"Had I the money and position, for example, I could build a church wherever I wanted. It would, however, be inappropriate to do so across from the entrance to Bear Butte - solely because of the significance that sacred ground holds for Native Americans.

But my church will be a place of reconciliation between traditional Native Americans and those of Christian belief. Maybe. But it would still be inappropriate, considering the long history of the negative impacts of Christianity on this country's First People.

It would be better to place my church a few miles down the road and offer cultural understanding encounter groups where I could let Native Americans know that my church wasn't like those that had abused their people and their culture. I could still get my message across that "I'm not like them" or "they were only a small percentage of our churches," while respecting an area that's culturally significant to Native Americans.

The same holds true at Ground Zero in New York City, where controversy has erupted over a proposed mosque in a building near the former World Trade Center site; a building that was, in fact, damaged by debris from the twin towers collapse.

A spokesman for the mosque criticized opponents' efforts to preserve the building by having it recognized as an historic landmark. Sharif El-Gamal, owner of the property, sees no need to designate the building an historic landmark because "it's not the Woolworth building or the Chrysler building.""

Get the Story:
JIM KENT: Balancing rights, responsibility (The Rapid City Journal 8/19)