It’s commonly assumed that Christian culture and individual Christians do not have a theological or philosophical interest in the outdoors and mountains in particular. This couldn’t be farther from the truth. There is probably no other religion, for lack of a better term, that has such an appreciation for exploration and scaling heights. Let me explain.
Christianity, as described in the Old and New Testaments, is portrayed as a spiritual development that is closely linked to the created, natural order. In the beginning of creation, after each “day” or step, it is said that what has been created is “good.” Rather than fearing a natural world that is powerful and confusing, the Jew and then the Christian are encouraged that the whole cosmos has been created by a benevolent Creator who wants us to learn, explore, understand and master the world around us. This has led to most of history’s developments in natural science, philosophy, medicine and political reform. We view ourselves as instruments of our God, who do His will in order to bring about greater order and beauty. I’m reminded of a joke about a New England farmer. He’s just worked very hard to clear a field of stones, when his parson comes by, and trying to be “spiritual,” says, “Nice field you and the Lord have.” To which the farmer replies, “Yeh, and you should have seen it when just the Lord had it!”
In keeping with this notion that we are to master and enjoy our surroundings, Christians have a long tradition of mountain climbing. Indeed, Francis Schaeffer points out that the first ascent of a mountain for the purpose of personal edification was undertaken by the writer Petrarch (1304-74). This man found in the ascent an enjoyment of nature as God made it good and proper. In short, it was a religious experience in that he was able to see beyond the creation to the Creator. An Anglican priest was in the party that first climbed the Matterhorn. George Mallory, who may be the first man to ascend Mt. Everest, was the son of an Anglican clergyman. Hudson Stuck, the first to climb Denali (Mt. McKinley) was an Episcopal priest and Archdeacon of the Yukon. Writes Stuck, “Rather there was the feeling that a privileged communion with the high places of the earth had been granted; that not only had we been permitted to lift up our eager eyes to these summits, secret and solitary since the world began, but to enter boldly upon them, to take place, as it were, domestically in their hitherto sealed chambers, to inhabit them, and to cast our eyes down from them, seeing all things as they spread out from the windows of heaven itself.” Note well what these men share. They all shared the idea that these places are sacred not because they are reserved for some or none, but because they are accessible to all who feel the call to experience them. It is not in their reservation that they are religious, but in their accessibility. In experiencing them, true potential is realized. The words mount, mountain, mountains, mountainside, mountaintop and mountaintops are found 468 times in the Bible.
In contrast to this view, we have our ascetic religions: Buddhism, Hinduism, Mohammedism, and most animistic beliefs. Although Buddhism is technically not theistic, that is, doesn’t posit the existence of a god, these religions suggest that there are gods or a god who are not well-disposed toward the human experience, and who need to be mollified through self-denial and other ascetic observances. Buddhists in the area of Mt. Kailas practice immuration, where the devote allows himself to be walled into a cave with only a small passageway left into which food, and presumably from which human waste, can be passed. The younger the person who does this, the more positive karma is believed to be attained. Hindu women are expected to throw themselves on the pyre burning the bodies of their deceased husbands, and devotes are lauded when they throw themselves under the wheels of the juggernaut that crushes the life out of them. Mohammedans are told they must not drink alcohol, smoke tobacco, or eat pigs, as this is unclean, but classify women as dogs if they walk between a praying man and Mecca. Because of the lack of self control on the part of Mohammedan men, the women are forced to wear unsuitable and restrictive clothing and to undergo, in many cases, clitoral “circumcision” so as to not become wanton. The Sioux, aboriginal people originally from the Great Lakes region of the central United States who recently migrated to the Great Plains with the domestication of the horse, have a spiritual ritual in which a leader allows himself to be cut along the arms to inflict the most possible pain in order to receive prophetic knowledge. What all these religions share is a dim view of god. It has been said, “The Mohammedans have ninety-nine names for God, but among them all they have not ‘our Father.'” If god himself is opposed to our enjoyment of life, then how can we value creation? People who fly airplanes into buildings, or demand that people live in closed caves their whole lives, or crawl 55 miles on their knees, are merely transferring the disdain they feel from their deity to that which he has made. The Apostle Paul writes, “‘Do not handle! Do not taste! Do not touch!’ These are all destined to perish with use, because they are based on human commands and teachings. Such regulations indeed have an appearance of wisdom, with their self-imposed worship, their false humility and their harsh treatment of the body, but they lack any value in restraining sensual indulgence.”
It’s a dangerous thing these days, though common, to forget the profound differences in religious belief, and to allow minority groups to lay claim to places or practices in the name of religion. It seems as though one man’s religion trumps another man’s freedom, simply on the basis of the sincerity and fervency of the believer. In the past, there was not much interaction between peoples of differing religious views, so conflicts were not so prevalent. Today, with better travel and communication, these conflicts are becoming more common and in many ways more serious. When Winston Churchill was returning to England after attending the Yalta conference during WWII, he invited Ibn Saud to lunch as he passed through Alexandria. Winston writes, “A number of social problems arose. I had been told that neither smoking nor alcoholic beverages were allowed in the Royal Presence. As I was the host at luncheon I raised the matter at once, and said to the interpreter that if it was the religion of His Majesty to deprive himself of smoking and alcohol I must point out that my rule of life prescribed as an absolutely sacred rite smoking cigars and also the drinking of alcohol before, after and if need be during all meals and the intervals between them. The King graciously accepted the position.” I tell this story to illustrate the fact that capricious or culturally-defined religious beliefs are potentially mutually exclusive and contradictory.
In view of this reality, it behooves us to see how this matter was handled by our founding fathers in terms of the Constitution. The First Amendment to the Constitution says two things about religious observance. First of all, it says that the government cannot embark on the “establishment” of a religion. Secondly, it says that the government shall not interfere in the free observance of religion. These things must be taken together in order to understand the intent of our Constitution. The first thing we should note is that the term “establishment” is not a general term, but a technical term, not used in today’s English. The Church of England was said to be the “established” church, in that it was formally sanctioned by and incorporated into the government of the land. This is the sense in which the word is used in the Constitution. The clause does not say that there is a “separation of Church and state,” as many erroneously believe, nor does it say that the U.S. Government can have nothing to do with religion. It simply means that unlike England, the U.S. will not have a church as part of the government. Secondly, the free exercise clause suggests that the government will indeed get involved in religious matters to the extent that religious observance of its citizens is being impaired.
Thus, the United States is a liberal, capitalist republic. It is liberal in that the government is limited to regulating behavior, not belief. As long as everybody in the U.S. was nominally Christian, this was easy to enforce. I’m sure it was the farthest thing from the founders’ minds that one day people would come to the country and claim that their religious law trumped U.S. Civil Code, yet this is now happening. As the world becomes more secular in many ways, people are finding themselves at a loss to explain their significance and purpose for living. One of the more popular responses to this existential angst is to look to the past to find what makes us unique. This response is particularly popular in peoples and situations where the current prospects for peace and happiness are distant. What we have now, even in the U.S., is people laying claim to places and practices based on religious interpretations that are mutually exclusive. The dispute over the proper use of places “sacred” to, or of “cultural relevance” to aboriginal Americans is an excellent example of this kind of conflict.
Claims to sacred places are as numerous as the people who make them. In Arizona, we’re told that Baboquivari Peak is the navel of the universe, and is the focus for many creation myths for the local aboriginal peoples. The Peak lies on land owned by the Tohono O’odham people, and they are gracious in letting others hike and climb the peak. All they ask is that care be taken to preserve the environment, and that nothing be done to anger I’itoi. This is perfectly reasonable, and as a result, there are no access issues with the peak. This is remarkable in that aboriginal claims often state that access to sacred sites be limited to either true believers (the Black Box in Mecca, the LDS Temple in Salt Lake City) or nobody at all (Devil’s Tower.) On the island of Hawaii some aboriginal peoples believe a beetle living on the high mountain tops is sacred, and thus telescopes and other scientific apparati are not welcome there. If I remember correctly, the claimants demand that certain precautions be taken by the University of Hawaii which maintains the site, thus requiring the use of public funds to support their particular religious belief.
So what are we to do when religious views conflict? Is there some sense in which people are entitled to regulation by fiat, simply because “we were here first.” What about the right of conquest by the sword, which states unambiguously, that “we were here last.” Is there ever going to be some objective criterion that allows us to evaluate religious claims on the basis of truth or validity, and not historical guilt? A good starting point in resolving the dilemma caused by competing religious views is to realize that just because something is religious, doesn’t mean it’s fair, or right or worthwhile. There are many religions, and they agree on very little. So the fervency of belief, the appearance of religiosity, longevity and the denial of the flesh are not sufficient grounds for saying that a religion is valid. At some point those in authority are going to have to vet them and say, here is a religion that produces behavior that is consistent with our ideals of a liberal, democratic republic. Beliefs are beyond our scope, but behavior is not. Does the recognition of these beliefs further social harmony and mutual accommodation, or does it lend itself to further compartmentalization, separation and alienation to the detriment of the larger body?
Although in our ignorance of the true content of world religions we want to give them equal weight, this cannot be done. At some point those in authority are going to have to decide that restrictive, acetic religions cannot enjoy the same civil rights as those that are more benevolent and inclusive. To grant a restrictive religion preference over one that is experiential is to go against both the establishment clause and the free exercise clause of the 1st Amendment, as it pits government power behind the peculiar restrictions of the one, at the expense of the free exercise rights of the other. It sets the Federal Government in the role of establishing a religion, for it uses its enforcement powers to impose religious observance upon all, including the unbelieving and unwilling. For example, to close the Devil’s Tower to rock climbing Christians like me is to deny me the ability to worship my Creator who made this wonderful phenomenon. By touching it, by climbing it, by being scared on it, I connect with the One who made it, gravity, and my own body in a way that cannot be duplicated by any other activity. Now do I need to do that every day of the year? No. Closures for endangered animals species are allowable if they can be PROVEN to be necessary and effective. If a temporary closure for other groups who lay claim to a place helps them worship in their own way, then fine; we should wait our turn. But severe access limitations so that others can worship from afar is indefensible philosophically, theologically, and most importantly, legally.
I therefore submit these facts to you for your reflection, in full expectation that they will be incorporated in the Long Range Interpretive Plan for the Devil’s Tower. These are not opinions, these are not feelings, these are not religious tenets. These are facts of history and logic that cannot be contravened without doing gross injustice to the rules of epistemology and common sense. I look forward to an answer to my specific contributions, as well as news about further developments as you fulfill your responsibilities as a public servant in this great country of ours. What makes this nation great is that first and foremost, we are a land of law.
