A Bit About Us
History of the Native American Church
The Native American Church of Crow Creek Agency Chartered in 1935 to preserve a Dakota lifestyle. Preservation the Dakota Lifestyle had been forced underground, as were many religions being practiced since settlement began on Turtle Island in 1492. It was not until the American Indian Religious Freedom Act of 1994, Public Law 103-344, Peyote Use, natives were afforded the opportunity to 'legally' return to ceremonial practices, allowing restoration of our ceremonial ways to worship and connect with the Creator.
Equine Therapy
NAC of CCA encourages equine therapy and has been active in the Dakota 38+2 Wokiksuye Horse ride since its start. NAC of CCA is active with Grandmothers horse ride/ MMIWC from Santee NE to Pierre SD capital. NAC of CCA is active with White Stone Hill Horse ride. Youth rides, funeral procession horse rides. Etc…
Equine therapy is a form of therapy that incorporates horses in activities such as grooming, leading, and feeding. Many people benefit from equine therapy as the horses show unconditional support. Some of these benefits include reduced anxiety, improved communication skills, and better impulse control.
American Indian Religious Freedom Act of 1994
PUBLIC LAW 103-344—OCT. 6, 1994 108 STAT. 3125 Public Law 103-344 103d Congress An Act To amend the American Indian Religious Freedom Act to provide for the traditional use of peyote by Indians for religious purposes, and for other purposes. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. This Act may be cited as the "American Indian Religious Freedom Act Amendments of 1994". SEC. 2. TRADITIONAL INDIAN RELIGIOUS USE OF THE PEYOTE SACRAMENT. The Act of August 11, 1978 (42 U.S.C. 1996), commonly referred to as the "American Indian Religious Freedom Act", is amended by adding at the end thereof the following new section: "SEC. 3. (a) The Congress finds and declares that— "(1) for many Indian people, the traditional ceremonial use of the peyote cactus as a religious sacrament has for centuries been integral to a way of life, and significant in perpetuating Indian tribes and cultures; "(2) since 1965, this ceremonial use of peyote by Indians has been protected by Federal regulation; "(3) while at least 28 States have enacted laws which are similar to, or are in conformance with, the Federal regulation which protects the ceremonial use of peyote by Indian religious practitioners, 22 States have not done so, and this lack of uniformity has created hardship for Indian people who participate in such religious ceremonies; "(4) the Supreme Court of the United States, in the case of Employment Division v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990), held that the First Amendment does not protect Indian practitioners who use peyote in Indian religious ceremonies, and also raised uncertainty whether this religious practice would be protected under the compelling State interest standard; and "(5) the lack of adequate and clear legal protection for 108 STAT. 3126 PUBLIC LAW 103-344—OCT. 6, 1994 transportation, including, but not limited to, denial of otherwise applicable benefits under public assistance programs. "(2) This section does not prohibit such reasonable regulation and registration by the Drug Enforcement Administration of those persons who cultivate, harvest, or distribute peyote as may be consistent with the purposes of this Act. "(3) This section does not prohibit application of the provisions of section 481.111(a) of Vernon's Texas Health and Safety Code Annotated, in effect on the date of enactment of this section, insofar as those provisions pertain to the cultivation, harvest, and distribution of peyote. "(4) Nothing in this section shall prohibit any Federal department or agency, in carrying out its statutory responsibilities and functions, from promulgating regulations establishing reasonable limitations on the use or ingestion of peyote prior to or during the performance of duties by sworn law enforcement officers or personnel directly involved in public transportation or any other safety-sensitive positions where the performance of such duties may be adversely affected by such use or ingestion. Such regulations shall be adopted only after consultation with representatives of traditional Indian religions for which the sacramental use of peyote is integral to their practice. Any regulation promulgated pursuant to this section shall be subject to the balancing test set forth in section 3 of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (Public Law 103-141; 42 U.S.C. 2000bb-l). "(5) This section shall not be construed as requiring prison authorities to permit, nor shall it be construed to prohibit prison authorities from permitting, access to peyote by Indians while incarcerated within Federal or State prison facilities. "(6) Subject to the provisions of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (Public Law 103-141; 42 U.S.C. 2000bb-l), this section shall not be construed to prohibit States from enacting or enforcing reasonable traffic safety laws or regulations. "(7) Subject to the provisions of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (Public Law 103-141; 42 U.S.C. 2000bb-l), this section does not prohibit the Secretary of Defense from promulgating regulations establishing reasonable limitations on the use, possession, transportation, or distribution of peyote to promote military readiness, safety, or compliance with international law or laws of other countries. Such regulations shall be adopted only after consultation with representatives of traditional Indian religions for which the sacramental use of peyote is integral to their practice. "(c) For purposes of this section— "(1) the term 'Indian' means a member of an Indian tribe; "(2) the term 'Indian tribe' means any tribe, band, nation, pueblo, or other organized group or community of Indians, including any Alaska Native village (as defined in, or established pursuant to, the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (43 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.)), which is recognized as eligible for the special programs and services provided by the United States to Indians because of their status as Indians; "(3) the term 'Indian religion' means any religion— "(A) which is practiced by Indians, and "(B) the origin and interpretation of which is from within a traditional Indian culture or community; and "(4) the term 'State' means any State of the United States, and any political subdivision thereof. PUBLIC LAW 103-344—OCT. 6, 1994 ^ 108 STAT. 3127 "(d) Nothing in this section shall be construed as abrogating, diminishing, or otherwise affecting— "(1) the inherent rights of any Indian tribe; "(2) the rights, express or implicit, of any Indi£in tribe which exist under treaties, Executive orders, and laws of the United States; "(3) the inherent right of Indians to practice their religions; and "(4) the right of Indians to practice their religions under any Federal or State law.". Approved October 6, 1994.and significant in perpetuating Indian tribes and cultures;
Boyll Decision
The Native American Church of Crow Creek Agency recognizes this medicine is not only helpful to tribal communities, but to anyone and everyone who believes in the Creator, Educating on the Truth, Cultural Preservation and aspiring to attain a drug and alcohol free lifestyle by use of prayer and family. This is emulated through the Boyll Decision.
​
These are excerpts from Judge Burciga's decision in 1991...
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Plaintiff v. Criminal No. 90-207-JB ROBERT LAWRENCE BOYLL Defendant
Judge Burciaga presiding:
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER - THERE is a genius to our Constitution. Its genius is that it speaks to the freedoms of the individual. It is this genius that brings the present matter before the Court. More specifically, this matter concerns a freedom that was a natural idea whose genesis was in the Plymouth Charter, and finds its present form in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution -- the freedom of religion. ---------------------
The Government's "war on drugs" has become a wildfire that threatens to consume those fundamental rights of the individual deliberately enshrined in our Constitution. Ironically, as we celebrate the 2OOth anniversary of the Bill of Rights, the tattered Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures and the now frail Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination or deprivation of liberty without due process have fallen as casualties in this "war on drugs." It was naive of this Court to hope that this erosion of constitutional protections would stop at the Fourth and Fifth Amendments. But today, the "war" targets one of the most deeply held fundamental rights -- the First Amendment right to freely exercise one's religion. -------------
In its "war" to free our society of the devastating effects of drugs, the Government slights its duty to observe the fundamental freedom of individuals to practice the religion of their choice, regardless of race. Simply put, the Court is faced with the quintessential constitutional conflict between an inalienable right upon which this country was founded and the response by the Government to the swelling political passions of the day. In this fray, the Court is compelled to halt this menacing attack on our constitutional freedoms. On May 10, 1990, the Federal Grand Jury indicted Robert Lawrence Boyll, a non-Native American, for unlawfully importing peyote through the United States mail and possessing peyote with the intent to distribute it, in violation of 21 U.S.C. 952(a), 960(b)(3), 843(b) & (c), & 841(a)(1) (1981). The three-count indictment arose out of Mr. Boyll mailing himself a quantity of peyote from Mexico to his home in San Cristobal, New Mexico. In his motions to dismiss, Mr. Boyll argues that the indictment violates his First Amendment right to freely exercise his religion. Mr. Boyll also claims that, pursuant to 21 C.F.R. 1307.31 (1990), the listing of peyote as a controlled substance does not apply to him because he is a member of the Native American Church and he imported and possessed peyote for use in bona fide religious ceremonies of the Native American Church. ---------------------
"Church" refers to a body of believers and their shared practices, rather than the existence of a formal structure or a membership roll. Membership in the Native American Church derives from the sincerity of one's beliefs and participation in its ceremonies. Historically, the church has been hospitable to and, in fact, has proselytized non-Indians. The vast majority of Native American Church congregations, like most conventional congregations, maintains an "open door" policy and does not exclude persons on the basis of their race. Racial restrictions to membership have never been a general part of Peyote Religion or of the Native American Church. See Peyote Religion at 333-34; State v. Whittingham, 504 P.2d 950, 951 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1973) (membership to non-Indians is usually not refused), review denied, 517 P.2d 1275, cert. denied, 417 U.S. 946 (1974). Although one branch of the Native American Church, the Native American Church of North America, is known to restrict membership to Native Americans, most other branches of the Native American Church do not. As a result, non-Indian members are accepted within the Native American Church. -------------------------------
It is one thing for a local branch of the Native American Church to adopt its own restrictions on membership, but it is entirely another for the Government to restrict membership in a religious organization on the basis of race. Any such attempt to restrict religious liberties along racial lines would not only be a contemptuous affront to the First Amendment guarantee of freedom of religion but also to the Fourteenth Amendment right to equal justice under the law. ----------------------------
For the reasons set out in this Memorandum Opinion and Order, the Court holds that, pursuant to 21 C.F.R. 1307.31 (1990), the classification of peyote as a Schedule I controlled substance, see 21 U.S.C. 812(c), Schedule I (c)(12), does not apply to the importation, possession or use of peyote for bona fide ceremonial use by members of the Native American Church, regardless of race. Wherefore, IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that Defendant Robert Boyll's motions to dismiss the indictment be and hereby are GRANTED. DATED at Albuquerque the day of September, 1991.
Tribal Resolution
This is your Service description. Use this space to describe what the service entails, benefits for users and any other important information. Have a lot to say? Easily turn any item into a full page by clicking ‘Create a page from this item’ in the edit panel.