|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
|
|
![]() ![]() |
|
|
LESSON
PLAN 2
|
|
|
OVERVIEW |
|
|
OBJECTIVES |
|
|
STANDARDS 2. American History, National
Center for History in the Schools. 3. Geography
9-12, |
|
|
MATERIALS
NEEDED |
|
|
PROCEDURE
The first part, known as the Establishment Clause, guarantees the separation of church and state. The second, or the Free Exercise Clause, guarantees that individuals can practice their chosen religion. Tell students that we often think of these first two clauses from the First Amendment as working together to protect the religious freedom of all Americans. (For an excellent lesson on the separation of church and state go to the Bill of Rights in Action.) Ask students to brainstorm famous cases or issues in American history that have arisen or continue to arise under the Establishment Clause, such as school prayer. Make a list of these on the board. Under a separate heading focus on the second clause, "Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise thereof [of religion]." Again, ask for any examples students may be familiar with. For example, students do not need to salute the American flag if doing so violates their religious practices. Now tell students that they are going to investigate a controversial issue today in which a group of American citizens believe they are being denied their right to religious freedom, despite the protection under the First Amendment. In fact, they believe they are unable to preserve their religion in part because of the First Amendment. Ask students what kind of situation could lead to such an impass? Let them ponder this ironic twist before explaining the current issue investigated in the first segment of IN THE LIGHT OF REVERENCE. Then explain the riddle: A site held sacred by the Lakota Indians is owned by the Federal Government. Because it is on Federal land, the U.S. Government cannot endorse its exclusive use for a particular religion. Are the Lakota (Sioux) then being denied their right to practice their religion? Like all "rights in conflict" issues, this one only becomes more complicated on closer inspection. Various other interest groups also claim they have rights of access to Bear's Lodge (Mato Tipila), also called Devils Rock. Tell students that after viewing the first segment of IN THE LIGHT OF REVERENCE (approx. 24 minutes) they are going to play the roles of three groups in conflict with one another over this issue, and the court who help negotiate and/or decide the issue. You can print out the background information below as a guide to help students follow the issues in the video. Team I will take the position of the Lakota Indians. They feel that U.S. judges fail to understand their religious beliefs and practices and thus do not grant them the same status as a "real" religion. Standing Bear is on Federal land that is now administered by the National Parks Service, under the jurisdiction of the Department of the Interior. It was never ceded to the U.S. government by the Sioux; rather it was taken from the Sioux after the U.S. Government broke a treaty with them in 1874. Team II will take the position of the rock climbers. Climber Andy Petefish sought the help of the Mountain States Legal Foundation, to sue the National Parks Service. The National Park Service had asked rock climbers not to climb Devils Tower during the entire month of June, in deference to the religious practices of the Lakota. The climbers feel their rights as U.S. citizens are in and are in danger of being abrogated if Federal land is "voluntarily" off limits to U.S. citizens. Furthermore they feel the request to limit climbing for religious purposes sets a dangerous precedent, which threatens the separation of church and state. Team III will take the position of the National Park Service. In its administration of Federal land it has tried to reach a compromise between the Sioux and the rock climbers in accordance with its mission and Federal law. Team IV will take the position of the Federal courts
that will first try to seek a compromise between the parties in conflict.
If any issues remain unresolved among the parties, this team will act
as a supreme court and by majority vote, decide how to resolve the issues
in conflict. (This team should be composed of an odd number of students
so as to avoid a tie.) WORKSHEET 1
Before splitting up into teams, hold a class discussion in which students share their observations on the conflicting interests of the various groups. Pose the following questions:
Phase 1. Meet, assign roles, and discuss the video and issues it raises from the team's point of view. Phase 2. Research. (See list of relevant Web sites below.) Phase 3. Plan a presentation in which the team sets forth its most important priorities and demands. In this initial phase the team should not think of compromising with any other groups. It should present in the clearest and most forceful terms possible what it wants most. (Their positions may or may not correlate to ones presented in the video segment.) Speaker A must present a 3 minute position statement setting forth its team's most important priorities and demands. Speaker B must present a 2 minute position statement. Speaker C must present a 2 minute position statement. Give each team time to meet and prepare its strategy. Assign students the roles below (or ask them to), after which they should research the issues and meet to discuss team strategy. Team roles: Team I should consist of one or more persons assigned to the following tasks: A. Lakota Tribal historian(s).The historian's role is to be able to recount Sioux history, from the Sioux point of view, from 1850 to 1890, and to convey their religious practices. It may be useful to replay the video segment in order to hear again relevant tribal myths. B. Constitutional scholar(s) and First Amendment rights specialist(s) who will interpret the laws in light of Lakota history and religion. C. Environmentalist(s) who will give the Lakota view of how to care for the environment and what it entails. D. Student who will make a strong visual statement in a poster of its team's position. Team II should consist of one or more persons assigned to the following tasks: A. Member(s) of the rock climbing advocates such as Friends of Devils Tower, and the Access Fund. (Some of these groups disagree with one another over the best strategies to pursue.) B. Constitutional scholar(s) and First Amendment rights specialist(s) who will interpret the laws from the point of view of citizens who want access to Devils Tower at all times, as do the Mountain States Legal Foundation. C. Environmentalist(s) who will present the point of view of the rock climbers in terms of environmental issues. E. Student who will make a strong visual statement on a poster of its team's position. Team III should consist of one or more persons assigned to the following tasks: A. Spokesperson(s) for the National Park Service, its mission, and history. B. Constitutional scholar(s) and First Amendment rights specialist(s) who will interpret the laws from the point of view of the N.P.S. and the Department of Interior under which it works. C. Environmentalist(s) who will present the N.P.S. point of view regarding rock climbing and religious rites in terms of their impact on Federal lands. D. Student who will make a strong visual statement a poster of its team's position. Team IV should consist of one or more persons assigned to the following tasks: A. Student(s) assigned to research the Lakota viewpoint and pose questions about it. B. Student(s) assigned to research the mountain climber's viewpoint and pose questions about it. C. Student(s) assigned to research the National Park
Service's perspective and pose questions about it.D.
Constitutional scholar(s) who will review other Supreme Court cases in
light of this controversy.
Mountain States Legal Foundation For its mission statement and "Who We Are" go to http://www.nps.gov/legacy/index.htm National Park Service: National Park Service Devils Tower National Monument
The Access
Fund American Civil
Liberties Union Sites maintained at Hamline University School of
Law: Bear's
Lodge Multiple Use Association V. Babbitt ROUND TWO 4. Rejected the entire plan ROUND THREE 4. Rejected the entire plan ROUND FOUR 4. If the alternative plan is rejected by any one
of the three teams, the Court must meet and make a final judgment as to
what should happen on its own. It must justify its position with reference
to the demands of all groups, the Constitution, environmental law, and
the best interests of the American people.
|
|
|
ASSESSMENT
SUGGESTIONS Students can be assessed for how they worked in their "cooperative learning" teams. Ask each member to assess his or her own performance using a rubric such as the following:
|
| |
EXTENSIONS/ADAPTATIONS
|
| |
CREDITS
This lesson plan was written by Joan Brodsky Schur. Ms. Brodsky Schur teaches social studies and English at the Village Community School in New York City. She has written many articles over the years for Social Education. Joan and fellow-colleague Sari Grossman are co-authors of In A New Land: An Anthology of Immigrant Literature. Joan is also a contributing author to the Constitution Community, a website of the National Archives. |
|
|
P.O.V.
Home
The Film
The Filmmaker
Talking Back
Resources
Inspired By...
Sacred Places In The Classroom Buy the Video Air Dates Press Room |