Visions of America
Protecting Sacred Tribal Lands
People do not live on bread—nor on sand or gravel—alone, but on every spiritual principle inspired by these sacred tribal lands. We should do for indigenous peoples what I would want people to do for me: stand with me to protect what I believe is sacred.
Here is my testimony supporting the protection of sacred tribal lands from the creation of a quarry for sand and gravel in sacred tribal lands a bit south of San Jose:
My name is Tim Harner. I’m appearing in my individual capacity with regard to the draft Environmental Impact Review (EIR).
I am a member of the Racial Justice Commission at Almaden Hills United Methodist Church. We have not yet met to formally adopt our position. However, I believe my views are similar to those that our Racial Justice Commission will adopt and submit in writing.
In short, it is impossible to mitigate the damage to the sacred tribal lands caused by this Proposal because the Proposal totally desecrates the sacred tribal lands and the Proposal totally destroys the sacred tribal lands. Therefore, the inability of the EIR to identify feasible ways to mitigate damage to the sacred tribal lands should eventually lead to the Project being totally denied.
To paraphrase the Bible, at least two spiritual principles provide guidance.
First, people do not live on bread—nor on sand or gravel—alone, but on every spiritual principle inspired by these sacred tribal lands.
Second, we should do for others what we would like them to do for us. And I would certainly hope that, if my sacred lands were threatened by desecration and destruction, others would stand with me to protect what I believe is sacred.
Thank you for permitting me to express my opinions.
READ MORE
For related thoughts, please read my blogs “Racism Is America Gone Astray”, “Jesus Climbs the Temple Mount”, and “How Do We Build a Civilization That Is Good—That Is Very Good?”.
The hearing about the draft Environmental Impact Review was held on August 25, 2022 by the Santa Clara Planning Commission.
Each person’s testimony was limited to one minute because so many people wanted to speak against the proposal. Therefore, I ran out of time and had to edit my last few sentences extemporaneously.