This is your place to publicly comment on the topics and issues addressed in Speaking of Faith programs. React in a personal way, and put into words what the programs mean to you.

What are the ideals that shape your view of modern American democracy?
Share Your Reflection

Oh Lawd! (July 27, 2005)
I really enjoyed Professor Needleman. Very enlightening! Recently, on a local rival station, Christians have been challenged to "remind" the President of his commitment to Christ, to right-wing Christians to whom he has made promises to restore the nation to its Christian heritage, and to replace the Bill of Rights with the 10 Commandments. Not quite in those words, but definitely betraying that wearisome sentiment. All I could do was moan, "Oh, Lawd! Here we go!"

Now, I am a Christian. I am a patriot. I am also a sentient African American woman over forty years old who has been a citizen long enough to realize that we are not a Christian nation, just a nation which happens to tolerate Christian practices as readily as any other religious practice. Americans are no more Jesus' elect than any other nationality who claim a knowledge of Jesus. I made the conscious decision at the age of ten to be a men-only woman when I saw John Cook run past in his track shorts. And, I have made an effort to live a productive lifestyle which does not list abortion as a consequence, encouraging family, friends, acquaintances, and often perfect strangers to follow suit. I have always been highly critical of the war in Iraq. I think No Child Left Behind has overwhelmingly failed us. And, I feel the electoral college needs to be abolished to allow elections that actually count every vote to truly reflect the will and desires of the registered voters. And, make no mistake about it, I love Jesus, attend church faithfully, and read my Bible as a matter of routine kind of like brushing my teeth daily. I simply cannot join in with these overwrought end time fanatics who broadcast posters of Saddam Hussein labeled the Antichrist.

The professor ran out of time before being able to address the contemporary fanaticism of the patriotic Christian right too commonly seen on prayer television channels every half hour daily. I was simply interested in what insight the professor had to offer in explanation for the strident war to restore us to our "heritage" the Christian right is currently waging, as if restoration to a "heritage" assured us all of national salvation during times of judgment. More importantly, none of this is what Jesus would really be doing. The Savior was not concerned with an earthly Kingdom as described by the average televangelist out to post the 10 Commandments right above 50-foot golden crucifix in the White House rotunda.

For me, so much of this is reminiscent of when Constantine adopted Christianity as a national faith. Constantine hadn't so much been changed by the renewal found in the tenets and truths of faith in Jesus as he had been driven by his superstition. The cross became little more than a good luck charm needful in attaining a victorious prize in war. Constantine only managed to successfully thrust Jesus into a god-league with Zeus and the rest in the pagan pantheon to whom daily ritual homage was now compulsory.

I really don't want to see the 10 Commandments go that route. Whereas I appreciate and have only benefited from a democracy based on the God-given standards of equity and inalienable rights as a human being created in God's image, with a will and a mind to love God and love His Creation known as humanity the way I love myself, I can't help but know that American heritage has too often failed, too willing to defer the will of the occidental controlling few at the expense of the many. The real Jesus died to reconcile all people everywhere to eternal hope. God sings and rejoices over all who come to Him in repentance to be received in love.

Too often, the Bible has been the tool of choice in furthering occidental machinations for world domination by virtue of a very debatable manifest destiny, a heritage to which many on the right wish to return America. It's a reality that can be tasted every time someone like Dr. D. James Kennedy gets on the air and proclaims that American will only escape hell when she selects a new Supreme Court judge who will renounce satan publicly, repeal Roe-versus-Wade, and sign into law death to all homosexuals. To tell the truth, America, God bless her, has more to worry about than gays and legalized abortion, a couple of albeit troublesome woes that don't affect the overwhelming majority of the nation in quite the way the right would have us all believe. What about selecting a new justice who knows federal and constitutional law, and wants to see its exercise benefit and protect all citizens of this nation? What about someone who is willing to judge equitably nationally in a manner that doesn't always challenge state juris prudence while damaging irreparably all relationships Americans have with the rest of world? What about maintaining a heritage where the true majority actually rules, but not at the expense of the loss of the rights, liberties, and freedoms of any minor group, including the heaven-bound Christian right? Oh, Lawd, what say ye, professor?

Penny Frank
East Saint Louis, IL (KWMU, 90.7 FM)

An Chance to Understand (July 27, 2005)
Jacob Needleman's interview with Krista is the most meaningful and important discussion I've ever heard or read about, related to the feeling and motivation within the people who caused the American Revolution to happen. I not only look forward to reading Professor Needleman's book, but also pray that as many others, young and old, US and non-US citizens, and from all the major faiths (particularly Jews, Christians, and Muslims) will also avail themselves of this opportunity to better understand the original spiritual basis of the USA.

Stephan Solat
Silver Spring, MD (WETA, 90.9 FM)

Outstanding (July 26, 2005)
I wanted to thank you for one of the most outstanding contributions to the public interest in media today. Unfortunately, your program is on at 7:00 am, but I happened to wake up to it this past Sunday about the soul of democracy. It is beautifully done and a wonderful reminder of the real idea of America. What a positive and thoughtful antidote to the political nonsense we hear all around us. If we could all only be reminded of that context as we are listening to the propaganda promoted on the corporate airwaves. We so need to be uplifted, and I was Sunday morning by your program.

Sibley Arnebeck
Columbus, OH (WOSU, 820 AM)

The Elephant in the Room (July 25, 2005)
I always enjoy your shows. So I was very much looking forward to the show with Jacob Needleman on the religious roots of American democracy. However, I was disappointed that with all the talk of how religious/spiritual ideals inspired the Constitution and its protection of civil rights, there was no discussion of how partial, stunted, impoverished, or incomplete these ideals must have been given the ubiquitous presence of and economic dependence on slavery. It was almost like we (you always make me feel like I'm part of the discussion) were not discussing the actual founders, and the actual Constitution, but the founders and the Constitution as an idealized fantasy. Whenever the founders and their ideals are discussed, slavery is the elephant in the room. If we are seeking enlightenment through truth it does us no good to pretend that the elephant is not there.

Maurice Munroe
East Lansing, MI (WUOM, 91.7 FM)

Offering Douglass as an Alternative (July 24, 2005)
I greatly enjoyed listening to your interview with Mr. Needleman today. I work out of my car, and therefore listen to A LOT of radio. I divide my time between NPR and AM talk radio, which tells me how the other half of the country thinks. Maybe this fare gives me an overly depressing view of how polarized our country (or at least our politics) is, but as I listened to Prof. Needleman talk about democracy and America I found myself applying some of the things he said to that divide, perhaps with a view towards it's healing.

At one point he spoke of the "interior pursuit of happiness" afforded us by the liberty and democracy under which we live, and how the all-too-common pursuit of money and possessions is a corruption of that goal. I agree that this IS a corruption, but why is it so common? So many of us seem to be in an almost Darwinian race to acquire and acquire. Well, I suppose that individual greed and the seductive power of advertising explain a lot of the "why." But could it be that our system of capitalism REQUIRES us to pursue happiness in this way, that the whole system would fall apart if most of us adopted a more spiritual quest for happiness?

When I was in my senior year of high school our Social Studies class spent some time talking about the formation of the "corporate citizen," and the concept of limited liability. It caught my interest (hence I still remember it) but I wish I'd paid more attention back then, and I'd love to hear Prof. Needleman's thoughts on how the meaning of America and the meaning of democracy are affected by the fact that some of our country's citizens aren't flesh and blood, but instead exist only on paper, are worth billions of dollars, and wield a corresponding power in our society. It almost seems like you can't discuss the meaning of democracy in America without considering capitalism.

Later in the program he spoke of Frederick Douglass, and how he was the conscience of America during many of the decades of slavery. I was struck by Prof. Needleman's claim that Frederick Douglass still loved America, despite it's enslavement of black people like him. Today, on many of the AM talk stations, the common wisdom is that it's impossible to love the country if you criticize it, especially if you criticize our country's handling of the war on terror and the invasion of Iraq. I wish Prof. Needleman could offer these people the example of Frederick Douglass in response.

Kurt Reimer
Roslyn, PA (WHYY, 91.0 FM)

A Note from Colonial New York (July 24, 2005)
I offer this footnote to your excellent discussion of this important subject. Over in Flushing, New York, in what is now a thriving Asian community, near the Quaker Meeting House that Thomas Merton's mother took her first born son one First Day (Sunday), there is a little park with a brass tablet mounted in stone. It bears a copy of something called the Flushing Remonstrance, which, if I am not wrong, may be the most eloquent exposition on religious liberty ever set down by consensus.

It came about because the governor of New Amsterdam levied a tax on the residents of Flushing for the support of the Dutch Church in the colony. Even though most of the people in Flushing were Quakers and not Dutch Reformed, the governor said they didn't have to attend the Dutch church, just pay for it. The matter was serious. The town clerk of Flushing went around to all the residents of the then frontier community and asked their opinion for the letter he had to write in response to the governor's order.

What the people said stands out for the depth of its feeling and maturity of faith. They said, through the clerk, that they were of different denominations but they all had two things in common: they had all been given knowledge of God by other people, and they had all failed to live up to it. Therefore, (I am paraphrasing here and I hope there is a historian reading this sometime soon who can correct my errors) so long as a person who follows a faith different from his neighbors abide by the civil law and common custom they had no right to interfere with that person's understanding or practice of his/her faith.

The tax then was void because the government could not compel anyone to worship or support any church other than his/her own. (This may be at least a little of the origin of the "establishment of religion" clause in the First Amendment.) The clerk wound up in jail but one of his neighbors somehow got to the Dutch East India Company's corporate offices in Amsterdam. The directors fired back a memorandum saying that the Quakers had been invited by the Company to settle in Flushing with the understanding they could worship as they chose.

The governor relented and the clerk was freed. The freedom from cynicism, the honesty and humility shown by those people, many of them could not read or write well enough to set their thoughts down themselves, may have given us an example of what freedom of religion means.

Steven John Bosch
Floral Park, NY (WNYC, 93.9 FM)

Pursuit of Happiness Through Community (July 24, 2005)
Kudos to Speaking of Faith for this week's installment! The point of direct hit for me this week was Needleman's discussion of America's idea of the "pursuit of happiness." To me, this pursuit has currently become distorted to mean the seeking of more money and more things, and using whatever platform — religious or political — it takes to get more of these things. I agree with Needleman that the original intent was not only "virtue" (as defined by the ancient philosophers), or well-being, but the freedom to pursue the things that make us more well-rounded, more deeply-defined people.

Exercising the freedom to discover our full potential entails the duty to listen to others. Doing this sets up a natural discourse where "iron sharpens iron" and not only do we reach our own fullest potential, and happiness, but also begin to develop a democratic community that listens, interacts, makes decisions together, based on imagination and sharing of ideas and ideals. Only then we can pursue happiness as it was originally meant — in a personal quest for inner human development, and in community. Not as personal material gain.

Julia Henshaw
Mascoutah, IL (KWMU, 90.7 FM)

God and "The Enlightenment" Lives in Our Openness (July 24, 2005)
The beauty and immense strength of our democracy is the duality of our openness to the many and varied expressions of our beliefs in a God. Our founders saw the Creator in the humble seed as well as in the power of a national government. They allowed room for all to express their divine spark knowing full well that as human beings we can have faith but we cannot completely know the mystery that brings us here. They did not suffer from the hubris that gives exclusive salvation to a particular group. Without the weight of that "exclusivity" the generosity they could afford set the stage for a society that has given far more to the world then any other. We are not perfect or sinless. That openness can be messy and painful however every day human beings sacrifice everything including even their lives just for the chance to come here and be a part of this amazing experiment.

Liz Rohme
Greenwich, CT (WEDW, 88.5 FM)

The Spirit of Americanism (July 24, 2005)
Seeing your announcement of the Needleman interview I made a point of tuning in Sunday morning. This is, in part, a response to the ideas expressed on that broadcast, which was really very good. One of the great blessings of America is that people who have vision have the opportunity to speak and to be heard — and to work for change.

Professor Needleman at one point contrasted the outlook of Frederick Douglass who hated oppression but loved America and worked for change with today's prevalent attitudes which he observed as: Nowadays people who see what's wrong with America HATE America and people who love America won't see what's wrong. YES! That's where selfness and individuality and the spirit of competition have brought us.

As it appears to me, the liberals, or the so-called elite among them, have an intellectual vanity and an imagined intellectual superiority that is threatened by the "spiritual" and heart-felt nature of the essence of Americanism that is so well expressed by Professor Needleman. So they seize upon every flaw to justify their inner rejection of anything not "intellectual" and sit upon their throne.

Those who love the spirit of Americanism recognize the liberals as anti-American (which they really are ANTI the America spoken of by the Professor, though they revel in freedom mistaking it for the liberty envisioned by the Founders of our nation) and feeling threatened by the rising public influence of the liberal's anti-spirit ideas, they seem — on the surface — to resist admitting the flaws. So they seem willing pawns, without protest, for all the actions of a government that at least seems to offer some support for some of their "moral" values. And so they further alienate the liberals who see the flaws and evils all too plainly.

I have my own ideas of where we are and where we are heading as a nation and a society — now outwardly a prisoner of commerce and finance as never before. I do see the conflict of "spirits" and ideas as irreconcilable in the present context.

Richard Stein
Nashville, TN (WPLN, 1430 AM)

Proving Faith (July 24, 2005)
How does a human prove faith? By it's very nature, there is not solid proof. Remember also the founders were human, not gods. They struggled with faith, belief, religion. They were inconsistent within their lives. I like that the programs present the material such that I the listener draw the conclusion. A point blank statement one way or the other is debatable. Because, by our innate nature being human is to be imperfect, inconsistent, and have highs and lows in our spirituality.

My opinion is that the founders demonstrated faith by acting on their spiritual belief. I also have the opinion that the scientific/non-religious folks exhibit faith. For many of their key proposals have no more solid proof than their belief in themselves being able to understand the universe. Thank you for the program; keep up the excellent work.

Garry Lundy
Snellville, GA (WABE, 90.1 FM)

Organized Superstition, i.e., Religion (July 24, 2005)
I'm a long-time listener to NPR, and I'm frequently in my car on Sunday mornings when your show is on, and I try to listen to it. I really try, but you and your guests are just so full of it! This morning, you had some philosophy professor — not a science professor or a professor of government — holding forth his ignorant views on science and government. And of course, you uncritically accept all of his nonsense as if it were sheer profundity.

It's abundantly clear that he doesn't — and I'm guessing you don't, either — understand the awesome wonder of billions of years of evolution through natural selection, or he wouldn't deride it as being somehow dehumanizing. Yes, in fact, we are animals, possessed of a common genetic code that reaches back billions of years. If he would follow his own advice ("think"), perhaps he would recognize what a wonder it is that complexity can arise from simple processes working across eons of geologic time. Only an ignoramus could make the statements he made.

Then he turned to our constitution and found spirituality in it, somewhere between the lines, I guess. The wonder of three independent branches of government, symbolic of ancient traditions pointing to… what? Some hocus-pocus nonsense. We have a fantastic constitution! The best ever written, in fact. But just because the people who wrote it went to church doesn't mean that they really just forgot to put God into it. I recommend to you a brief and highly readable book called The Godless Constitution written by two Cornell professors of government and history. They show how thoroughly debated the issue of separation of church and state was by the framers. When the debating was done, these church-going men produced a document that makes absolutely NO mention of God, or of any euphemisms for God (e.g., the Almighty, the Creator, etc.).

Subsequently, in the Bill of Rights, they went to the trouble to make explicit the separation of church and state. This guaranteed to you and your addled professor of philosophy the right to hold and propound your superstitious views, which would have been roundly rejected as so much twaddle by the leading thinkers of the Enlightenment, who had such a profound impact on the Founding Fathers. They would have endorsed your right to your ignorance, and so do I. But I'm not going to waste any more time listening to it.

Neil McNamara
Vienna, VA (WETA, 90.9 FM)

Exclusion of Our Native Ancestors (July 23, 2005)
I recently visited Sedona, Arizona and was immersed in the remnants of the rich culture and traditions of the first "Americans," our Native ancestors. I was disappointed that they were not mentioned in the show nor does mentions of them seem to appear in Needleman's book. The ancient wisdom and conscious of humanity reflected in myth that Needleman speaks of can be easily found among our native brothers and sisters that "America" has so disgracefully dismantled and largely ignored. There can be so much gained and learned from these peoples' prophets, their way of life, their spirituality, respect, and relationship with nature and each other and of course their wonderful mythology. America will be wise to not let them die.

Laura D'Agostino
Staten Island, NY (WNYC, 93.9 FM)

Needleman Quote (July 23, 2005)
I'm looking forward to this week's program. The key words for me in the Needleman quote are "freely explore." That doesn't say jump on the born again, conservative right, our way is the best bandwagon. To me it indicates we may explore all sorts of avenues regarding the great mystery. If we wish we may begin to see the close relationship between new theories of science, i.e. string theory and quantum physics and the writings of Lao Tzu or Thomas Merton. One of our problems today is a bad rash of spiritual one-upmanship. My god is better and more powerful than yours. We need to give each other all the space we need to make our own discoveries and a bit more respect for approaching the everlasting questions.

Patrick Graney
O'fallon, MO (KWMU, 90.7 FM)

Religion and U.S. Constitution (July 22, 2005)
Though our Founding Fathers couldn't envision the U.S. being the multicultural nation we have become, we now recognize the diminished role Christianity has in modern times in the U.S. Where it may have formerly enjoyed a near monopoly, those who will not accept this must conform to the Constitutional right to freedom of belief, including disbelief. Will the U.S. come to a unitarian understanding that to be informed of all beliefs, promulgated in our education system from early ages (equal time for all acceptable beliefs, so to speak) will promote understanding and hopefully freedom from fear, distrust, hatred, and stupidity regarding religion. Our country was founded on a freedom of belief; we should abide by this wise caution against intolerance. This is not to say beliefs beyond the pale of societal acceptance must be tolerated. Yet when we see what is occurring in other nations without freedom of belief, we see how wise our guarantee is. Thank you for your program.

Frank Luke
Honolulu, HI (KIPO, 89.3 FM)

Separation of Church and State (July 22, 2005)
In this and most other nations as well, including many of those with a predominance of Muslims, it has been increasingly recognized that theocratic governance, antipathetic to the very concept of free will, generates hatred and constrains the human instinct of loving one another — that psychic as well as pragmatic condition which has prevailed since early mankind for fear and comfort when by itself or gathered together into tribes. As is pointed out in a chapbook soon to be produced by a well regarded North Carolina independent publisher, because our Founders perceived this human condition, as the book's title states, whatever your faith or non-faith, "You're Safe in America." That cry for religious freedom should be sung in all nations, for all societies, for all our futures in this conflicted world.

John Heffron
Arden, SC (WCQS, 88.1 FM)

What About the Nations Before This Nation? (July 7, 2004)
Thanks for your riveting program with Jacob Needleman. I sat in the car upon arriving home for a good 10-15 minutes just to catch the rest of the segment. It was so refreshing to hear his thoughts. I especially appreciated his points about basically not throwing out the baby with the bath water when it comes to the contradictory/imperfect lives of this country's "founders" — I tend to often do that, so it was really good to hear another perspective and the sound thinking behind it.

I somehow feel the need to apologize for fellow evangelical Barbara Nauer's kind of rude comments because not all of us think the same way—and, besides, Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin certainly did not claim to be Christians; they were Deists. Also, rather than finding Mr. Needleman's discussion threatening or boring, I found his "argument" (about how belief in a Creator affected their ideas about democracy) compelling, something for a majority of peers who don't believe in a Creator to consider.

Still, I was a little disturbed that there was no mention of the strange and contradictory nature of this country's "founding." As an American of old and new American blood (Native Turtle Island and Massachusetts Bay Colony blood as well as Asian and European immigrant blood), I have often struggled to make sense of what people are saying when they refer to the "Founding Fathers" or the "birth of this nation." While I do have respect for the Declaration of Independence, read that to Native people of this country and it sounds like one big hypocritical and somewhat hilarious speech.

As I said, I appreciated Mr. Needleman's analogies that help us understand better the world these men were living in, but I could not help being a little disappointed that this huge part of what this country is was left out of at least this discussion. America still is so focused on the issue of African slavery in this country it sometimes diminishes the older hypocrisy that a majority of American colonists perpetuated. I know that the discussion was specifically about those who developed the early American colonist government and the brilliant constitution we still try to follow, but still, what about the part that the constitution of the Iroquois 6 Nations Confederacy played in the philosophical formation of this brilliant constitution? I look forward to reading Mr. Needleman's book and hope that I'll find some of these things addressed.

Erin Gieschen
Atlanta, GA (WABE, 90.1 FM)

Required Listening in Our Public Schools (July 4, 2004)
I heard an interview of Krista Tippett with Jacob Needleman, author of The American Soul, on the spiritual roots of the making of the United States. I missed its beginning, but it was excellent, and a shame the message is limited to such a small and select audience. I wish there were a way that the interview might be distributed and required listening in public schools around the country.

Joel Eigen
Norristown, PA (WHYY, 91.0 FM)

Our National Foundation (July 4, 2004)
Thank you for bringing this very valuable discussion to our nation at a time when we are supposed to reflect on our country. Needleman's premise that we should "think" strikes the proper balance we are trying to find as we face a contentious political scene.

Needleman presents a prescription for the pain I felt while watching Michael Moore's film. His suggestion that freedom of speech means that we have a duty to listen, regardless of how difficult the message helps me grasp the meaning of both parties and that they are both valuable in forming leadership. We need, as a nation, much more reflection. I doubt that Jefferson, Madison, Washington, and Adams had a monopoly on thought. They simply lacked the telephone and e-mail.

Again, I am going to stop and think.

Thomas Lais
Maplewood, MN (KNOW, 91.1 FM)

Speakers Don't Discuss a Personal God (July 4, 2004)
Your program is misnamed. Your speakers (Needleman is typical) speak only of ethics or spirituality, not faith, "the evidence of things not seen" (Heb.11:1). Also, typically, in all of the Independence Day references to George Washington, Tom Paine, and the American Founders, your speakers neatly excise from their remarks all references to a personal God, the Creator and lawgiver of the Old Testament, whom these bright and educated American patriots plainly had in mind.

How boring and low-brow is the chirpy, psychology-driven naturalism of NPB and PBS! That's why I no longer tune in unless (as this morning) I chance to be trapped in the car of some friend who has you on.

Barbara Nauer
Creve Coeur, MO (KWMU, 90.7 FM)