Teaching The Bible In Kentucky Public Schools – 2011 Edition
The Louisville Courier-Journal ran an article on 21 Feb 2011, originally by William Croyle from the Kentucky Enquirer discussing Senate Bill 56, which specifically allows the teaching of the Bible as an elective course in social studies.
Legislators tried to get a similar bill, SB 142, passed last year - I wrote about that one here and here.
The summary of this year's bill follows:
AN ACT relating to Bible literacy courses in the public schools.
Create a new section of KRS Chapter 156 to require the Kentucky Board of Education to promulgate administrative regulations to establish an elective social studies course on the Hebrew Scriptures, Old Testament of the Bible, the New Testament, or a combination of the Hebrew Scriptures and the New Testament of the Bible; require that the course provide students knowledge of biblical content, characters, poetry, and narratives that are prerequisites to understanding contemporary society and culture, including literature, art, music, mores, oratory, and public policy; permit students to use various translations of the Bible for the course; amend KRS 158.197 to permit a school council to offer an elective social studies course on the Hebrew Scriptures, Old Testament of the Bible, the New Testament, or a combination of the Hebrew Scriptures and the New Testament of the Bible.
Compare this to the summary description of SB 142 from 2010:
AN ACT relating to Bible literacy courses in the public schools.
Create a new section of KRS Chapter 156 to require the Kentucky Board of Education to promulgate administrative regulations to establish an elective social studies course on the Hebrew Scriptures, Old Testament of the Bible, the New Testament, or a combination of the Hebrew Scriptures and the New Testament of the Bible; require that the course provide students knowledge of biblical content, characters, poetry, and narratives that are prerequisites to understanding contemporary society and culture, including literature, art, music, mores, oratory, and public policy; permit students to use various translations of the Bible for the course; amend KRS 158.197 to permit a school council to offer an elective social studies course on the Hebrew Scriptures, Old Testament of the Bible, the New Testament, or a combination of the Hebrew Scriptures and the New Testament of the Bible.
Jenkies! It's exactly the same!
Jenkies!
What happens when we get into the bills themselves? (SB 56, 2011 is here, SB 142, 2010 is here.)
If you compare them side by side, they're identical, apart from the date, bill number, and sponsors.
Consequently, the concerns I had last year about this time still stand. I'll include them here, and elaborate on some of them (elaborations denoted by bracketed italics).
- Right out of the gate, there's a problem with defining what we're talking about when we say "The Bible". Not only are there many different translations (e.g. NRSV, KJV, NIV, The Message), but there are multiple canons - Catholic Bibles have books that Protestant Bibles don't, Eastern Orthodox Bibles have yet a different canon, and the Tanakh has a different structure than the Christian Old Testament. Additionally, English translation of the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts necessarily introduce subtle changes in meaning which can affect interpretation. And then there are the issues with textual transmission in general. [Discussions of the Bible need to acknowledge that there has been a considerable amount of tinkering with the text down through the centuries. Some of this tinkering was likely by well-meaning individuals who sought to clarify points in the transmitted text. On the other hand, some of this tinkering was very likely with the intent to advance agendas or favor one orthodoxy over another. A truly objective course on the Bible would need to acknowledge these issues and not ignore them or gloss over them.]
- Students of different backgrounds would necessarily bring different assumptions, presuppositions, and theologies to the class. Teaching around those differences would be difficult, particularly if the teacher isn't knowledgeable about them and skilled at recognizing his or her own biases. [ A teacher who cannot disengage from his or her own biases and preconceptions will have a very difficult time engaging with opinions and scholarship that disagree with their beliefs. Do the sponsors of the bill really expect the people teaching these classes to compare the Genesis creation myths with the other creation myths, or to compare the stories of Noah's flood with the Epic of Gilgamesh?]
- While the bill states that courses must maintain religious neutrality, it's difficult to understand how a course on the Bible can be religiously neutral. Will there be a section on the Qu'ran? The Book of Mormon? The Śruti? Dianetics? [It also occurs to me that in order to truly maintain religious neutrality, we have to revisit point 1, above. Because the proposed legislation does not require a specific version of the Bible to be used in class, there will be different versions in play. The Biblical influence on some issues is different depending on which translation one uses. For example, translating a word as "kill" vice "murder" is significant.]
- Specifically, what "knowledge of biblical content, characters, poetry, and narratives" are prerequisites "to understanding contemporary society and culture, including literature, art, music, mores, oratory, and public policy"? This looks suspiciously like code for a broad conservative Christian agenda, and not a non-sectarian discussion of the Bible's influence on modern society. There are other, arguably more fundamental, "prerequisites" to understanding modern arts, culture, and policy besides the Bible, including ancient Greek literature, politics and mythology, the works of Shakespeare, and human sexuality. [Further, the Bible (particularly - but not exclusively - the Old Testament) is rife with stories of genocide, incest, sexual manipulation, revenge, and feeding children to bears, all done by, directly or indirectly at the command of, or in the name of God. Somehow I don't see this course covering material like the story in Genesis where Lot's daughters get him drunk, sleep with him, and become pregnant by him...]
- Biblical "literacy" and "history" imply more than simply knowledge of the content of the Bible, which is what is called out in the summary. While the text of the law itself specifies that students shall be familiarized with "(t)he history of the Hebrew Scriptures or New Testament" and "(t)he literary style and structure of the Hebrew Scriptures or New Testament", I seriously doubt that these concepts can be properly addressed within the context of a one or two semester elective. [I cynically wonder if the "history of the Hebrew Scriptures or New Testament" actually means "history as viewed through the lens of the Hebrew Scriptures or New Testament" rather than the history of how and why the material came to be written...]
- Conspicuously absent from the bill are any specific references to the socio-political context during the periods of authorship of the various Biblical books, which have tremendous bearing on their content. I do not think it is possible to adequately discuss the influence of the Bible on modern socio-political topics without discussing the contexts in which the Biblical books were written. [Consider, for example, the Book of Revelation. It was written to and for people in a very specific set of circumstances, but it's significance has been horribly overemphasized by modern interpretations. While it's true that Revelation has influenced the modern world, much of that influence has more to do with what more modern readers assume it means than what the original author intended his contemporaries to learn from it.]
In the end, I suspect what would likely happen is that courses offered under this law would end up being taught by and filled by people jumping at the chance to turn them into state-sanctioned Bible "study" sessions which are long on Bible and short on anything resembling actual study, and that would probably be more about the people in the class affirming their own beliefs rather than trying to learn anything new.
I've said before that I'm completely in favor of people learning about the Bible and its history and background, but if all you do in a Bible study is look at the material in terms of what the leader thinks God was trying to say and ignore what the humans who actually wrote it were trying to say to their contemporaries, you've missed the point.
-Jay
The Air Force Academy, MRFF, and Cadets for Christ
This story has been floating around for a while. I initially picked it up from Ed Brayton at Dispatches from the Culture Wars, but it's also being covered at truthout and at the Military Religious Freedom Foundation's site.
The short version of the story is that a cult-like group called Cadets for Christ, led by a couple named Don and Anna Warrick, are entrenched at the U.S. Air Force Academy in Colorado Springs, CO. Cadets for Christ is part of the "Shepherding Movement". Cadets who join Cadets for Christ, according to Chris Rodda writing at The Huffington Post:
...are separated from their families and anything else that might interfere with their brainwashing. In the shepherding movement, the female is the "sheep" and the male is the "shepherd," and a woman's sole purpose in life is to be a good wife and mother, subordinating herself to her male shepherd.
The name most closely associated with this situation is that of Lauren Baas, a 2010 Academy graduate, who has become estranged from her family due to the influence of Cadets for Christ. The quick version of her story is that she went to the USAFA with the goal of becoming a pilot in the Air Force, got involved with Cadets for Christ, was placed into an arranged engagement to her "shepherd", and has basically given up all of her dreams to be a sheep. (The photo below, of a cookbook given to Ms. Baas, is rather chilling. Her last name is a pure coincidence.)
Cookbook belonging to Lauren Baas, via Chris Rodda at the Huffington Post
The Baas family, in an effort to call attention to the situation at USAFA, wrote a "holiday letter" to the Warricks. Their pain is heartbreaking. An excerpt from the letter, again via Chris Rodda at The Huffington Post, is below. The letter in its entirety can be read here.
Did you ever have the guts to ask Lauren about her career goals before squelching them? From birth she was a very determined individual. As parents, we taught her to work hard and be persistent in any endeavor she chose to undertake. She completed elementary and high school with great pride and high academic achievement. Her next goal was to graduate from the United States Air Force Academy and become a USAF pilot. Of course, being a female, you made sure that goal was extinguished. In your words, she is the sheep and her career is to follow the male shepherd. HOW DARE YOU PLAY GOD!!!
Did you know that Lauren never experienced the thrill of dating someone? Growing up, she was always quiet, shy and spoke of getting her feet on the ground before entering the dating arena. Of course, you instructed her that God sent a USAFA Cadet over two years her junior, to be her life long partner. They never had the opportunity to date, as it would interfere with their "Bible study." Five months into their relationship you were shoving "Biblical" marriage preparation materials down their throats!!! Don't tell us that you had no part in orchestrating their engagement. YOUR SELFISH GOAL WAS TO PERPETUATE THE FUNDAMENTALIST EVANGELICAL MISSION!!!
There's a lot of wrong going on here - a climate at USAFA that fosters religious intolerance, a lack of scrutiny of religious groups that are allowed to operate on campus, a particular group using classic cult techniques to isolate and control its members, families being broken apart by the activities of the aforementioned group.
The fact that this is happening at a military academy is unsettling, but when we move beyond that, the situation is one that's not uncommon on college campuses around the country.
It's not hard to see why.
Young adults starting college are often finding their first real taste of responsibility. They're away - possibly thousands of miles away - from home, they don't know very many people, they're seeking their own identity yet looking for some familiarity. There are clubs and groups of all sorts, and many students find their way to Bible/religious study groups. More than likely, they'll end up in one that's fairly congruent with whatever faith they grew up in - Catholics tend to find Catholic groups, different sorts of Protestant Christians will tend to find groups with similar views, and so forth.
Some, like Lauren Baas (raised Catholic), end up in groups that are radically different. Indeed, Ms. Baas' parents indicate that Cadets for Christ actively led her to reject her Catholicism1:
Do not attempt to trivialize these circumstances with the rationalization that we are merely a family that cannot accept the fact that their daughter has "chosen" to change religions and marry outside the Catholic faith. YOU KNOW, AS WELL AS WE, THIS STATEMENT IS SO FAR FROM THE TRUTH!!! You have taken Lauren's mind and soul and twisted it to your fundamentalist Christian liking. She was brainwashed to believe she was "unenlightened" and an "unsaved fool" in the Catholic faith. She now lives in fear of God and feels "shameful" if she does not continually stand guard against "ungodly people."
(From the Baas family's letter to the Warricks)
Had Ms. Baas simply decided to marry a non-Catholic, I suspect there wouldn't be much of an issue. Had she decided, on her own, to leave the Catholic church and join a different one, the situation would be different. In this case, though, it appears that she was intimidated and coerced2 into rejecting her previous beliefs and manipulated into an engagement - things that the "old" Lauren wouldn't have done.
It's reasonable to ask how a group can steer someone away from their worldview and into something so completely different. It's fairly straightforward - surprisingly so - but it can be difficult to spot if you're in the middle of it. I'd venture to say that Cadets for Christ uses some of these techniques on new members:
- Love bombing - new members are made the focus of attention with an ulterior motive of drawing them deeper into the group. They might be flattered or they might find that the group pays a lot of attention to anything they have to say. In short, the group welcomes them with open arms and makes them feel special. Of course, not every group that warmly welcomes new members is trying to brainwash them. It can be very difficult to distinguish between a group that is engaging in love-bombing its members and a group that is genuinely friendly and welcoming until one tries to leave the group.
- Controlling activities and contacts - the new members are presented with group-related activities that start to occupy all of their free time. They may be strongly encouraged to spend leisure time with other members of the group. Members might be encouraged or pressured to date within the group, or to invite their external friends to join. Members might explicitly be discouraged from spending time in non-group activities or with non-group associates. In extreme cases, members might end up leaving existing jobs to go to work within the group. The end result of all of this is that a member is eventually steered to a point where nearly all of his or her interactions are with group adherents.
- Controlling information - members are shielded from exposure to information contrary to the group's ideology, or are bombarded with information that agrees with the group. They're encouraged to reject disconfirming information and look for data that supports what they already consider to be true. Negative information may be portrayed as dangerous3.
- Authoritarian leadership - the leadership of the group is seen as inviolate and inerrant. When the leadership starts making important personal decisions for the group members, such as who they will marry, it's a very loud alarm that things are seriously wrong.
That's really about all it takes, and the Baas letter strongly suggests that Lauren was subjected to just these sorts of things as a member of Cadets for Christ.
Looking at the situation, it's very disquieting that the USAFA has allowed (and continues to allow) Cadets for Christ to operate on campus. The dual messages being sent are that the Academy condones the theology that Cadets for Christ espouses and endorses the techniques they bring to bear on their members. Neither of these messages is appropriate for a Service Academy. It's very disquieting, based on the articles linked above, that the leadership at USAFA when confronted with evidence of unconstitutional proselytizing by Cadets for Christ has deliberately failed to act appropriately on it.
And it's very disquieting that at least one family has lost a daughter.
-Jay
----------
1I am categorically not attempting to stake out a position that people should always and forever remain within whatever faith tradition they were raised in. As people grow and learn and experience new things, their beliefs often change. If your beliefs at age 30 are essentially the same as they were at age 10, you're doing life wrong.
2Threatening someone with eternal punishment in Hell as a consequence of not accepting a particular system of beliefs is every bit as coercive as forcing conversions at the point of a sword or at the end of a gun.
3Stop and think for a few moments about how often this occurs in daily life. Most often when this happens, someone is trying to sell you something. Nobody ever sold a car by saying "Go try the dealer down the street. Their prices are better and they sell better cars." It would be a rare pastor indeed who closed a sermon with "...and you should really read Ehrman's God's Problem for an interesting and insightful take on the problem of evil." You'll probably never hear a politician say "The problems we're facing aren't really the fault of any one individual or administration. They're the culmination of many decisions made by many individuals and administrations over the last several decades and it's going to take a long time, a lot of cooperation, a lot of money, and a lot of work to fix them."
Church/State Separation In Indiana – At Least One Student Gets It
(HT to Phil at Bad Astronomy.)
It's graduation season, and that means that thousands of schools around the country will be holding ceremonies at which class presidents, valedictorians, administrators, and special guests will be delivering speeches to sizable captive audiences.
Depending on how closely school officials pre-screen the speeches given by students, they can range from cloyingly nostalgic to scathingly harsh.
Eric Workman's valedictory speech (the link is to the full text) at Greenwood Community High School in Greenwood, Indiana is closer to the harsh end of the spectrum.
Some background:
Last fall, the school administration called for a vote by students to decide whether the graduation ceremony would include a school-sanctioned prayer. Apparently the vote was overall in favor, despite the fact that such an official prayer is in crystal clear violation of the First Amendment.
Workman, recognizing this turn of events as the epic fail that it was, connected with the ACLU of Indiana, who filed suit on his behalf to stop the prayer, resulting in a ruling on 30 April to do just that.
What makes this situation more interesting than most is that Workman is a self-described Christian, and his actions apparently put him at odds with many of his classmates. (Read his speech. It's very well-written, if perhaps a bit snarky in a couple of places.)
Workman gets what a lot of people don't - that the First Amendment protects all religions by sanctioning none. The Greenwood Community School Corporation, by endorsing a prayer at graduation, is implicitly sanctioning a specific religion in blatant disregard of the Constitution.
Note that students are always free to pray if they wish - nothing in the First Amendment precludes that. Indeed, the speech delivered by the class president was sectarian in tone, but it was her speech, not the school's, and she was perfectly within her rights to give it.
It isn't that difficult of a concept - the government (which includes school boards) needs to remain neutral with regard to religion. That protects everyone's right to worship (or not) as they see fit. There's no provision in the First Amendment to carve out exceptions based on the local majority religion, which is what the GCSC appeared to be doing. Workman, quoting Thomas Jefferson, understands that.
A lot of adults could learn something from him.
-Jay
In a Move That Shouldn’t Surprise Anyone…
The Louisville Courier-Journal reported this morning that the previously discussed Bible Literacy Bill cleared the State Senate with a 37-1 vote.
The lone nay vote came from Kathy Stein (D-Lexington), who was quoted as saying “public schools in Kentucky can and already do teach comparative religion.”
She also astutely pointed out the absurdity of the claims of religious neutrality in the bill.
Quite honestly, the neutrality claims are absolutely, stunningly ridiculous. It's amazing to me that anyone actually has the gumption to claim that a course teaching the Bible doesn't stake out a position of favor for Christianity. (Depending on how the Hebrew Scriptures are taught, they might be able to squeeze in Judaism, too, barely.)
Do the Kentucky elected officials not realize that there are many different religions out there besides the various flavors of Christianity and Judaism?
-Jay
Bible Literacy Bill Advances Out Of Kentucky Senate Education Committee
The Kentucky Senate Education Committee passed SB 142 on February 18, 2010, according to this article in the Louisville Courier-Journal.
SB 142 would require the Kentucky Board of Education to set up regulations to establish an elective course on Biblical literacy. The full text of the bill may be found here, but most1 of it is summarized thus (from the Kentucky Legislative Research Commission):
Create a new section of KRS Chapter 156 to require the Kentucky Board of Education to promulgate administrative regulations to establish an elective social studies course on the Hebrew Scriptures, Old Testament of the Bible, the New Testament, or a combination of the Hebrew Scriptures and the New Testament of the Bible; require that the course provide students knowledge of biblical content, characters, poetry, and narratives that are prerequisites to understanding contemporary society and culture, including literature, art, music, mores, oratory, and public policy; permit students to use various translations of the Bible for the course; amend KRS 158.197 to permit a school council to offer an elective social studies course on the Hebrew Scriptures, Old Testament of the Bible, the New Testament, or a combination of the Hebrew Scriptures and the New Testament of the Bible.
In principle, a non-sectarian Biblical Literacy/Biblical History class might not be a bad idea as a high school elective.2
As a practical matter, though, I think it would prove very challenging to do this well, for a number of reasons, including:
- Right out of the gate, there's a problem with defining what we're talking about when we say "The Bible". Not only are there many different translations (e.g. NRSV, KJV, NIV, The Message), but there are multiple canons - Catholic Bibles have books that Protestant Bibles don't, Eastern Orthodox Bibles have yet a different canon, and the Tanakh has a different structure than the Christian Old Testament. Additionally, English translation of the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts necessarily introduce subtle changes in meaning which can affect interpretation. And then there are the issues with textual transmission in general...
- Students of different backgrounds would necessarily bring different assumptions, presuppositions, and theologies to the class. Teaching around those differences would be difficult, particularly if the teacher isn't knowledgable about them and skilled at recognizing his or her own biases.
- While the bill states that courses must maintain religious neutrality, it's difficult to understand how a course on the Bible can be religiously neutral. Will there be a section on the Qu'ran? The Book of Mormon? The Śruti? Dianetics?
- Specifically, what "knowledge of biblical content, characters, poetry, and narratives" are prerequisites "to understanding contemporary society and culture, including literature, art, music, mores, oratory, and public policy"? This looks suspiciously like code for a broad conservative Christian agenda, and not a non-sectarian discussion of the Bible's influence on modern society. There are other, arguably more fundamental, "prerequisites" to understanding modern arts, culture, and policy besides the Bible, including ancient Greek literature, politics and mythology, the works of Shakespeare, and human sexuality.3
- Biblical "literacy" and "history" imply more than simply knowledge of the content of the Bible, which is what is called out in the summary. While the text of the law itself specifies that students shall be familiarized with "(t)he history of the Hebrew Scriptures or New Testament" and "(t)he literary style and structure of the Hebrew Scriptures or New Testament", I seriously doubt that these concepts can be properly addressed within the context of a one or two semester elective.
- Conspicuously absent from the bill are any specific references to the socio-political context during the periods of authorship of the various Biblical books, which have tremendous bearing on their content. I do not think it is possible to adequately discuss the influence of the Bible on modern socio-political topics without discussing the contexts in which the Biblical books were written.
The bottom line is that I'm not at all certain that a proper, non-sectarian curriculum could be put together for a class like this, and even if one could be, I'm not sure that's even the real intent.
To see why, we need to look at some of the comments of Senators quoted in the Courier-Journal article:
“The Bible is the most widely read book, and it’s also the most best-selling book of all time,” (bill sponsor Sen. David) Boswell (D- Owensboro) said. “There are so many aspects of the Scriptures relevant to the subjects we are already teaching.”
He said the course would be constitutional “as long as we teach it and not preach it.”
Or:
Sen. Elizabeth Tori, R-Radcliff, told co-sponsors Boswell and Sen. Julian Carroll, D-Frankfort, that “an angel was sent down on your shoulders” prompting “you to put this bill together.”
“I‘ve said for many years that until we put God back into our households, things in society will not change for the better,” Tori said. “Your bill is the first step to that change.”
Or:
Carroll said that as long as the course is taught pursuant to the law as a “historical document” and not a “faith-based document,” the bill would be legal. But he then spoke about “taking the Bible out of the school” and “putting nothing back in.”
“When we took the Bible out the school, we also unfortunately took out that portion of Bible which relates to life skills and value systems,” Carroll said. “Our students these days do not have the full opportunity, in my judgment, to be taught those life skills that keep them out of our penitentiaries and make them a productive citizen.”
We should consider comments like these along with the part of the bill that the C-J didn't report on (and that isn't listed in the LRC summary):
(5) Any school council organized pursuant to KRS 160.345 or, if none exists, the principal, may authorize the display of historic artifacts, monuments, symbols, and texts, including but not limited to religious materials, in conjunction with a course of study that includes an elective course in history, civilization, ethics, comparative religion, literature, or other subject area that uses such artifacts, monuments, symbols, and texts as instructional material if the display is:
(a) Appropriate to the overall educational purpose of the course; and
(b) Consistent with the requirements of KRS 42.705.4
All in all, this leads me to suspect that the whole enterprise is a not-very-well-disguised ploy to make an end-run around the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. It doesn't take much to envision a course being put in place in a school and then being used as an umbrella to justify a display of the Ten Commandments.
Now, I'm all for people learning more about the history and content of the Bible. Far too many people who claim to hold it in high regard have a very poor understanding of what it contains and how it came to be what it is.5
I just don't think this bill is going to get us there.
-Jay
----------
1The part that isn't in the summary is interesting. I'll get to that later.
2Personally, I'd make some sort of world history/civilization class a prerequisite to it.
3The word "prerequisite" implies a necessary dependency. The fact that there are contemporary societies and cultures that are not Christian or Jewish that produce literature, art, music, oratory, and public policy and have their own social mores strongly argues against the proposition that knowledge of biblical content is a prerequisite to understanding these topics in general. Further, one could argue that trying to interpret such cultures through a Biblical lens actually distorts the understanding of them.
4The relevant sections KRS 42.705 are sections (12) and (13):
(12) Historic artifacts, monuments, symbols, and texts, including but not limited to religious materials, may be displayed in Kentucky's public schools, within the framework of applicable legal precedents, if they are displayed in connection with a course of study that is academic, balanced, objective, and not devotional in nature, and that neither favors nor disfavors religion generally or any particular religious belief; and
(13) Historic artifacts, monuments, symbols, and texts, including but not limited to religious materials, may be displayed in Kentucky's public buildings and on Kentucky's public properties if they are displayed in a:
(a) Balanced, objective, and not solely religious manner;
(b) Manner that neither favors nor disfavors religion generally;
(c) Manner that neither favors nor disfavors any religious belief; and
(d) Manner which promotes the display of Kentucky's historic, cultural, political, and general heritage and achievements.
5My Sunday School class was very surprised when I mentioned the story of Elisha and the bears (2 Kings 2:23). They didn't expect a story about bears mauling kids to be in the Bible.
Contact Me
Recent Comments
- Clever Badger on Movie Review: Pinata Survival Island
- sirhcton on Movie Review: Pinata Survival Island
- sirhcton on Movie Review: Pinata Survival Island
- Clever Badger on Movie Review: Pinata Survival Island
- sirhcton on Movie Review: Pinata Survival Island
Recent Posts
- Movie Review: Pinata Survival Island
- 2012 Books, and a Recommendation
- Mini Book Review: The Millennium Trilogy by Stieg Larsson, Translated by Reg Keeland
- Montreal Police Finally Investigating David Mabus (UPDATE)
- Biblical Inerrancy
Meta
Archives
Shelfari
Critical Thinking
- The Skeptic's Dictionary
- Skepchick
- The Accidental Historian
- The Lippard Blog
- The Skeptic's Guide to the Universe
- Chaoskeptic
- Respectful Insolence
- The Adventures of Skippy the Skeptic
Film
Friends and Acquaintances
Science
- National Center for Science Education
- Scienceblogs
- The TalkOrigins Archive
- The Public Library of Science
- Ptak Science Books
- The Austringer
Religion
- The Oremus Bible Browser
- New English Translation of the Septuagint
- Encylopedia Mythica
- Berea College - Science and Faith home page
- Exploring Our Matrix
- Talk 2 Action
- Religion, Sets, and Politics
- Atimetorend