE HAD NOT PURCHASED A TATOO REMOVAL MACHINE FOR A mILLON $ AND PAY A DOCTOR $750k to remove tatoos from prisoners?

Some people think this treaty is still to be enforaced:

ARTICLE 2. The United States agrees that the following district of country, to wit, viz: commencing on the east bank of the Missouri River where the forty-sixth parallel of north latitude crosses the same, thence along low-water mark down said east bank to a point opposite where the northern line of the State of Nebraska strikes the river, thence west across said river, and along the northern line of Nebraska to the one hundred and fourth degree of longitude west from Greenwich, thence north on said meridian to a point where the forty-sixth parallel of north latitude intercepts the same, thence due east along said parallel to the place of beginning; and in addition thereto, all existing reservations on the east bank of said river shall be, and the same is, set apart for the absolute and undisturbed use and occupation of the Indians herein named, and for such other friendly tribes or individual Indians as from time to time they may be willing, with the consent of the United States, to admit amongst them; and the United States now solemnly agrees that no persons except those herein designated and authorized so to do, and except such officers, agents, and employes of the Government as may be authorized to enter upon Indian reservations in discharge of duties enjoined by law, shall ever be permitted to pass over, settle upon, or reside in the territory described in this article, or in such territory as may be added to this reservation for the use of said Indians, and henceforth they will and do hereby relinquish all claims or right in and to any portion of the United States or Territories, except such as is embraced within the limits aforesaid, and except as hereinafter provided.

Fort Laramie Treaty of 1868

Figures that people would get all upset about the ‘establishment of religion’ when it is a religion other than Catholic.

Better to worship Bear Butte than to worship the almighty Motorcycle Rally Dollar.

Sacred does not always have a religious meaning. I can think of a few places that I have visited that I would consider sacred and none of them have anything to do with government support of religion.

Arlington National Cemetary is probably the most sacred ground I have ever walked on. The fact that so many that have served our country, defending our freedoms and some dying in the process,rest eternally there is sacred. Some have religious markings on their tombstone and some don’t. There is no established religion based solely on those grounds, but it is sacred none the less.

Visit the site of the world trade centers and you are once again walking on sacred ground. Once again there is no established religion based on that site, or the actions that made it sacred.

In fact, visit any battlefield, cemetary, and yes, even some churchs and you will find sacred ground. Some would even say that the green on the 15th hole where I lost my virginity is sacred ground, well, maybe just me, but I hope you get the point. Sacred does not always mean religious.

While were at we better pay them an easement for the Black Hills that we have already developed.

Father of three, we are not talking about sacred ground in the context that you are making examples of. Read what Bear Butte means to the Indians and they go there to pray first and foremost. While you might pray at Arlington and WTC, that isn’t why you go there.

There is no First Amendment issue in protecting Bear Butte, because it is a state park. The fact that some people attach religious significance to the site is an incidental benefit.

Government provides fire protection for churches – is that an establishment of religion? Of course not. Neither is this.

And remember – the Governor is putting in $250,000. Not that it’s insignificant, but the appropriations committee routinely “creates” ten times that amount by monkeying with revenue estimates.

First off, nobody is talking about putting a hot dog stand on top of Bear Butte. We are talking about the land that surrounds it. I seriously would like an example of government dollars being spent on an easement to protect the land around something.
Somebody brought up the World Trade Center. Maybe we should spend money on easements to make sure that Osama Bin Laden doesn’t buy and develop property next to ground zero memorializing the hijackers.

14., 16, 19., Now here is some Constitutional adherence for you!

23. You really don’t know the issue do you? First and foremost it is a treaty issue. People tend to ignore treaties so this issue morphed into a religious issue.

This is really getting interesting!

One of the crown jewels of the SD park system is also a beautiful and unique geological formation. The natural beauty of that park is threatened by unchecked urban encroachment. The Gov. wants the state to buy the development rights around the park in order to protect the natural beauty and scenic nature of that state park for future generations of South Dakotans to enjoy.

On behalf of my unborn grandchildren I would like to thank Gov. Rounds for protecting this beautiful corner of our state. Thank you for not waiting until there was a hot dog stand on top before you acted. Thank you for protecting a part of South Dakota my grandparents enjoyed so that my grandchildren may someday enjoy it too.

Nicholas, Bear Butte is already a state park. No one is going to be developing anything on park land. We are talking about paying taxpayer money that we don’t have to buy easements on ranch land. Have you been there? One of the pieces of property the Gov. wants to idle for perpetuity belongs to my uncle. If you put a biker bar, a rock concert, and a rodeo on the property you still wouldn’t be able to hear the noise from the top of Bear Butte. Climb the butte sometime. It’s a wonderful experience and don’t forget, it belongs to all of South Dakota, not one particular Indian tribe. Another thing that bothers me about this “sacred site” is that until just the last several years, Bear Butte had no religious significance to the Sioux at all!! Some other tribes the Sioux had run out of the state did consider the butte sacred, but they had no problem with the surrounding countryside and still don’t.

20. Way to go Patti for making this something it’s not. Why do you hate Catholics so much?

25.Bruce, please note:

US Constitution: Article VI Clause 2 of the US Constitution reads as follows:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

Because of their 2000-year history of violence, oppression, imperialism, and forced ignorance maybe? Just a hunch.

Typical intolerant lib.

#27
Yes I know Bear Butte is now state park, and I would hope that no one was developing something on state park land. But urban development is encroaching closer all the time and threatens the quiet peaceful beauty of the park proper. You are well aware of this because of your family ties to the area. If the state buys your uncle’s development rights it could only do so if he agreed to do sell those rights. He would retain ownership minus development rights and still be able to farm or graze his livestock on the land. He also doesn’t have to sell those rights if he doesn’t want to, as I have read nothing about using eminent domain to secure these development rights. It would appear that Gov. Rounds is piggybacking on to the perpetual grassland easement program the feds offer by including an additional state payment on certain lands near the park. IE fed money + state money = good enough deal for landowners to give up development rights but retain all other rights.

Sounds to me that there will be no “taking” by the state, that landowners will be compensated for the state acquiring the development rights. We see similar programs where the state pays landowners for hunting easements so the public can hunt. Again, these are typical land use planning tools.

And 11. Pardon my spelling error. Why would I trash a politician if they do something that I think is good or is something that has actually been a Democratic proposal I support? I may be a partisan but I’m not blind to when my political opponents do things that I think are good for the public. Anyway, they do enough things I don’t agree with that provides plenty of fodder. I don’t need to go after them for things I agree with. I want them to do things that I agree with. And I think my support of Gov. Rounds on this issue is an example of being broadminded enough to give people I typically disagree with some props for doing something laudable.

Your argument doesn’t make any sense to me.

I don’t think there are many people who would not agree that Bear Butte, as a natural landmark, needs some protection. I just wonder about the “sacred” aspect of it, and I think that this could justifiably lead to other places of worship seeking the same protection. I also find it ironic that the same people who scream about separation of church and state (and take every opportunity to trash Catholics and religion in general) are the ones who support this. Don’t know what the answer is. But this isn’t it.

I think the state should sponsor a hill climb by bikes up the Butte and spend the money on easements to stop development around the Butte.

#27: You are full of it. As far as who it belongs to and what it means to them — you are wrong on both counts.

30. Well, if you replace some of the adjectives with “beheadings,” “murderers,” “forced oppression of women,” etc., and change the timeline a bit, that describes radical Islam. Does that bother you as much as Catholics seem to? Probably not, because it is PC to defend Muslims.

Sounds like an investment opportunity to me.
I think I will be looking for some land to buy around Bear Butte. Any landowners who are reading this around Bear Butte, you have an investor here who would pay a pretty penny for your land!

Hey Patti, wonder what your buddies at DIA would say about your intolerant, judgmental comment here and on other topics. One of their tenets is “Civil public policy dialogue.” Yeah, right. You are a real good example of that.

The train has already left the station.

You can cry about the establishment clause, but the site has already been folded into state control due to the fact that it’s a state park.

If you are concerned about supporting a particular religion, then make an argument for the state to sell the park off.

Establishing a buffer around the Butte in order to preserve its character is a simple extension of a relationship the state has with the land.

But let’s be clear about something. If the top of Bear Butte was the birth place of Jesus Christ, Christian Conservative would be clamoring to protect it from loud music containing lyrics about sex, drugs, and rock n roll.

And these are the same people who insist that the words ‘under God’ be included in the Pledge of Allegiance recited by millions of PUBLIC SCHOOL children on a daily basis.

Just helping you folks to not be overly hypocritical, that’s all.

Hammer says: “But let’s be clear about something. If the top of Bear Butte was the birth place of Jesus Christ, Christian Conservative would be clamoring to protect it from loud music containing lyrics about sex, drugs, and rock n roll.” Fair enough. That’s probably what would happen. But what many of us here are saying — and I am a Christian Conservative — is that if you do it for one sacred site, it sets a bad precedent. I agree with your proposition of establishing a buffer. I just don’t think taxpayer money should fund it.

What about Custer State Park, Sica Hollow State Park, etc.?

This is getting attention because a group of people griped. Protecting land adjacent to historic, spiritual places isn’t something we should be doing line by line….depending on which way the wind blows.

I want money for the rest of these places then too. Every legislator with a “park” in his/her district ought to grab some cash for the same.

#42
Maybe some of those other places also need additional protection. The legislators from those areas could try to get additional money to protect those parks. It’s called “the appropriations process” and the legislature will be working on it from Jan. to March.

Although Bear Butte is probably the most endangered by urban encroachment of all the state parks and therefore the most in need of state funds for additional protection.

Those of you who haven’t humped up that hill, stand in the line over there. Those of you who have, stand in this line here.

I will be cooking hotdogs at the top.

#43 was my post.
Nicholas Nemec

I’ve climbed the hill.

41-But it is already a state park…the land is owned by the government….so the concern over the establishment clause is years too late.

As I said, if that is still a concern of yours then you should be arguing for selling the land off. Creating a buffer zone around the Butte should be of a totally secondary concern to you.

42 says all parks should get a buffer zone. But Bear Butte has certain characteristics that make it particularly vulnerable to encroachment. Sound carries very well to the top of it and the serenity of the Butte is one of its more important characteristics.

No #36, I am right on all counts. Think you can find a link that proves otherwise?

#27

47. I can. Plenty of them. Some of them have already been supplied on this thread. The Treaty of Laramie is still valid, and the US government is still obligated under it. That establishes the ownership argument, Bear Butte is a sacred mountain to many indigenous peoples and has since become a sacred place to many non-tribal people as well. You don’t have to be a Druid to consider Stonehenge sacred, or to try to protect it for it’s cultural and historical significance. Muslims, Jews and Christians all consider temple mount sacred, etc, etc. Your arguments are shallow, selfish, and socially uninformed.

http://www.manataka.org/page278.html

Oh that’s rich! A link furnished by none other than Sioux Indian “activist” and all around flake, Charmaine White Face!! And I suppose you have some information on the Slim Buttes from Harold One Feather? Information on uranium exploration from Nancy Hilding? How about some real, factual information?

Certainly:

http://www.sdgfp.info/Parks/Regions/NorthernHills/BearButte.htm

http://www.sacredland.org/historical_sites_pages/black_hills.html

http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/dissertations/AAI9730267/

http://www.wlsessays.net/authors/L/LemkeBear/LemkeBear.rtf

49. …oh and this…

http://www.uiowa.edu/~anthro/paleopathology/drybones/ch10.html

let me know when you have enough…

What are you trying to argue, #49? That there’s no treaty? Because that’s a legal reality.

http://supreme.justia.com/us/448/371/case.html

This case has not been settled.

If you’re arguing that it’s not sacred to a specific group of people, I think you’re going to lose there, too. How people view something is pretty subjective. I view you as ignorant. You can argue that you arent, but you can’t really argue that *I* don’t believe you are.

52. Exactly. The fact that Bear Butte is sacred to me, personally, regardless of my heritage is all it takes to disprove #49’s claim. And beieve me, that is the most insignificant of evidence, even though it is absolutely accurate.

“Sacred” Bear Butte is a perfect indicator of the lunacy of most religious myth no matter where or when it comes from. Somehow it is more obvious when it is Bear Butte than when it is a Cathedral or a church. Stone Age culture or middle east barren sand culture converted to supernatural status is silly and dangerous.

Incidentally, just wondering how those who feel it is inappropriate for government to protect the religion of sacred rocks then feel about South Dakota helping provide books to church schools.

And more from the Official Department of Monkey Wrenches… Henry Kissinger in his textbook on foreign relations noted that treaties only make sense and are seldom observed unless they offer mutual benefit to the treaty signers.

It is long past the time when there has been any benefit to the USA of maintaining treaties with totally dependent but yet “sovereign” nations.

Or have we already had enough “real politic” to last for several generations?

The 1868 Fort Laramie Treaty is valid to this day. The US Constitution is valid to this day.

Does this nation almost keep its laws? It appears so.

56. Yup. That’s the great debate, Bruce. There are those who claim that the Constitution is a living, breathing document, and others who claim that such is not so (except when they don’t want to follow its mandate, as per the Treaty of Laramie, etc.)

Whatever Henry Kissenger says, I think we have plenty of evidence that a lawless state cannot long endure. In any case, no democracy can survive a refusal to give its minorities the benefit of the rule of law. If you want a reason not to steal (any more) of property from the Lakota, think about this: the same rule of law that protects their property, protects yours.

As for Governor Rounds’s decision, it makes sense from much more than an ethical basis. The Sturgis rally attendance has declined from half a million to three hundred and fifty thousand, a thirty percent drop, in just three years. Combined with other factors, such as the “graying” of the rally (the average attendee age has topped fifty), reliance on the rally as an economic engine no longer makes sense for Western South Dakota.

So what should Western South Dakota rely on? And, what does that have to do with a sacred rock pile?

59. Arts, culture and history — the new/old economic engine of western South Dakota. And sacred rocks, from Mt. Rushmore, to Crazy Horse, to Harney Peak, to the Thoen Stone, to the Mammoth Site, to Bear Butte have everything to do with it, Doug, my friend.

(…not to mention the largest concentration of Native American primitive rock art in the Northern Hemisphere, Wind Cave, Jewel Cave, etc.)

Doug:

a: expressing disrespect to what other people hold sacred wins you no points, and

b: off the top of my head, family tourism, the kind the unlimited party at Sturgis keeps out of the area for a good quarter of the (relatively short) tourist season.

Sacred is an interesting concept. What religious fanatics of any color view as sacred and what those of us who just love nature find as sacred may be different or for totally different reasons.

I guess the Native Americans have at least decided that something “concrete” is sacred rather than some imaginary ethereal non-substance.

I see no reason to pretend to have respect for lunacy no matter how fondly loved that lunacy happens to be by some misguided individuals. Religion is no more special than TV comedy or the sex lives of twit celebrities. Bleeding images of the virgin or whatever.

Doug: If I or anyone else asked you to go out of your way to show respect for Bear Butte and the traditional place it has for many First Nations people, you might have a point. But nobody did; you went out of your way to show disrespect. You have the right to do that, if you insist on it; your opinion doesn’t affect anything, so you can expect a good deal of indulgence. I just choose to remind you that a show of disrespect doesn’t do anything to bolster a failing argument, or change the pressures, demographic and economic, which make the governor’s decision a good idea.

63. Aren’t you the guy that said President Bush planned 9-11?

Amendment One does not apply to the 1868 Treaty. What the “Indians” practice is up to them. Some choose the White Buffalo Calf Woman Sacred Ways.

Amendment One does apply to a governor of a state setting aside the Amendment to endorse a religion on what he alleges to be state property.

The US Congress set it up this way, Doug, so take care who you blame. Maybe you want to share why you are so bitter.

The governor’s decision in this case may be a good one done for wrong reasons or correct reasons. I don’t think he needs to resort to religious arguments to support protecting the environment or even for protecting the beauty of a natural feature by preventing visual pollution.
Lady Bird Johnson’s concern for visual pollution may have had a religious basis for all I know, but I don’t think that was the primary justification for it. That logic should work for Bear Butte as well.

His decision to claim he is doing this for religious reasons may be a legitimate reason to oppose it because of the kind of practices it may justify in the future. The question then becomes is the good he is doing now worth more than the potential bad which may result in the future.

Those who support religions should be very suspicious of political actions which blur the separation of church and state. That separation has been very beneficial to religions. If politicians wish to exploit religion and religious people cheer him for that, they should expect that politicians can use the same logic to regulate religions.

I’m hard pressed to find where Rounds said he was doing any of this for “religious” reasons. Can someone point that out for me? Keep in mind, as we have discussed here, “spirituality” and “sacredness” are not the same as “religion.”

Newquist wins the Kelo debate on this subject (see SD Politics take which also links to the Kelo debate).

Powers takes seconds, but would take first if the treaty wasn’t in place.

Sorry Todd, calling a dog a cat doesn’t cut it when it obviously barks.

67. Fleming, look at Todd’s post on Kelo. It has a picture of Mato Paha claimed as a church. Rest assured Rounds is in the same train of thought.

Lots of good understanding here. Look for more like this Pat.

In case anyone didn’t know there is a campground for bikers at the base of Bear Butte which has a fence line that actually runs up the side of the butte.