Chapter Eight; HUMANIST POINT OF VIEW part thirty

But as I have said before, since non-adherents do not have a dogma we really have no need to meet together or organize. But I have a feeling that will change as we fight through the courts to return our nation to the secular nation that it was founded as. People seem to be tiring of the rules and control of dogma and want to be good peaceful people living with one another. Helping out where we can and staying out of the way when we should. In the past few years many voices of the non-believing nation have began to speak up. Many of these have found a new audience in the Internet and podcasts. But also more gatherings are being organized around the country.
While most Christian Americans have no problem with having beer and liquor sales regulated according to the wishes of the dominate fundamental Christian view, they would be, rightly so, up in arms if the laws of Islam (shirea) were to be introduced as laws in America. Today, Muslim cab drivers in New York City are fighting for the right not to carry a person that has been drinking or carrying unopened alcohol with them. This goes in the face of the “drink responsible” programs that have been promoted across this nation for years.
In Sweden recently, young women are brutally beaten and forcible raped by sick cruel Muslim men that think that just because a women on planet earth doesn't dress the way they think she should she has no rights and is fair game to be sexually assaulted. This issue has gone as far in Sweden at to be called a Muslim rape wave.

From the Assyrian International News Agency dated December 15, 2005:

“In Oslo, Norway, immigrants were involved in two out of three rape charges in 2001. The numbers in Denmark were the same, and even higher in the city of Copenhagen with three out of four rape charges. Sweden has a larger immigrant, including Muslim, population than any other country in northern Europe. The numbers there are likely to be at least as bad as with its Scandinavian neighbors. The actual number is thus probably even higher than what the authorities are reporting now, as it doesn't include second generation immigrants. Lawyer Ann Christine Hjelm, who has investigated violent crimes in Svea High Court, found that 85 per cent of the convicted rapists were born on foreign soil or by foreign parents.”

The story goes on to relay how the Muslim men feel about how the woman are treated:

“Some Muslim immigrants admit their bias quite openly. An Islamic Mufti in Copenhagen sparked a political outcry after publicly declaring that women who refuse to wear headscarves are "asking for rape." Apparently, he's not the only one thinking this way. "It is not as wrong raping a Swedish girl as raping an Arab girl," says Hamid. "The Swedish girl gets a lot of help afterwards, and she had probably fucked before, anyway. But the Arab girl will get problems with her family. For her, being raped is a source of shame. It is important that she retains her virginity until she marries."

When I read something like this, it actually makes me want to return kind for kind retaliation upon these so called men. If these Muslims, living inside these countries, do not wish to see woman dress as she wishes, then they should move to a country that shares their views. Otherwise they should be subjected to the same brutal treatment that has happened to these women. I would have little problem with fathers, mothers, sisters, brother, friends and the victims themselves, inflicting a penalty on these Muslim men that have no respect for women.
While the rape wave issue is religiously based, in the town I live in Oklahoma I was told that on the local public transportation a person cannot be taken to or from a bar or transport a person that has been shopping and has any alcohol with them. This seems to me to be a way to encourage a person to act irresponsibly concerning drinking. After all why should the state have any issue with a person acting responsible? These are state laws and can affect the funding of the local transportation service if they are violated. This is a odd reflection in Oklahoma of what the Muslin New York City cab drivers were asking for. Maybe they should move to Oklahoma. In the past few months I have seen every sort of an attempt to create the State of Oklahoma in to an actual theocracy. Sally Kern is a Representative here and has proposed a Proclamation for Morality. it claims among other things,
“WHEREAS, this nation has become a world leader in promoting abortion, pornography, same sex marriage, sex trafficking, divorce, illegitimate births, child abuse, and many other forms of debauchery”
Kern seems to think that same sex marriage is the same as child abuse and sex trafficking and who the hell knows what is debauchery to her. As far as illegitimate births, Kern needs to endorse the teaching of sex education that actually prevents girls from getting pregnant and not the failed pipe dream of “just say no to your natural desires”.
In the past few years, stone tablets of the 10 commandments have been placed on county courthouse grounds in Haskell County, Oklahoma. An attempt was made to prohibit Professor Richard Dawkins from speaking as a guest of the University of Oklahoma to an audience. There was passed a law and signed by the Governor that is authorized to place a monument to the 10 commandments on the Statehouse grounds. Then again Representative Sally Kern wants to pass a Proclamation of Morality which also states in part:
“NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that we the undersigned elected officials of the people of Oklahoma, religious leaders and citizens of the State of Oklahoma, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world, solemnly declare that the HOPE of the great State of Oklahoma and of these United States, rests upon the Principles of Religion and Morality as put forth in the HOLY BIBLE

It is amazing to me that the religious adherents are either so unable or unwilling to control their own nature and behavior according to their self imposed rules of dogma and religion that they feel compelled to pressure lawmakers into passing legislation that reflect their personal dogma. It seems the way these pious and religious people are able to control their own actions is to also control the actions and desires of people who could careless about their beliefs. However, if an other religious group was to force their views on them they would be the first to cry for freedom from religion instead of integrating more of them.
The Native American tribes in many parts of the country have the ability to establish casinos on land that is owned by the tribe. So by default that basically makes gambling legal in Oklahoma as well as many other states where the state itself doesn't allow gambling. I have been to casinos several times. My first time to go to a legal casino in the United States was in 1994 in Las Vegas. I was doing well at blackjack. I won some money the first part of the night and then lost all I won plus the $80 I came to play with. I did know I needed to get back to Kansas and that I needed the money to be able to make the trip so I put that aside plus money need for food and hotels. I was trying to be responsible for my actions. After going up so big that first night them losing it all plus even more I had decided that I am not very good at gambling. So I basically gave it up. [lesson learned Las Vegas, thanks]
I have known people that go almost every week to casinos and will win thousands of dollars and then lose the same amount the following week. I guess if they can afford the fluctuation in their funds that is fine. I cannot, so I prefer not to risk it. But I am still a supporter of casinos.
Because of this I have decided for my own behavior that this activity is not for me. No lawmaker had to regulate my behavior, not dogma had to convert me to its system of belief. Simple experience shows me that gambling is something that I cannot win and will only come up on the short side. I do still indulge on the occasional lottery ticket. [I haven't won yet.]
Because of this, I don't see any reason to have laws that restrict how you can perform otherwise legal activities. It is one thing to have a law in place for drinking and driving. It is quite a whole other thing to have taken the right away from an adult to choose for themselves how to regulate their behavior. I am all for enforcement of laws that keep people that are under the influence of medications and legal substances from driving. [I wonder how many of these local prohibitions on drinking would be in place if the only way they could pass were for the churches to be shut done in the same municipality or counties?]
If a person doesn't want to have liquor, don't drink, if I person doesn't like abortion, don't have one, if a person doesn't like to smoke, then don't. If a person doesn't want caffeine, please have a root beer. I certainly recognize that some people have addictions to such activities and need help but that is a different situation than letting otherwise reasonable and able people from acting in a manor that suits their desires. The religious right some times fail to recall that our nations independence was sought with the idea of rights of liberty, life and the pursuit of happiness. As Benjamin Franklin said in Poor Richard's Almanack, (sic) “The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason.” These ideas are driven by the individual not the collective body of America.
When it comes to religious laws in America some of the biggest ones that are de fato in place are the closing of public buildings and businesses on Sunday morning or all day and alcohol and smoking laws. There is not regular mail delivery on Sunday. The reason implied or driven by ordinances for business being close serves the purpose of making sure people have the ability to attend church without being encumbered with it affecting their income.
In many places in America one cannot buy a car on Sunday. I fail to see any religious based logic in that. Certainly there cannot be a reason to have a law to prohibit such “evil” activities.
Having lived and traveled in many states I find the inconsistencies with liquor laws to be quite fascinating and nearly incomprehensibly. These attempts by a moral majority to police a persons behavior are truly the result of an attempt to force religious morality upon a group of people that do not hold their view. The idea that a person is not free to decide for themselves is an insult to an adult. I could write a great deal about the different laws themselves but I will touch on a few of the more bizarre ones.
Keep in mind, any of these business that do these things based upon their personal choice is great. I am talking about either direct governmental or social pressure that are laws of the community.
On alcohol, In Oklahoma you cannot by any wine or liquor at any store on a Sunday. No bar can serve any liquor on a Sunday. No beer greater than 3.2% abw can be sold cold. In Texas, North Carolina and New Mexico a person by themselves cannot purchase a pitcher of beer in a bar. However a person can purchase several beers at one time, in some states. The issue with this morality by legislation has got to be one of the most futile attempts to try to regulate the behavior of citizens. These are all related to the desire to have a moral code forced upon people that may have no desire of belief in that said code.
To better explain this situation would be to turn the tables on those that wish to push their morality on the general population. So here are some fantastical laws governing religion.
• Must be at least 18 or older to attend a church.
• Church only on Sundays.
• No display of public religiosity.
• No open Bibles or religious books in public places.
• Other than in a church or your home, religion cannot be practiced anywhere else.
• You can only attend church at state approved churches.
• It is illegal to preach to or let children under 18 read the Bible or other religious material.
• Any person praying in public will be held at least 8 hours in a non-praying cell.
• Multiple violations will result in loss of your driver's license.
• Pastors on duty must cut a person off from religion if they have had too much.
• Preaching and driving strictly forbidden.

On views concerning liquor and tobacco I tend toward a Libertarian view, this would include the decriminalization of marijuana. I find letting out these person that have had only convictions related to the laws concerning marijuana possession and such to be a good way to ease up the high cost of housing non-violent offenders and have their record expunged of the offensive.
June of 2009 The State of California proposed to legalize marijuana to help ease the budget crisis that they are in. The measure would come up for a vote in 2010. The taxing of cannabis would produce millions of dollars for the state while taking dollars for law enforcement from arresting otherwise law-abiding citizens and putting them in place for more effective uses. California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger Said that he would welcome debate on the issue but has as of yet to cross the line to promote the wholesale legalization of the naturally fast growing plant. It is predicted that the legal sale and use of marijuana in the State of California could produce up to 1.3 billion dollars of additional revenue for the state budget.
Of course this set the religious right on edge. But even among the more conservative states the frustration of dealing with the overrun of dealing with the cost of enforcing the marijuana laws. The status quo of the religious fundamentalist is falling into the minority of this view and if the voice of the people is to be heard, then the complete legalization of marijuana is just a matter of time. Oddly enough, the people that have or had used marijuana in the past sound quite reasonable when talking about the issue and the ones that are opposed to the legalization of pot are the ones that seem “high” when you hear what they say.
I am thankful to President Barack Obama for deciding not to prosecute persons that are in line with state laws concerning medical marijuana use. It will be even better when the Federal Government decides not to pursue this issue whatsoever. While I disagree with motorcycle helmet laws and seat buckle laws I would be hard pressed to show a connect for these libertarian issue to be related to religion.
It is still odd that the pace of legalization is taking such a long time. It would be hard to imagine how different the country would be if Prohibition was still in place after 72 years, Ending in 1991 instead of 1933.
I recently read a comment on a forum about the legalization of marijuana. The poster wrote a comment to the effect as this, “Do you think the drug dealers are going to just turn over their plants and become law abiding citizens? Of course not.”
This person is in need of a history lesson. When President Franklin D. Roosevelt passed the law to allow beer to be produced it wasn't the illegal companies that benefited but the legal ones. But it did stop the resources of law enforcement from having to deal with all the massive law enforcement efforts to prohibit the use of alcohol. Those that were the gangsters went into other forms of crime to deal in, such as marijuana and cocaine. The legitimate businesses were the ones that benefited from the repeal and the government got the much needed tax revenue of the legal products and a break on the overwhelming pressure that law enforcement was dealing with to keep alcohol out of the country.


Coming Next Time;

SPORTS AND RELIGION part thirty-one

Chapter Seven; DOES ALLAH REALLY CARE? REALLY? part twenty-seven

I must add here the crimes of Muslim men that are being committed against innocent women just because the men think everyone should think the way they do. Though Muslim men make up a small part of most communities in Europe they make up a large part of the men convicted of rape and sexual assault. The men do not feel guilt since they blame the non-Muslim for not dressing properly. In many of their home countries it would be the woman that is punished for wearing the wrong clothing instead of the men for the brutal attack on these innocent woman. You can goddamn guarantee that these sick pigs will come to our country and try to use their religion as a justification for their lack of humanity. To me, this is just a result of a religion that encourages sexual repression. If proper sexual education is not presented in the society, what sort of behavior can you expect except inhuman actions?

There was a Muslim woman that was recently in court in Michigan and she was told that she had to remove her “naqib” head covering. The woman asserted that she didn't want to take off her head covering since she was Muslim. The woman said she would in front of a female judge but not for him. The option the Judge gave her was to remove her covering or the case would be dismissed. She decided to have the case dismissed. Oddly enough, if the judge knew more of the religion he might have been able to appeal to her through The Qu'ran that she doesn't need to cover her head just all her body but head hands and feet. It will be interesting how the devout of the Christians will react to this women trying to push her Muslim religious view into the secular stage of the government. It may begin as innocuous as a woman's head covering but the trend could be one that is being dealt with in the United Kingdom now with their growing Muslim population. The only reasonable response is to demand the United States to remain and embrace its secular past and protect the rights of all Americans, not just the ones in the majority. If there is no national god then there will not be a religious preference for head scarfs, food options, days of work, what we say and so forth.

The truth of the matter is that geography is the biggest influence to what a person will believe more than any actual personal choice. A person born and raised in India would be most likely to believe in the Hindu or Buddhist beliefs. A person born in Saudi Arabia would most likely be Islamic. A person born in Israel would most likely be Jewish. And a person born in the United States would most likely be a Christian of some sort. So the idea that a person selects their religion is really a false idea. It is more accurate that religion is forced upon a person by the society that they live in. While in the United States and other countries with the “freedom of religion” the idea is that a person can select what particular house of worship they go to but it is still the prevailing religion that will guide the choices. It is a matter of society wanting it's members to conform. Uniformity is easier to deal with than diversity. But the United States is a pluralistic society. Our other national motto is e pluribus unium, out of many, one. This, of course has since been replaced with “In God We Trust.” [All others pay cash].

I have thought that the devout should be against this slogan on our currency when one considers that all of the “immoral” activities that they are normally against are paid for with a bill with “In God We Trust” on it. Every time a bill has been used to snort cocaine, or roll a marijuana joint, pay for an abortion, pay for sex, go toward the ACLU, or any other activity that a Christian would be against on religious grounds, that phrase is there being used in those activities, not to mention the legal activities such as buying alcohol, adult books, tobacco, supporting atheist groups and activities and so on. I would have to conclude that the supporters of having that phrase on our currency have no problem with the name of God being taken in vain in all these sorts of activities. I have talked to Christian adherents that feel that having that slogan on the money is a desecration and is blasphemous also. Not to mention a violation of Second Commandment or Third Commandment. Depending on whose numbering system is used.

If putting the name of God on our currency isn't a frivolous and vain violation of a Commandment I am not sure how one could take the name of God more in vain then. The presence of the slogan was ruled “none religious” by the courts so the Government admits it is nothing but a vain use of the name of God. The believers should be standing side by side with the atheist and also those that want to keep their God holy, to take this phrase off the currency and coins. The same vain use of the name of God would apply in the case of The Pledge of Allegiance of The United States.

But to get back to my point, it is geography, not choice, as one of the most compelling influences of what a person will believe. Family history would be the most influential. One check of various nations around the world in the CIA World Fact Book database on line shows one of the most important statistics listed is what a nation's religion is. Nations that are more homogeneous religiously that share a boarder the more peaceful they are likely to be.

One can see the total breakdown of a society with the collapse of the Former Yugoslavian republic in the 1990s. A nation of one became the nations Slovenia, Macedonia, Croatia, Serbia, Montenegro, Bosnia and Herzegovina and Kosovo, with fighting breaking out among the former countrymen because they had different religions and backgrounds.

So as religion adherents continued to grow so did the power of their god or gods. If the people in the next country didn't believe the same as your country there was an increase chance for conflict. Then with the technology and power of the time in the hands of the mighty and ruling class, conflict and war would soon be enviable, The strong win, their god takes over and soon other stories of the defeated people are lost to time, rewritten or absorbed and only the victorious gods remain with followers.

After all, they would have to be true since they are the stronger ones. The power of the gods have been shown to be on their side. Their god or gods must be the right ones. So have thought the Babylonians, Vikings, Druids, Mayan, Greeks, Romans, Egyptians, Macedonians, Incas, Wiccans, Easter Islanders, and tribal religions pole to pole. There are countless unknown religions that have come and gone over the millenniums and so more will come and go as well.

The one thing that is true about all of them is that the adherents believed that their god or gods were the right ones and one by one they have been proved by nature or forced by other religions that they are just another fairy story. Did they have good ideas? Some for sure, many of these were passed down from one to another religion. Many of the ancient Mid-Eastern and Mediterranean religions are integrated into Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. Honestly few if any modern religions are independent of influence of ones that existed before them. I have heard that Jainism is one of the oldest religions and is rather benign in comparison to other religions.

Coming next time:

SUNDAY GO TO MEETING part twenty-eight

Chapter Six; HOW THE 10 COMMANDMENTS CAME TO OKLAHOMA part twenty three

On May 18, 2009 Oklahoma Governor Brad Henry signed HB 1330 which allows for the state to put on a privately funded monument of the 10 Commandments on the statehouse grounds. This bill was passed overwhelming by both houses of the Oklahoma statehouse. In the Senate there were twenty state senators that sponsored the bill and in the house ten sponsors were found.
On May 28, 2009 after Gov. Henry signed the bill into law. Jim Huff with Americans United for the separation of church and state-Oklahoma spoke at a meeting in my town of Ponca City, Oklahoma. The meeting was organized by the Kay County Democrats and held at a local church. About 50 or so people attended the lecture and Mr. Huff helped to explain what this means for Oklahoma and what some of the repercussion might be.
Huff went through several steps of the history of religious freedom and the Constitution of the United States and the Oklahoma State Constitution. He made a point of highlighting the pertinent facts pertaining to the issue of the separation of religion from the secular government.
First he referred to to Article six of the Constitution where no religious test would be required for any public office or trust. This is the only part in the actual Constitution that mentions anything about religion and it is clearly a prohibition of using religion for a standard to hold public office.
Then second he went over Article I of the Bill of Rights about not establishing a religion or prohibiting the free exercise of. He went on to explain this is the area that SCOTUS had found in 1947 by Justice Hugo Black about the establishment clause. Wrapping up with the US Constitution was Amendment XIV, which basically places state laws subservient to Federal law.
Finally in the Oklahoma Constitution section 11-5, “No public money or property shall ever be appropriated, applied, donated, or used, directly or indirectly, for the use, benefit, or support of any sect, church, denomination, or system of religion, or for the use benefit, or support of any priest, preacher, minister, or other religious teacher or dignitary, or sectarian institution as such.”
This part of the Oklahoma Constitution in itself should be clear enough to have the Oklahoma state legislators fail to take actions on this bill. They had acted in direct violation of the Constitution they had took and oath to support and defend.
As the federal law in this district of the Federal Courts there is a case that has been awaiting a ruling with a similar monument on Haskell County courthouse grounds in Stigler, Oklahoma. This case has been heard by the Federal Court of Appeals in Denver, Colorado and the ruling was made June 8, 2009.
Both the Haskell County 10 Commandments and the 10 Commandments at the Oklahoma Statehouse are paid for by private donations.
As of June 8, 2009 the United States District 10 Court of Appeals ruled that the Haskell County 10 Commandments which is part of a historical display, "has the primary effect of endorsing religion" when taken in context with the small community of Stigler, Okla. They ruled the display unconstitutional.
According to the Norman Transcript; "Whoever was the judge in this, I feel sorry for him on Judgment Day," said Haskell County Commissioner Mitch Worsham, who represents the county where the courthouse and monument is located. "We're not going to take it down."
The three judge federal court decided unanimously that the way the display was erected, supported and dedicated all indicated that the monument was design to promote Christianity. One county commissioner said at the time of the dedication, "That's what we're trying to live by, that right there. The good Lord died for me."
This decision moves the case back “to Muskogee, Okla.-based U.S. District Judge Ronald A. White so he can issue a new ruling consistent with the District 10 ruling. In August 2006, White rejected arguments that the monument promotes Christianity at the expense of other religions.”
Several times people at the meeting with Huff it was asked what is wrong with the 10 Commandments? I guess they meant what is wrong about having them on the statehouse ground? At least that is how those of us that responded to a women's questions took them to mean.
The comment I made on a forum about the June 8, 2009 ruling on the 10 Commandments can answer that question as well as anything for me, “What purpose does such an idea as, " No other Gods but me" have in a pluralistic society? What is the purpose of "Make no Graven Images"? Who will be the moderator to determine when a mother of father is or is not "honored"? What will happen to our system of economy is no one desire the things that they do not already possess? What would be the penalty of violation of these commandments? There is nothing good or worthwhile to consider in the 10 Commandments. It is not as if prior to them being made into a compilation that the idea had not existed before in human society.
On these same forum there are those that try to defend the ideas and concepts of the 10 Commandment and inadvertently they will reply with answer such as, “do not lie, do not kill, do not steal. Yeah, what good are those commandments.
To this I have several points to make. The first being that no one argues the value of respecting personal space and property and honestly is indeed a virtue that one should encourage. Second, the most common examples supporters of the 10 Commandments cite are not the first four but the ones that deal with human to human interaction. Additionally, as far as the human to human commandments, there is not need to extol these values as some religious expression. Society doesn't function if murder, stealing, infidelity, disrespect and lying are rampant. There are plenty of examples in the animal kingdom that show these virtues as being helpful without the presence of any divine in their mists. Concerning the last two or one commandments, depending on your version, to covet an item or idea is the very basis of human endeavor and our driving force for almost everything in history.
How would the Egyptians build the great works of their civilization with out a desire to have more than what they had before? How would the discovery of the Americas have happen if there wasn't a desire for trade and to spread religion. Where would any religion be if there wasn't a desire to have others join in their belief system. So ever adherent that wants others to follow their belief is guilty of coveting the souls of those that are not currently following what said adherent believes.
Odd bit it is that the ones that most want to have the secular government place the 10 Commandments on state property are guilty of violating at least one if not two of the very commandments that they so extol. Not too mention that the very item itself is a “graven” image.
Another comment mentioned several times at the seminar was that America was founded as a Christian nation. Our nation was not founded as a Christian nation it was founded as a secular nation. The people were given the freedom to select according to their conscience what they choose to believe about the supernatural or to hold any belief in it at all without it having affect upon them as citizens of The United States of America.
People that believe that the 10 Commandments should be placed on public property and other state endorsed religious actions should be taken by our government are a disgrace to the principles to which this nation was founded. The very ideas of liberty and justice and freedom for all are as foreign to them as the people of Nepal are to me. I know they exist but I have little idea about what they do.
Keep in mind it was the Founding Fathers that put Article VI in The Constitution of The United States and ratified Amendment I [June 9, 1789] and ratified the Treaty of Tripoli in June 7, 1797 which states that The United States is not a a Christian nation.
To this, I would say that the 10 commandments represent a religion and are in violation of both the Oklahoma and United States constitutions. As an atheist, if people want to paste the 10 Commandments on private property, please feel free but please obey the laws and keep religion out of the secular government.
I contacted my local state Representative, Senator and the Oklahoma Governor to express my view to not have the bill passed prior, to the passage by each group. In addition, I tried to get as many like minded people to contact their local state representatives as well. I was told by my State Representative that he would not vote for the bill. However when the bill was voted on he did indeed vote for the bill. House Bill 1330 did pass the Oklahoma House of Representatives by a vote of 83-2. A clear showing of the power of the religiously minded in my state.
Calling my representative, of course, was to no avail. What can you say about a state that tried to get Richard Dawkins banned from giving a lecture as a guest of the Zoology Department of the University of Oklahoma, June 6, 2009.
On the grounds of the Capitol of Texas, SCOTUS upheld the right of Texas to have the 10 Commandments displayed. I have viewed this monument and it is placed very close to the statehouse along with more than twenty other monuments including ones to Texas school children, Lady Bird Johnson, Civil War veterans, and a memorial to the men of the Alamo. SCOTUS said that since the 10 Commandments were part of a larger display that the meaning of them purely as a religious expression was not establishing a state religion.
What this shows people that care about individual freedom and protecting The Constitution is that the radical religious right is trying hard to make this a monotheistic country. Often have I heard people say this is a “Christian Nation.” it seems to me that this is a recent cultural phenomenon as this idea would be perverse in the first part of our nation's history. Too be honest it seems to only be prevalent since the mid-eighties.
I often try to educate people about the Treaty of Tripoli that was ratified by the United States Senate on June 7, 1797 during the period that most of our Founding Fathers were still very much involved in the early nation.
Here is the part of the treaty that deals with this issue:
"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity,(sic) of Musselmen;(sic) and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan (sic) nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."
This is also referenced in the Marine Corps Hymn when it refers to, “From the Halls of Montezuma to the shores of Tripoli”
Most of the adherents to religion do not want to hear these factual citation of our nations history or other examples of how the Pledge of Allegiance was written without the phrase “under God” in it or how “In God We Trust” was added to our currency in 1957. If you read this link from the Federal Reserve, it leaves no doubt whatsoever that the purpose was directly related to Christianity. To most Christian adherents, the very idea of having religion in the public forum is not only right but is a right they have as Christians, not so much as Americans.
Fundamentalists cite examples of how when prayer was taken out of public schools in 1963, test scores and behavior problems began to be adversely affected. But they fail to point out that the issues they are talking about were on the rise prior to these actions being taken by SCOTUS. One could use any historical point of reference to show a cause and effect relationship. One could just as easily say that after evangelist Billy Graham gain national prominence that the test scores of American children began to decline. One could say after the space program began the rate of juvenile delinquency increased. Such examples fail to establish a cause and effect relationship for their claims, but it surely can be said.

“One might just as well credit the lack of prayer with the great advances that have taken place since the 1962 and 1963 decisions on prayer. Look at the leap in civil liberties, equality, environmental awareness, women's rights, science, technology and medicine! The polio scare is over. Fountains, buses, schools are no longer segregated by law. We've made great strides in medical treatment. We have VCRs (DVDs, BlueRay, etc) and the computer chip. The Cold War has ended! Who would turn the clock back?”

Any of the following events could be assigned a similar cause and effect relation that the advocates of school prayer propose for the alleged decline in school behavior and test score.

• Pope John XXIII dies; Pope Paul VI is elected
• 250,000 Americans march for Civil Rights in Washington
• Kennedy assassinated in Dallas
• Lee Harvey Oswald arrested
• Lyndon Johnson takes Presidential Oath of Office
• Soviet missiles stay out of Cuba; Troops will stay
• N.Y. newspaper's labor strike for 114 days
• Supreme Court decides poor must have lawyers
• Kennedy sends troops to calm Alabama civil unrest
• Soviet Union puts first women in space
• Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.'s 'I Have a Dream' speech

All these events happened in 1963 and have as much bearing upon the changes in public school test scores and behavior problems as any decision by SCOTUS. I will show some of the alleged cause and effect relationships that the public school prayer advocates cite in their arguments for public school prayer.
Teenage pregnancy rates have gone up 500% since 1962. Unmarried mothers have risen dramatically since 1962. [The divorce Rate is so high that many young children don't really understand what a family is.](sic) Violent Crimes have risen steadily since the early 60's, and our prison system is bursting at the seams.(with born again Christians) The SAT scores have steadily declined each year for 18 straight years since 1962 and continue to decline or be low. (Wouldn't that be more than 18 years? That just takes us to 1980. I am sure the writer of this could have updated it to at least 1994 or so.) We once had the best school system in the world, and we are now ranked about 15th among the industrialized nations. This is despite us spending more money then any other nation in the world on our school system.i

None of these statistics are cited or supported by any references though they are expressed as being facts. While I certainly make assumptions of data and reports I have heard over time, these are not statistics listed with verifiable data. I have looked for information to support this 600% increase from several sources including the US Census Department and the Center for Disease Control. Never has a listing for anything on line that would support the 600% increase over any period of time has been found to date. As far as the United States being ranked 15th among industrialized nations. The last report done was by the Organization for Cooperation released September 2005 which ranked the United States 9th with persons 25 to 34 with a high school degree and 7th for persons 25 to 35 with college degrees. Again it is easy to make up any sort of numbers or statements that you wish but if you really want to be believed, show your work, just like in math class. The best way to deal with a number quoting person is to simply say, “prove it.” I will say that I have recently heard some new numbers as our ranks in the world but I would have to look deeper into that as the cause. I surely cannot find the removal of prayer as a strong contender for this drop.
The rise of the great evangelical crusaders and movements that began in the 1950s and 1960s led by such people and continued by people as Billy Graham, Bill Bright, Marilyn Hickey, Bill Gothard, Pat Roberts, Joyce Meyers, Oral Roberts, Jerry Falwell, Earnest Angely, Jimmy Swaggart, Peter Popoff, Jim and Tammy Fay Baker, and many many more can be used to show the same cause and effect relationship that is asserted that the issues with schools was caused and is caused by these people.
The issue with the advocates of public school prayer, they fail to make a cause and effect relationship and without that they only have anecdotal arguments. Maybe they will do some actual research and find that there are many other factors that contribute to the recent decline in standardized test scores. The first one I would look at is the failure of the parents demanding higher account ability in the schools. This seems to me a much more reasonable factor other than a one minute mantra recited by rote at the beginning of the school day.

Coming Next Time:
 Chapter Seven;

HUMANS IN THE MIST part twenty five