A Real Commitment
Omer C. Stewart
excerpted from Peyote Religion: A History
University of Oklahoma Press: Norman, OK ©1987
Peyotism today echoes the long-standing problem of its
opposition by the dominant population—the Spanish in Mexico and
other Americans in the United States, government officials,
Christian missionaries, educators, and U.S. senators and
representatives. Legally, peyotists today have won their fight
for religious freedom in the United States. Since 1978, with the
passage of the American Indian Religious Freedom Act (42 USC
1996, P.L./ 95-341), the practice of peyotism by American Indians
is protected by law. This act orders all federal agencies to be
aware of American Indian sacred sites, objects, plants,
materials, etc.., and to protect them from destruction, if
possible, and to make their use available to Indians. Peyotism is
one of the several American Indian religions named as needing
protection. But there is still the possibility of harassment of
peyotists under the Drug Abuse Control Act of 1965, which
includes peyote among prohibited narcotics, and many state laws
which have similar restrictions. While a test in court will clear
anyone of arrest for possession of peyote if it is shown that the
peyote is for use in a ceremony of the NAC and that the possessor
is a member of the NAC, the arrest and detainment can be
discouraging. NAC members are learning to be careful not to carry
peyote around with them, to carry identification of membership in
some NAC congregation, and to know the law. While the efforts to
enforce the Drug Control Act where it involves peyote may be an
annoyance, most Peyotists are willing to conform to the law.
An unusual case of harassment under the Drug Control Act took
place in Grand Forks, North Dakota, in October, 1984, when a
white couple, Mr. and Mrs. John D. Warner, were arrested by the
FBI for possessing peyote, a controlled drug. The two were
members of the NAC of Tokio, North Dakota, and had been for a
number of years, and Mrs. Warner was custodian of the supply of
peyote for the Tokio congregation. The FBI had learned of the
possession of peyote by the Warners from the president of the NAC
of NA, Emerson Jackson (Navajo), so it was he who brought them to
trial. Jackson said that they were not bona fide members of the
NAC because they were not Indians. He maintained that in 1982 a
motion had been passed by the NAC of NA to the effect that
membership in that organization be limited to persons with
one-quarter Indian blood, thereby excluding this white couple. A
jury trial in Grand Forks Federal Court found the defendants
innocent of breaking the law, since they were able to prove that
although they were not Indians, nevertheless they were members in
good standing of the local congregation of peyotists. The charges
were dismissed.
This case not only illustrates harassment under the Drug
Control Act, but it also brings up the legality of non-Indians as
bona fide members of the NAC. From the beginning, attendance of
non-Indians to peyote meetings has been a somewhat personal or
tribal matter. For instance, very early in Oklahoma some Caddo
refused to allow non-Indians to attend any of their meetings. But
others, such as the Kiowa and Comanche, welcomed non-Indians,
black or white, as long as they were seriously interested. With
the formation of the NAC, the same attitude has generally
prevailed, and the presence of non-Indians has been no problem.
It was in the sixties when the hippie generation became
interested in peyote and became a nuisance in the peyote gardens
of Texas, bringing about the Texas law which forbids possession
of peyote by persons not having one-quarter Indian blood and
proof of membership in the NAC, that race became an issue in
membership. Since then, if non-Indians wish to be allowed to
possess peyote, they must show that their involvement in the
peyote religion is genuine—that it is not just a recreational,
frivolous, or passing interest but a real commitment. Then, as
the case against the Warners shows, race is not an issue. Still,
it is especially important for non-Indians to carry
identification of membership in the NAC if they have occasion to
carry peyote, and even so, non-Indians possessing peyote violate
Texas law.
The ruling of the NAC of NA that only Indians should be
enrolled in the Native American Church is new and is not shared
by most peyotists. The NAC of NA does not speak for all
peyotists, much as it would like to do so. All peyotists consider
themselves members of the Native American Church, but most are
not affiliated with the NAC of NA. Each congregation makes its
own rules, just as each meeting is conducted by its own roadman.