That would the “take away” headline from a study released by the Pew Foundation, which, based on interviews with 3,400 people, scientifically done of course, announced the results recently of a survey that demonstrates there is a lot of ignorance among Christians about even the most basic tenets of their faith. Here is the Pew Forum’s press release:

New Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life Survey
Explores Religious Knowledge in the U.S.

Washington, D.C.—Atheists and agnostics, Jews and Mormons are among the highest-scoring groups on a new survey of religious knowledge by the Pew Research Center’s Forum on Religion & Public Life, outperforming evangelical Protestants, mainline Protestants and Catholics on questions about the core teachings, history and leading figures of major world religions.
On average, Americans correctly answer 16 of the 32 religious knowledge questions on the survey. Atheists and agnostics average 20.9 correct answers. Jews and Mormons do about as well, averaging 20.5 and 20.3 correct answers, respectively. Protestants as a whole average 16 correct answers; Catholics as a whole, 14.7. Atheists and agnostics, Jews and Mormons perform better than other groups on the survey even after controlling for different levels of education.

On questions about Christianity (including the Bible), Mormons and white evangelical Protestants show the highest levels of knowledge. Jews, atheists and agnostics stand out for their knowledge of world religions, including Buddhism, Hinduism and Judaism. Jews, atheists and agnostics also do particularly well on questions about the role of religion in public life, including what the U.S. Constitution says about religion.

While previous surveys by the Pew Research Center have shown that America is among the most religious of the world’s developed nations, this survey shows that large numbers of Americans are not well informed about the tenets, practices, history and leading figures of major faith traditions—including their own. Many people also think that the constitutional restrictions on religion in public schools are stricter than they really are.

These are among the key findings of the “U.S. Religious Knowledge Survey,” a nationwide poll conducted from May 19 through June 6, 2010, among 3,412 adults.

Additional findings include:

•    More than four-in-ten Catholics (45%) do not know that their church teaches that the bread and wine used in Communion do not merely symbolize, but actually become, the body and blood of Christ

•    About half of Protestants (53%) cannot correctly identify Martin Luther as the person whose writings and actions inspired the Protestant Reformation, which made their religion a separate branch of Christianity

•    Roughly four-in-ten Jews (43%) do not recognize that Maimonides, one of the most venerated rabbis in history, was Jewish

•    Fewer than half of Americans (47%) know that the Dalai Lama is Buddhist; fewer than four-in-ten (38%) correctly identify Vishnu and Shiva with Hinduism; and only about a quarter of all Americans (27%) know that most people in Indonesia are Muslims

•    There is widespread confusion over the line between teaching and preaching in public schools. Nine-in-ten Americans (89%) know that U.S. Supreme Court rulings do not allow teachers to lead public school classes in prayer. However two-thirds of people surveyed incorrectly say that Supreme Court rulings prevent public school teachers from reading from the Bible as an example of literature, and only 36% know that comparative religion classes may be taught in public schools.

•    Most Americans are able to correctly answer at least half of the survey’s questions about the Bible. Roughly seven-in-ten (71%) know that, according to the Bible, Jesus was born in Bethlehem. More than six-in-ten (63%) can correctly name Genesis as the first book of the Bible.

Data from the survey indicate that educational attainment—how much schooling an individual has completed—is the single best predictor of religious knowledge. On average, college graduates answered nearly eight more questions correctly than those with a high school education or less. Religious knowledge is also higher among those who have taken a religion course in college. Other factors linked with religious knowledge include reading Scripture at least once a week and talking about religion with friends and family.

For those curious about their own religious knowledge, the online presentation of the “U.S. Religious Knowledge Survey” includes an interactive quiz that allows Web visitors to answer a selection of questions taken from the survey and compare their results to the nation as a whole and with various religious and demographic groups.

In conjunction with the release of the survey, WGBH in Boston will debut “God in America,” a six-hour series that interweaves documentary footage, historical dramatization and interviews to explore the historical role of religion in the U.S., including its impact on society, politics and culture. It will air over three consecutive nights on PBS beginning Oct. 11.

###

The Pew Research Center’s Forum on Religion & Public Life conducts surveys, demographic analyses and other social science research on important aspects of religion and public life in the U.S. and around the world. As part of the Washington-based Pew Research Center, a nonpartisan, nonadvocacy organization, the Pew Forum does not take positions on any of the issues it covers or on policy debates.

The study is all in German, but you can read a nice summary here.

[Tapping on micrphone, leaning into microphone, saying, "Pastor and youth workers, are you listening?"]

My friend, Molly Ziegler-Hemmingway writes a regular column for Christianity Today, among the many other column she writes for publications such as the Wall Street Journal, etc. Here’s one of her latest that really resonated with me. You too?

Before my friend’s dad became a Lutheran pastor, he was a rough and tumble seaman who, well, swore like a sailor. He was even reprimanded once by a Navy superior for using excessive foul language. So when The Pacific, HBO’s new series about Marines in World War II, came out, he made sure to catch it.

But he could not watch it. The language—particularly the taking of the Lord’s name in vain—was just too much. When a sailor says you’ve crossed the line, you’ve crossed the line.

The series was on HBO, a venue that loves going to extremes. But taking the Lord’s name in vain has become something of a pastime in popular culture.

Jonathan Chait, a senior editor at the liberal political magazine The New Republic, wrote a blog post during the health-care debate that shocked me. “J—- C—–,” the headline began, followed by the statement that some arcane legislative process was “Not That Difficult!”

When Tiger Woods returned to golf following his sex scandal, he retained his habit of cussing a blue streak whenever he made a bad shot. “G–! Tiger! J—- C—–!” he said after a lousy drive. The announcers didn’t even flinch. Critics scolded Brit Hume for suggesting that Woods needed Christ’s forgiveness, but almost no one cared when Woods swore in Christ’s name.

Vice President Joe Biden got a lot of grief for dropping the f-bomb before President Obama signed health-care legislation into law. But how many people noticed that he used “Jesus Christ” to curse in a Wall Street Journal interview last year?

It used to be considered unacceptable to speak this way. Now it’s beyond common.

Exodus 20:7 tells us, “You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain, for the Lord will not hold him guiltless who takes his name in vain” (ESV).

For many of us, this commandment means, “Don’t cuss.” It does—but it means so much more than that.

Unlike the mythic gods of the ancient world, Yahweh is not revealed only by things in nature but is primarily known by his name and the deeds associated with that name. In the prologue to the Ten Commandments, Yahweh identifies himself and says he brought the Hebrews out of bondage. God’s name is mentioned 5,343 times in 23,213 verses of the Hebrew text of the Bible.

“It is the revelation of his name that makes the Hebrews into his people, and it is by his name that he is to be remembered among his people forever. The name, then, is the only thing that Yahweh’s people have by which to know and to worship him,” writes David L. Adams in The Anonymous God.

The first tablet of the Law includes the commandments connected with God’s self-revelation, which have specific threats of punishment and are expanded with explanations. That probably indicates that God cares deeply about his name and how we use it. Surely something so important to God ought to be important to us, even if it’s completely counter to the spirit of our culture.

Unlike other commandments dealing with adultery and murder, the third commandment’s prohibitions can be harder to recognize as sin. We think it doesn’t matter as much because, after all, it’s “only words.”

The third commandment doesn’t just mean we should avoid cursing or swearing in God’s name. It’s possible to violate it even if we never utter a curse word.

Martin Luther said that “the greatest abuse” of this commandment occurs “when false preachers rise up and offer their lying vanities as God’s Word.”

In other words, false doctrine taught by those who claim to speak for God is worse than the crudest and most profane comedy special ever to air. When pastors go beyond Scripture to promote the gospel of prosperity or to tell parishioners not to worry about sexual immorality, they are not just wrong—they have also blasphemed God’s holy name.

As with all commandments, we keep them not just by avoiding certain behaviors but also by doing good works. So we are reminded to pray, praise, and verbally give thanks to God for his goodness and to call out to him in times of trouble. We must work to ensure proper teaching and employ God’s name in defense of truth and goodness.

Or, as the psalmist says, “… call upon me in the day of trouble; I will deliver you, and you shall glorify me” (50:15, ESV).

Yup, you read that right. Here’s a story on atheists using hair dryers to “de-baptize” themselves.

Here’s the story.

Here’s a snippet.

U.S. Atheists Reportedly Using Hair Dryers to ‘De-Baptize’

Published July 17, 2010

American atheists lined up to be “de-baptized” in a ritual using a hair dryer, according to a report Friday on U.S. late-night news program “Nightline.”

Leading atheist Edwin Kagin blasted his fellow non-believers with the hair dryer to symbolically dry up the holy water sprinkled on their heads in days past. The styling tool was emblazoned with a label reading “Reason and Truth.”

Here’s a very interesting article on the “iGeneration” and a short snippet from it, identifying the major characteristics of the so-called iGeneration:

Increased media consumption: In anonymous online surveys, we asked about daily hours online and a number of activities, including music listening, video game playing, talking on the telephone, IMing and chatting, texting, sending and receiving e-mail, and watching television. While we computed a total score, we know that many of these activities are done simultaneously. Net Geners and older teens spend more than 20 hours per day using media and technology followed by younger teens who spend slightly more than 15 hours per day.

Multitasking: Older teens report doing the most multitasking; according to them, they perform nearly seven simultaneous tasks. In “Rewired,” I argue that they are not really doing them at the same time, but they are simply better task switchers. This constant multitasking among teens compares with six and a half simultaneous activities for younger teens and six for Net Geners. Baby boomers like me report being able to do about four and a half things at the same time.

E-communication: Baby boomers prefer face-to-face or telephone communication along with e-mail. Gen Xers embrace cell phones, e-mail and instant messaging. It is with the Net Generation that different communication approaches emerge, including social networks, IMing, Skyping and texting. But it’s the iGeneration that is rapidly redefining digital communication. To them, a phone is not a phone. It is a computer (or likely soon to be a tablet) that they use to tweet, Facebook and, of course, text, text, text. For them, peer relationships are all about connecting by any electronic means. To them, WWW stands for whatever, whenever and wherever.

Socializing: The two recent mini-generations are more technologically social than any that came before them. For them, connecting is what digital technology was invented to do. They built MySpace and Facebook; nearly every one of them has a page on one or both. Upward of two hours each day are spent connecting online with their community of friends, whether they are RL (real life) or SL (screen life) friends. (In 2009, “unfriend” was the word of the year added to the New Oxford American Dictionary.)

Creativity: They make their own YouTube videos, post photos, mash up music, create multimedia presentations, and develop personalized content. In their eyes, the “i” in iGeneration stands for “individualized.” iGeners have their own iPhone apps, their own song mixes, and have forced developers to mine their products for personalized applications.

Writing: Some argue that LOL, JK, and OMG are symptoms of an illiterate generation of teen texters. Research is showing that isn’t true. This generation writes more than any other and whether it is text-based writing or formal writing, it is still writing. And writing begets writing. Interestingly, they also read more, particularly if you expand the concept of reading to include online content rather than just books in print.

Motivation: iGen teens are highly motivated, as evidenced by the content that they post daily online. They are not, as some people have asserted, lazy. In contrast, other generations—particularly baby boomers and Gen Xers—are as interested in process as they are in product. Young adults and teenagers hate meeting to discuss how they are proceeding; if forced to meet in person, they’ll usually pull out their Blackberries and iPhones so they can multitask. They do not like interim deadlines and prefer to be held accountable for the entire project executed well and on time. They thrive on positive reinforcement for their completed work, but tend to downplay praise for subproducts along the way. From all of my research, as long as adults let teens work on their time schedule, using high-tech tools they prefer, teachers and employers will most often find that iGeners and Net Geners will come up with an excellent final product.

From Mashable today: Flowtown has posted an infographic illustrating cellphone use among teenagers. The data, which is sourced from Pew Internet Research, visually underscores something we’ve known for a long time: Teens love to text. At this point, 75% of teens have cellphones, up from 45% back in 2004. Thirty-three percent of teens send more than 100 texts per day. Teenage boys send an average of 30 text messages per day and girls send an average of 80.

What do you think of the infographic and the stats it shows off? Does any of the data surprise you?

Click on the image, then click on it twice again, to see it in a much larger version.

Raised by post-church boomers, or by children of boomers, it should come as no surprise that the so-called “Millennials” are hazy, to say the least, about all things religious. Here is an interesting story in USA Today about it.

Here is a snippet from the story:

Key findings in the phone survey, conducted in August and released today:

•65% rarely or never pray with others, and 38% almost never pray by themselves either.

•65% rarely or never attend worship services.

•67% don’t read the Bible or sacred texts.

Many are unsure Jesus is the only path to heaven: Half say yes, half no.

Here is the more complete report directly from LifeWay. LifeWay reports:

“Millennials are the most religiously diverse generation in our culture’s history,” Rainer said. “Unsure of the afterlife and the life of Jesus, Millennials present the church with a great opportunity to engage them in conversations dealing with the nature of truth and its authority as God.”

Here are a couple of charts from the story:

Archbishop Raymond Burke, in a homily given in Phoenix, Arizona:

In our culture, “the law more and more dares to force those with the sacred trust of caring for the health of their brothers and sisters to violate the most sacred tenets of their consciences, and to force individuals and institutions to cooperate in egregious violations of the natural moral law,” he said. “In such a society, the administration of justice is no longer a participation in the justice of God, an obedient response to the prompting of the Holy Spirit, but a façade cloaking our own selfishness and refusal to give our lives for the sake of the good of all our brothers and sisters. It is a society which is abandoning its Judeo-Christian foundations, the fundamental obedience to God’s law which safeguards the common good, and is embracing a totalitarianism which masks itself as the ‘hope,’ the ‘future,’ of our nation. Reason and faith teaches us that such a society can only produce violence and death and in the end destroy itself,” Archbishop Burke warned.

Read the entire story, as reported by CNA.

Ken O. sent this blog post link to me, and with it some perceptive remarks and a question. Here’s the link and here are Ken’s observations:

How do we maintain the richness of our Lutheran heritage and the power of God’s Word in a society where people are “paralyzed by choice?” The rational side of me says it’s all by the power of the Holy Spirit and in God’s hands. The more emotional (marketing) side of me says…there’s got to be something else we can do…but, what?

What do you say?

My colleague at Concordia Publishing House, Laura Lane, shared this Barna Survey with a number of us. If you have not seen it, you may find it interesting and helpful. I would say there is nothing terribly earth-shatteringly new in it, but it is always helpful to have this kind of “take” on the situation in which we find ourselves. Here is the link to the full story, but here is an excerpt:

Some of the related survey results Barna cited from this year’s studies included:

o Just 50% of adults contend that Christianity is still the automatic faith of choice in the US

o Nearly nine out of every ten adults (88%) agreed either strongly or somewhat that their religious faith is very important in their life

o 74% said their faith is becoming more important in their life

o Substantive awareness of other faith groups is minimal; even simple name awareness of some groups, such as Wicca, is tiny (only 45% have heard of Wicca)

o Most self-identified Christians are comfortable with the idea that the Bible and the sacred books from non-Christian religions all teach the same truths and principles

o Half of all adults (50%) argue that a growing number of people they know are tired of having the same church experience

I can’t think of a more foolish attitude I harbor at times than when I look back on previous generations and assume they were ignorant, unenlightened, unaware and totally outside of what I’m thinking and experiencing today. I was reminded of something the British writer G.K. Chesterton wrote in his book Orthodoxy (Chapter 4):

“Tradition means giving a vote to most obscure of all classes, our ancestors. It is the democracy of the dead.” Chesterton goes on to say: “Tradition refuses to submit to the small and arrogant oligarchy of those who merely happen to be walking about. All democrats object to men being disqualified by the accident of birth; tradition objects to their being disqualified by the accident of death. Democracy tells us not to neglect a good man’s opinion, even if he is our groom; tradition asks us not to neglect a good man’s opinion, even if he is our father.”

And here’s the rub. While it is absolutely true that previous generations did not have the same technologies or understanding of “how things work” in their world, but is there such a vast difference between 21st century people and those of previous centuries? Are we so far removed we think we can not possibly learn anything from our fathers, grandfathers and ancestors in the past. I’m particularly struck by this when I consider, as I grow older, how my own parents appear ever increasingly wise. The tradition in Asian culture of revering their elders has much to commend it. Today, we regard those older than us as people who, obviously, are not as “in touch” with “reality” as we are. And even more so do we view our ancestors as hopeless irrelevant.

Here’s some concrete examples of where I see the arrogant oligarchy in action over against those who have come before. Christian worship: Why is it that in the past twenty-five years the worship forms that have been used for thousands of years, have come to be regarded as wholly inadequate and must be replaced with forms that have little in common with the historic worship forms of the past? Why do I sometimes assume that nobody can possibly understand how I’m feeling when faced with a difficult situation who is a member of a generation far removed from mine? Why did I, for example, the other day when looking at Starck’s Prayer Book, smile at the fact that there were prayers there to be prayed as a thunderstorm approached and to be prayed after it was over? “Oh, how quaint,” I thought. Then I felt shame, as I considered the fact that dangerous thunderstorms back when there were no safe buildings, or emergency services, or advanced warning, were devastating.

Do you have some examples from your life where you see yourself as part of the arrogant oligarchy? Would you share some by way of comments?

Dr. Gene Edward Veith who runs a “must read” blog site, had this to say about the Tiger Woods mess, and I have not read anything better.

Our culture pretends to be free and easy about sex, but we really aren’t. I was kind of astonished that all of Tiger Woods’ multitudinous endorsement ads have been pulled from prime time TV after his auto accident provoked some nine women (at last count) to admit committing adultery with the golf superstar. Our culture remains capable of moral disapproval over sexual sins! On the other hand, our culture remains pruriently interested in hearing the salacious details of those sexual sins, as evidenced by the current media frenzy over the matter. We are repelled and compelled at the very same time!

A significant statement, titled The Manhattan Declaration, has been signed by over 148 prominent leaders across the Catholic, Orthodox and Evangelical Churches. Now is the time for Christians, and all people of good will, to oppose the embrace of abortion and homosexuality, and consequently a full frontal assault against marriage. While we can quibble over nuance and method and approach of The Manhattan Declaration, how can we not join with others in expressing our opposition to such profound public errors? I urge you to read The Manhattan Declaration and if you feel you are able, to sign it. I have. I hope you do too. In so doing, you commit yourself to acts of civil disobedience. Lutherans, traditionally, have been pacifistic in the face of government actions that run contrary to the will and Word of God. Need we mention but one example? Nazi Germany? I appreciated Dr. Albert Mohler’s blog post explaining why he signed The Manhattan Declaration, perhaps you will too. Here is the conclusion of his explanation, which echo my own reasons for signing The Manhattan Declaration. And, with all due respect, if you think that we are not at a point of cultural crisis over these issues, I would urge you to wake up. Dr. Mohler cites but a couple examples of where, precisely, things are headed for the Church.

I signed The Manhattan Declaration because I believe it is an historic statement of conviction and courage that is both timely and urgent. Over the course of the next few months and years, these issues will be reset in our culture and its laws. These are matters on which the Christian conscience cannot be silent. There are, of course, other issues that demand Christian attention as well. The focus on these three issues is forced by the circumstances of current threats as well as the awareness that the time of decision on these questions has come. Though Christians struggle to understand the extent to which our convictions should be incorporated in the law, we must now recognize that the very respect for these convictions — and the freedom to follow and obey these convictions in our own lives, families, and ministries is now at stake.

I signed The Manhattan Declaration because I lead a theological seminary and college, serve as a teaching pastor in a church, and am engaged in Christian leadership in the public square. Thus I see the threats to Christian liberties that now stare us in the face. The freedom not to perform a same-sex marriage is one thing, but what about the freedom to hire employees according to our Christian convictions? What about the right of Christian ministries to conduct their work according to Christian beliefs? What about the freedom to preach and teach against the grain of the nations laws (for example, after the legalization of same-sex marriage)? When to hate crimes laws slide into definitions of “hate speech?” The threats to our religious liberties are immediate and urgent.

I signed The Manhattan Declaration because it is a limited statement of Christian conviction on these three crucial issues, and not a wide-ranging theological document that subverts confessional integrity. I cannot and do not sign documents such as Evangelicals and Catholics Together that attempt to establish common ground on vast theological terrain. I could not sign a statement that purports, for example, to bridge the divide between Roman Catholics and evangelicals on the doctrine of justification. The Manhattan Declaration is not a manifesto for united action. It is a statement of urgent concern and common conscience on these three issues — the sanctity of human life, the integrity of marriage, and the defense of religious liberty.

My beliefs concerning the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox churches have not changed. The Roman Catholic Church teaches doctrines that I find both unbiblical and abhorrent — and these doctrines define nothing less than the Gospel of Jesus Christ. But The Manhattan Declaration does not attempt to establish common ground on these doctrines. We remain who we are, and we concede no doctrinal ground.

But when Catholic Charities in Massachusetts must choose to end its historic ministry of placing orphaned children in good homes because the State of Massachusetts required it to place children with same-sex couples, this is not just a Catholic issue. The orphanage could have easily been Baptist. When Belmont Abbey college in North Carolina is told by federal authorities that it must offer abortion services in its insurance plans for employees, this is no longer just a Catholic issue. The next institution to be under attack might well be Presbyterian. We are in this together, and we had better be thankful that, in this case, we are not alone.

Finally, I signed The Manhattan Declaration because I want to put my name on its final pledge — that we will not bend the knee to Caesar. We will not participate in any subversion of life. We will not be forced to accept any other relationship as equal in status or rights to heterosexual marriage. We will not refrain from proclaiming the truth — and we will order our churches and institutions and ministries by Christian conviction.

There will be Christian leaders, pastors, seminaries, colleges, universities, denominations, churches, and organizations that will abandon the faith on these issues. They will bend the knee to Caesar. Far too many already have. The signatories to The Manhattan Declaration pledge that we will not be among them.

I want my name on that list. I surrendered no conviction or confessional integrity to sign that statement. No one asked me to compromise in any manner. I was encouraged that we could stand together to make clear that to come for one of us on these issues is to come for all. At the end of the day, I did not want my name missing from that list when folks look to see just who was willing to be listed.

Just picked this up over e-mail. If you actually notice an increase in the already high level of blasphemy all around, well, now you’ll know why: it’s blasphemy day! I’d like to suggest that the organizers of this event arrange to celebrate it in a Muslim nation in the Middle East and they shall soon gain a greater appreciation for their rights in the USA, if they live to tell of it.

Amherst, New York (Sept. 25, 2009)–The Center for Inquiry will draw attention in several major cities across the continent this Wednesday with its robust participation in International Blasphemy Day. Events are scheduled for Los Angeles, New York, Toronto, Indianapolis, Washington, D.C., Austin, Tucson, Tampa Bay, and Amherst, N.Y.Sept. 30 is the anniversary of the original 2005 publication of the Danish cartoons depicting the prophet Muhammad. The fury which arose within the Islamic community following this publication led to massive riots, attacks on foreign embassies and deaths. Four of the cartoons were reprinted in Free Inquiry magazine in support of the public’s right to free expression and criticism.

Participation in Blasphemy Day is part of the Center for Inquiry’s larger Campaign for Free Expression, an effort to focus attention on one of the most crucial components of freethought: the right of individuals to express their viewpoints, opinions, and beliefs about all subjects–especially religion. “Placing religion off limits in social discourse is just another, gentler way of prohibiting examination and criticism of religion,” CFI President and CEO Ronald A. Lindsay said. “In my view, all subjects of human interest should be open to examination and criticism by humans.”

Other elements of the Campaign for Free Expression include:

• A Blasphemy contest to create a phrase, poem, or statement that considered blasphemous–deadline Oct. 1.
• A Free Expression essay contest open to all students currently enrolled in accredited colleges and universities, with the winner receiving a $2,000 award–deadline, Jan. 5, 2010.
• A cartoon contest, judged by professional cartoonists, in which the theme will be the doctrines of humanity’s many and various religions (CFI aims to be as ecumenical as possible)–deadline to be announced.
• The launching of a new Web site, Please Block Us, featuring reports on recent censorship attempts and controversies as well as original material that would be suppressed under the laws of some countries. It’s an open invitation to oppressive governments to block its material from their citizens’ access, thus highlighting their opposition to free expression. Offending nations’ names will be listed on the site.
• Public discussions and writings devoted to the contemporary champions of free expression.
• A petition drive urging relevant United Nations bodies not to limit speech critical of religion.
• Special events with prominent guest speakers; and much more.

The motivation behind Blasphemy Day is not simply to come up with ways to offend the religious. It’s meant to call attention to human rights–especially the right to free expression and the right to openly criticize unreasonably shielded ideas.

The Center for Inquiry/Transnational, a nonprofit, educational, advocacy, and scientific-research think tank based in Amherst, New York, is also home to the Council for Secular Humanism, founded in 1980; and the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry (formerly CSICOP), founded in 1976. The Center for Inquiry’s research and educational projects focus on three broad areas: religion, ethics, and society; paranormal and fringe-science claims; and sound public policy. The Center’s Web site is www.centerforinquiry.net .