[Experiment 6-2-6]

"Non-native people [have been] telling what happened," she said. "That needs to be corrected. We don't want tourists wandering aimlessly across sacred sites, indigenous grasses and other places that are important to us -- and without understanding any of it."

During my national tour of '95, I had the opportunity to drive through South Dakota and visited the "monument" at Wounded Knee.

The amazing thing about Wounded Knee is that it was bad enough the first time there was a "battle" there. Not much has changed since. Fortunately for the indigenous grasses, there ain't that many tourists who show up there.

[GladesGuru]

"Sacred sites", my a**! If she is talking about such 'sites' on land which it titled to the indians, either as a tribe or as individuals, then they can do as they see fit. But to allow any recognition of such 'sites' on government lands is clearly and unambiguously a violation of the Constitution.

Indian activist claims that Natural Bridge is such a 'site' and must be treated as a religious 'site' is socialist rot of the worst kind. To allow such restrictions as the National Park Service is now doing is to allow government to preferentially recognize one religion over another, and on government land at that.

What if someone wanted to sacrifice a virgin to Baal on,, or under the arch? Certaimly worship of Baal is no different than some Indian belief? Or is it?

What about those wishing to celebrate the vernal equinox with the original fertility rites? How nice, religious celebrants and NAMBLA, coming together!

Moral: Keep government within Constitutional bounds or it will become the "fearful master" of which George Washington wrote.

Come to think of it, can government allow any teaching about any religion on government lands?