 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Program Particulars | Links + Resources | Book + Music Lists | Share Reflections |
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.
Submit Your Reflection about "The Future of Moral Values."
War Is a Moral Issue (January 23, 2005)
Thank you so much for your fascinating program on the moral values debate between the two political aisles. I was sad to learn from someone who has talked to both sides that religious conservatives really do not understand that war is a moral issue for me and my fellow progressives. It is so hard for me to understand that in return, but good to know.
Marcia West
Washington, DC (WETA, 90.9 FM)
Wonderful Program (January 23, 2005)
One of the most thought-provoking programs around. The gap between what we proclaim and what we do is so extreme. Hypocrisy is celebrated in the culture. We need more than work and TV. Thank you — extremely important work.
Michael Byrne
Arlington, VA (WETA, 90.9 FM)
"You" Statements Do No Good (January 23, 2005)
I listened to a part of your show this morning for the first time. Thank you for what you are presenting. I would like to offer a comment about the way something was being said and at the same time don't want to sound like a high school English teacher (which I'm definitely not). During the discussion between Krista Tippett and Steven Waldman one of them (or both) used the phrase that went something like "you aren't listening to me" while describing what happens when people are trying to get another person to see their side. Whenever I hear people say "you aren't listening to me," I want to jump up and say it would be very helpful if instead you would say "I feel like you are not hearing me."
Whenever a sentence begins with the word "you," it puts the listener on guard and less likely to be able to hear the point of what is being said. When you begin with the word "I" instead of "you," the listener is less likely to feel they are
being attacked and more likely to pay closer attention. "You" statements are generally accusatory and often stir up emotions such as anger. At that point real dialogue does not take place. Thanks for hearing me and I hope to listen to your show again soon.
Elliott Strick
West Hartford, CT (WNPR, 89.1 FM)
Promoting Consensus Building (January 23, 2005)
I wanted to strongly commend you, Krista, not only for deconstructing the moral values conflict, but also for bringing to the forefront the issue of the role of media in creating either a divisive or consensus-building climate within the country. It was a brave thing to do … and long overdue!
Having gone through the Master's program at the Institute for Conflict Analysis and Resolution, this has been an issue on my mind for years, and I have been frustrated at the country's seeming lack of interest in constructive dialogue on
national social and policy issues. Both the media and the general public have it within their power to choose to seek understanding over polarization. Some people need to be convinced that doing so is the better choice, whether for moral or economic reasons.
While I have to admit I did have a heated argument with a friend over the election, I have made it my career to promote consensus-building over caricature-building (including formerly working for nonprofit organization Search for Common Ground where your guest Steve Waldman participated in the consensus-seeking Working Group on Faith-Based and Community Initiatives). Thank you for calling us on our poor (polarizing) behavior. Please continue to be a champion of consensus-building within the media and within the general public!
Anne Burson
Takoma Park, MD (WETA, 90.9 FM)
Elevating the Tone (January 23, 2005)
I was deeply moved by tonight's program. I have been in pain ever since November 2. Because I am gay and want very much to marry my partner, I took the poll results about moral values as a kick in the gut — as a personal attack. But, I have also been very conflicted by an urge to demonize those who think differently from me when my faith tells me to treat "my enemies" (to borrow biblical language) with charity. I have even been questioning friendships, and I think part of the reason is that the campaigns and their coverage were too shallow and visceral and so my reactions to them are also shallow and visceral. I wish that they were not.
So much of what we are dealing with now in this arena, it seems, owes itself in part to that which has allowed our ideas to be broadened in the first place — technology and modern media. The tools that have given us such easy access to outside and divergent ideas have also shortened our attention spans and heightened our desire for excitement and immediate thrills. I fear that most of us do not have the interest or the desire to listen to the nuances of those who are discussing the issues more thoughtfully than the Sharptons and Falwells. And most media outlines do little to advance intellectual honesty and elevate the debate over all issues moral and political.
I suspect that a producer for one of the screamfests on television might argue that when they create "good television" by putting on extremists, they are getting the issues into mainstream discourse. I think, however, that there is a relevant aphorism: "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing." When the mass media broadcast and narrowcast these shallow arguments rather than depth, they are acting as middlemen for the manufacturers of intellectual dishonesty. Under
the guise of freedom of expression, they steal from us meaningful discussion. And, often, they allow the Novaks, Sharptons, Falwells, Begalas, etc… that grab so much attention to peddle half-truths, lies, and other intellectual
dregs.
I suspect many will say that "this is the price we pay for democracy" and that these are issues as old as the Republic. I would argue that the spreading of cheap ideas was always wrong and still is. If we truly want to make our democracy the best it can be, then it is incumbent on us as consumers to demand quality in the media product we receive. It is also incumbent upon those who control the media to look at the long-term interests of the democracy and the world rather than the short-term interests found in ratings, stock prices, and high income checks. I think if the tone of the argument in the media is elevated, then those of us who are recipients of the product will not be as susceptible to allowing our "flight or fight" instincts to get in the way of making rational decisions and having thoughtful discussions with friends, relatives, and neighbors about the moral questions we face as a nation.
Bryan Ellison
Takoma Park, MD (WETA, 90.9 FM)
A Truth and Reconciliation Process? (January 23, 2005)
If people are really concerned with moral values then it seems a logical solution to also be concerned with reconciliation. It was not through guesswork that it was called the Truth and Reconciliation Commission in South Africa. If
Bush (or Kerry) are really interested in moral values, why not invite Desmond Tutu or other living Peace Prize winners to advise them on how to bring the reds and the blues together? Certainly the reds and the blues are no further apart than
the blacks and the whites were in South Africa.
Is it because truth and reconciliation does not suit their political purposes? I am appalled that either candidate can claim moral high ground and both support guns and violence as the solution to all our problems. I don't think the voters had much of a choice.
Harold Confer
Washington, DC (WETA, 90.9 FM)
Deconstruction (January 23, 2005)
Krista and staff, thanks for a wonderful program. It is as though I am enrolled in an excellent university and taking a meaningful course by listening and pondering the rich ideas. Listening tonight helps me to see more the true irony and not so much the caricature of the issues and actors on this stage of moral polarization.
My thought: even though the foremost polarizing issues show a majority consensus of 55 to 60 percent of those polled as cited by Walden. I tend to think the reason that consensus eludes the public, media, and politically ostensible processes, is that a majority of answering poll questions is not measuring or capturing the elemental forces generating and perpetuating the divisions and contentiousness around the hot button issues. I think if we were able to graph the distribution of thoughts and feelings of these issues we would see what appears at first glance a classic distribution curve. I suspect a closer examination would reveal statistically significant differences, showing as steeper and shallower bell curves.
What I mean is that a majority is only one measure of an issue, and what may carry more weight is the power, influence, convictions of the minority. As a critical mass may well exist, and I suspect it does — all within the minority portion of the polls. So I would not be so puzzled by what appears to be an irony on the surface of the numbers. A similar, deconstructed view approach, as done with charity donation levels, and divorce rate, would be telling.
It is not so much a puzzle because the measuring of issues along one type of ruler does not translate into discovery of a more common ground. I suggest measuring or observation methods/tools need to be modified to examine what makes a critical mass — as far as action, beliefs, and perpetuating itself — in itself creates echo chambers. But then again I might be all wrong. Again thanks for a great show.
Jim Crutchfield
Cabin John, MD (WETA, 90.9 FM)
Whose Morals? Whose values? (January 23, 2005)
Thank you for the program on moral values. I enjoyed it, but I disagree with the feel-good feelings you and Steve Waldman spread throughout the program. What was left to be said is that the hand-picking of moral values practiced by the right is repugnant and immoral.
I, as a proud free-thinking progressive, do have strong moral values and strongly resent whomever deny their importance. For example, I believe that it is WRONG that the one-fourth of the children in the wealthiest nation on earth live with no health insurance. I believe that it is WRONG to pay hard-working people at a level that does not allow them to rise from poverty. I believe that it is WRONG to insult our environment for the benefit of a few. I believe that is WRONG to go to war on the basis of lies. I believe that it is WRONG to lock millions of citizens in jail with no hope of rehabilitation. I believe that is WRONG to deprive our seniors of dignity and security in their most vulnerable years.
Those are moral values, the kind of values the conservatives do not want to talk about. They would rather continue with their self-rightfulness rhetoric and focus their frenzy on other people's sex lives, as if they (or anyone else) had the right to judge others' lives. They believe they have the right to incense themselves with public declarations of religious purity, forgetting at their convenience Matthew 6:1-6, 16-18. Conservatives are morally repugnant, and should not be caricaturized: they should be shamed by our civil society, their hateful hypocrisy exposed to public lubridium.
One lesson I have learned in life: the only thing I can not tolerate is intolerance itself, and religious conservatives — no matter the "faith" they proclaim: Christian, Muslim, or Jewish — deserve all my contempt. Thank you.
Enrico Fin
Lake Orion, MI (WUOM, 91.7 FM)
Understanding in the Lone Star State (January 23, 2005)
Suprisingly, my radio station, KUT in Austin, Texas, does not air this program. I am happy though to be able to listen to it online from your Web site. I was especially impressed with "The Future of Moral Values," and only wish that everyone in the country could hear it. This program has helped me to realize that, as difficult as it may be, I must make the effort to try to understand the other side and resist the temptation to accept the caricatures and mean-spiritedness encouraged by the media and the political parties (including our "moral" president!). Thanks.
Deborah Coley
Wimberley, TX (Listens via Web Audio)
Would the Wise Speak Up (January 23, 2005)
I want to applaud your show aired today, Jan. 23, on KWMU in St. Louis. Though I'm not interested in institutional religion, I have a private faith and have found a number of your shows extremely interesting and thought-provoking. Today's comments made me really wish that these ideas could be heard in the public mainstream — especially related to politics and political campaigning. Why is there no one wise enough to speak to the entire country this way?
Nancy Baglan
St. Louis, MO (KWMU, 90.7 FM)
Mechanics of Democracy (January 23, 2005)
It shouldn't even require an appeal to patriotism to persuade people to really listen to their political opponents. In a democracy, your only hope for prevailing is winning a majority to your viewpoint, and maintaining that majority as one generation replaces another. So if you are serious about advancing your values, and not just arguing to feel self-righteous, you have to understand how and why others think the way they do (as well as critically examine this question as it applies to yourself.
One reason the media don't serve this purpose well is that the politicians aren't modeling it — and that's largely the fault of our plurality voting system. This tends to limit us to two parties, with polarizing effects. With "full representation" reforms like proportional representation and instant runoff voting, candidates who are consensus builders would usually win, while the intolerant would abandon the present major parties for ones that more purely, and not just rhetorically, represent their positions.
Eric Hamell
Philadelphia, PA (WHYY, 91.0 FM)
The Elephant in the Room (January 23, 2005)
In the discussion of moral values this morning, my wife and I were a bit stunned that there was no mention of money. Most of the conservatives that we know seem to center their lives on the making of money and keeping it. The Bush platform seems supremely supportive of this form of greed and self interest. Did any of the November exit polls list money as a reason for voting Republican? Or is money perhaps the elephant in the room that everyone pretends is not there?
Tom French-Corbett
Phoenixville, PA (WHYY, 91.0 FM)
Moral Values and Money (January 23, 2005)
I would very much like to hear a show on the morality of capitalism. Can we talk about moral values in America without talking about money and how we make it, use it, want it, etc.?
Robb Todd
Iowa City, IA (WSUI, 910 AM)
Helping Us to Examine Issues (January 23, 2005)
This interview served an important purpose by calling on all sides to examine themselves and their attitudes toward those they differ with. The editor-in-chief from Beliefnet did what many of us want to do but don't have the time to invest. He put the questions and statistics side-by-side in unexpected ways so we could see what that revealed. This was a balanced, compassionate, and revealing examination that could go a long way toward helping us all to sort out these often painful issues. Hurrah!
Elizabeth Kerr
Herndon, VA (WETA, 90.9 FM)
Jefferson's Concept of Urban Immorality (January 23, 2005)
Since you mentioned the election of 1800 on today?s show, I would be interested in having the show address an issue from that campaign in more depth. Apparently Jefferson ran against urban immorality and in favor of a more moral agrarian nation. I live and work in Baltimore?s inner city. The city as a whole has an unbelievably high murder rate; crime in general is rampant. Someone I know?s house was recently fire bombed for reporting drug activity to the police.
That said, I find it hard to understand coworker antagonism to my personal immorality. I get things like, "You need to take personal responsibility for what is going on around you." ?Your failure to either stop the violence or move away makes you complicit because your tax payments support Baltimore city, where this is happening." Or, your efforts to try to solve local problems gives you ?personal responsibility? for them because you have failed to solve them. And, the only way you can avoid "personal responsibility" is to move away and wash your hands of the city?s troubles.
When I ask my accusers whether they are accusing me of criminal activity or immorality, they say no. I have simply failed to take "personal responsibility" for others, which, according to them, proves my complicity and therefore my guilt. I believe this ties in quite nicely with Jefferson?s immorality of cities concept. My coworkers? "personal responsibility" arguments are simply a strained attempt to try to tie the global immorality of cities concept to every person in them. I would be interested to see if Jefferson ever went as far as my accusers, or, if even he would have considered them over the top.
Peter Duvall
Baltimore, MD (WYPR, 88.1 FM)
Most Want to Work Together (January 23, 2005)
I believe that the majority of Americans want to work together, move forward, and provide safe and fulfilling lives for ourselves and our families. Political and religious partisanship in five-second sound bites is self-defeating and ultimately fail. Thank you for your willingness to explore subjects with intelligence and compassion. The show with Steven Waldman was actually very reassuring to me; I've e-mailed it to family and friends in the hopes of spreading "The Good News."
Robin Medici
St. Peters, MO (KWMU, 90.7 FM)
Engaging in Thoughtful Discussion (January 23, 2005)
Last night my son and I got into a discussion about a frustration he has with what he perceives as an unwillingness on the part of most of his peers to engage in thoughtful or thought-provoking conversation, meaning that there seems to be only a reiteration of what they have heard someone else say in regard to any given issue. And as I said an unwillingness or, as he sees it, perhaps an inability to apply and reconfigure the presented perspective of the media or a text book; not having or seeking out any depth. I am going to recommend that he read the transcript of this program this morning.
Kathryn Dilley
Grand Rapids, MI (WUOM, 91.7 FM)
Red/Blue Dialogue (January 23, 2005)
Good program this morning. Here's a letter I had published last fall:
This will be the first presidential election where I can vote and yesterday I went to "greet" the President in Marlton. Let me declare my interest up front. My sign read "Kerry In / Cheney Out." The whole experience was a lot of fun and I'm glad I went. My wife and I parked out about one mile and were in a group walking through a bit of a gauntlet of Republicans cordoned off from us by the police. The Republicans shouted "four more years " and we responded "two more weeks." It was all pretty good humored. One girl, perhaps ten years old, shouted at me "abortion is wrong" and I responded "you're right, honey." One chap opened the window of his Cadillac and shouted at a very respectable lady "get a job." Perhaps he didn't hear her response but she had one. We were stopped from going to the event because we didn't have tickets. No surprise really and we were relegated by the police to a somewhat distant field. When we decided to leave, my wife and I were told we had to go back to our car through the woods.
It seems a shame to me that people of different political opinions were separated from one another. How are we going to come together as a nation when we can't even dialogue? Yes, I know there are other forums and yes, I know the police want to protect us but where is our faith in one another? Don't we trust each other enough as citizens to take a little risk?
Chris Roberts
Deptford, NJ (WHYY, 91.0 FM)
To Not Oppose Would Be a Dereliction (January 23, 2005)
The "Moral Values" program, to me, was very disturbing. While I agree with Steven Waldman that demonization of the individuals who supported a particular candidate is not helpful, there seemed to be an implication that strong views about a particular candidate or viewpoint is equally harmful.
While I'm residing in a "blue state" now, my real home is in very "red" northern Indiana. I know many people who are Bush supporters, and they are not stupid. Nonetheless, many have chosen to vote against their own economic interests in favor of the nebulous "family values" agenda of the right. Thomas Frank, in his book, What's the Matter With Kansas, makes that point very clearly.
Many of us on the left see the "moral values" campaign as a stalking horse for the corporate agenda of the Right—the campaign to bust unions, export good jobs to low-wage countries, to reward the wealthiest Americans with massive tax cuts, and to promote the wanton exploitation of our environment.
The Bush Administration lied about weapons of mass destruction and Iraq's links to al Qaeda in order to engage in a preventive (not even pre-preemptive) war. People high in the Bush administration have talked of an American empire. And the current nominee for Attorney General authored a memo which condoned the use of torture, so long as it did not lead to loss of life or organ failure. In this context, is it any wonder that some of us consider the Bush Administration monstrously wrong?
I agree totally that we should not demonize Bush voters, and that they did not necessarily vote for the Bush agenda. But for us on the liberal side not to oppose the Bush agenda as grossly immoral would be a dereliction of duty.
Stephen Wylder
Philadelphia, PA (WHYY, 91.0 FM)
Life Is Complicated (January 23, 2005)
Much gratitude for this revelation of the complexities that so often are silenced or drowned out by the purveyors of knock-down, drag-out slogan fights. As someone who has for years actively sought a more nuanced and consensus-building approach to an especially divisive issue, I wish there were more many more conversations like this.
And as someone with this particular activist history, I want to note a bit of complexity that the discussion either missed, or didn't quite articulate: there are pro-choice conservatives and pro-life, even proudly feminist liberals. I am one of the latter, and I, and people like me, have long felt invisible and unheard. But we keep plugging away because we feel that authentic, enduring, peacemaking solutions lie not in the customary rhetorical war of woman-versus-fetus, but in the disarmament of that war, in the healing of difficult, long-standing societal problems that pit women against their own fetuses. It is very interesting and encouraging that when we do gain a hearing for this approach, people of all political stripes resonate with it, even if they don't completely agree; it speaks to something in their hearts, more fully and deeply than the usual slogans do.
In a way this isn't surprising. Human hearts deal in nuances, in complicated webs of relationship. And it is there, I feel, that politics needs to go if it is to be truly about resolving grave human difficulties. What a rich and creative resource for problem-solving American politics misses out on.
Mary Krane
Derr, IL (WBEZ, 91.5 FM)
Thoughtful Words Get Equal Air Time (January 23, 2005)
I wanted to express my immense gratitude to you and your staff for airing the program on moral values. This program with guest, Steven Waldman, gave me hope that all is not lost in politics or religion. Too often only the extreme opinions or outrageous statements get air time. Listening to Mr. Waldman speak in moderate tones devoid of venom and hate filled me with hope. The Rush
Limbaughs and Art Frankels and Michael Moores and Bill O'Reillys fill the airwaves with such outrageous oversimplifications that it is hard to get a thoughtful word in edgewise. Thank you so much for providing that thoughtful word. I will recommend this program to all I encounter. In fact, today I am going to suggest that my Sunday School class buy the tape and play it for everyone.
John Charles
Indianapolis, IN (WFYI, 90.1 FM)
It's Not in the Citizens' Hands (January 23, 2005)
I just finished listening to your interview with Steven Waldman about the national debate on moral values, and I was disappointed but not surprised to find that neither of you said a word about what seems to me the central issue: democracy. The reason that the abortion issue is such a sore point 33 years after Roe v. Wade is that Roe v. Wade short-circuited our right to settle the issue through democratic compromise. The same thing is true of gay marriage. It seems clear that it is going to be imposed upon us by judicial fiat no matter how the people or their state representatives vote on it. This has also been true of separation of church and state, pornography, and other issues that people care about, but which have been taken out of their hands, democratically speaking.
What is the point of having a civilized discussion about any of these issues if it has already been determined in advance that the debate is not going to have any effect on the outcome? It might just as well be a vehicle for venting our frustrations. Waldman made the point that opinion polls show that Americans are not so far apart on the issues, but it hardly matters how close they are or how far apart if the mechanism of democratic compromise is denied to them.
I firmly believe that this retreat from democracy, no matter how well intentioned on individual issues, has corrupted both our national debate and our politics. But that is a subject that, as far as I have heard from our liberal media or our liberal pundits and commentators, is never raised. The only cure for the red-state-blue-state impasse is a return to democracy and to a faith that the people are intelligent enough to work things out democratically. And that the compromise they arrive at is the right one no matter how one might feel about it personally.
Richard Davis
Columbus, OH (WOSU, 820 AM)
Politics in the Pews (January 21, 2005)
First let me say that I found the information on the poll numbers in your program astounding. I agree that it is both more fun and more damaging to listen only to your side, and to create caricatures of your opponents to attack. One thing your program neglected to say is that this divisive language also comes from the pulpit itself, and I find myself standing in a chasm. I only ask this: how can I, a liberal Christian who agrees with the fundamentals of fundamentalism (deity of Christ, etc.) but is socially and politically left leaning, how can I sit in a church pew and listen to the pastor of my church set up a caricature of my beliefs and attack me?
Discussion and disagreement about politics is not encouraged in any church that I've been to, especially when the disagreement is with the pastor. As church becomes more and more politicized, and politics become more and more embedded in orthodox faith, to disagree politically with the pastor or with the general political climate of a church becomes tantamount to heresy. People literally cannot see how I could be a Christian Liberal, because they see the two as contradictory.
Patrick Reilly
Fullerton, CA (KPCC, 89.3 FM)
The Impetus Behind the People (January 21, 2005)
What was perhaps most alluring about the title of this week's program was the implicit promise that we would talk about the underlying changing motives that people operate from and have historically operated their daily lives from. What motivates the populous? For those who are fortunate enough to move beyond the basic needs of safety and security and able to ponder higher levels of thought; are we still operating from the same
"values?"
Joseph Howland
Batavia, IL (WBEZ, 91.5 FM)
Role Played by the Cultured Animus by and Between Religion and Science (January 21, 2005)
The blatant political misuse of "morality" for political purposes by the present administration offends me profoundly. A larger matter: the shameless, mutual warfare culturally and politically waged by and between faith and religion must surely have hurtful consequences on the individual psyche as well as on the public. The historied longevity of this insult to lay consciousness must have some real and serious consequence to the individual as well as to society and to the credibility of both religion and science, as professions.
What are the consequences? Is the reconciliation of religion and science possible? Who and what can make it happen? In what sense can they be reconciled? What consequences might come from reconciliation? Psychologically? Politically? Socially? What are the origins of the conflicted religion/science relationship? How does the issue of conflicted "truth" weigh in as to the persisting psychological insult of intuitional sensitivity? What specific role might "truth" play in bringing about their reconciliation?
Sylvester Steffen
New Hampton, IA (KUNI, 90.9 FM)
Discussion on Moral Values (January 20, 2005)
Hello. I am writing in response to your question about how we look at moral values issues and the overall debate that came out of 11/2. I come at this from an apparently unusual vantage point, as a fairly politically liberal evangelical. I oppose abortion and gay marriage and am theologically pretty traditional, but support finding a way to allow rights for committed gay couples and feel strongly that war, poverty, homelessness, access to a good education and healthcare, etc. are also moral issues that we need to address. I guess I would say I'm in the Jim Wallis camp.
At any rate, I do agree with Mr. Waldman that we could come to a lot of agreement on a lot of issues, but the debates just aren't framed in a way that makes that happen. I think the media have a great deal of control over what they report and could really help the situation if they just saw the good it could do and had the interest. After all, who supports the concepts of war or poverty or homelessness?
I think that, while it is possible to find some middle ground with the right leadership and the right media approach, we're rather helpless to change it until there's either a leadership that is interested in such a consensus or there's a real grassroots movement to find that middle ground. Probably 80–90 percent of our problems could be solved if we worked on them together, but there's not a strong push for that right now.
Basically, we need people to "want" to work together, we need the media to realize that Falwell and Sharpton are has-beens that are not in any way representative of the vast, vast majority of Christianity and we need new political leadership that will truly work to bridge these divides. Who will be the first to step up? Maybe now that you've had a show to analyze the issue, you should do a whole new episode that just deals with ideas on bringing these various sides together.
Brad Roberts
Eden Prairie, MN (KNOW, 91.1 FM)
Liberals v. Conservatives (January 23, 2005)
Look, you still do not get it if you believe FOX is a conservative network. You have spent the beginning of this program insulting my beliefs and trying to call a network that is, at best, middle of the road conservative and doing the same things your liberal friends do, making the assumption that we conservatives even bother to listen to direction from anyone but ourselves. I do not need the Falwells of the world to tell me my beliefs. Liberals did not need the Iraq war to hate Bush; they have poured hate on the man since he started running the first time. Thank you.
Don Heverly
Ortonville, MI (WFUM, 91.1 FM)
False Analysis in Measured Tones (January 22, 2005)
I've heard Mr. Waldman before. I am struck by his comfort in labeling liberals. His generalisms about liberal smugness and intellectual arrogance are offensive to me. I voted for Kerry because of my moral values. I am vehemently anti-war and I think that the work done by Alberto Gonzalez and Judge Bybee to justify the use of torture was a shameful betrayal of law and morality.
Am I being smug or overly intellectual by taking issue with someone who disagrees with me? I am tired of the reasoned tone that I hear on your show and NPR in general. At the moment I feel like I am being assaulted by this calm-sounding guy who seems to be telling me liberals need to pay lip service to the religious right because they are sensitive about their beliefs. Why can?t we just debate issues on the merits? Am I being condescending to cite the survey that found that 60 percent of the American people believe that Saddam was responsible for 9/11 and that we actually found WMDs in Iraq? No, this is not about intelligence; its purely about moral blindness.
As someone who firmly endorses the message of Jesus and Hillel: "to do unto others…," it completely astounds me that people who proclaim a strong belief in God can be so seemingly unconcerned and dismissive of the death and injury done to tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis. It seems obvious to me that our president's brand of religiosity doesn't embrace the concept that we are all children of God because if he did maybe he would not have been so quick to go to war and maybe he wouldn?t be so sure that God was on his side. I'm an agnostic, but I still believe that we are all children of God. And if that sounds irrational and inconsistent — good. I may have my doubts about God but my religious sensibilities tell me should God exist, God is always for the persecuted and not the persecutors.
I often wonder how a Holocaust or a Rwanda could happen? How? It happens because at some point when the people should be outraged they are not. So while you and Mr. Waldman chat in your calm tones you are falsely conveying the sense that everything is fine and normal and that the public debates we are having about issues like the war and the use of torture are mere policy issues on which reasonable people can disagree. I don?t see it that way and for that reason I find your conversation with Mr. Waldman extremely dishonest. I am outraged and disgusted at what my country is doing in my name and I am disgusted that the majority of the American people don't share my sense of moral outrage.
And another point: It stuck me that Waldman was being disingenuous in failing to acknowledge the domination of screaming head radio and TV by conservatives; in failing to acknowledge the hatred and bigotry spewed by a Rush Limbaugh; and in failing to acknowledge the moral implications of the huge numbers of listeners who seem to endorse his hateful views. But la di da di da. If only
liberals could be a little less arrogant and a little more understanding. I guess I?m done. Usually I like your show.
David Pincus
Dix Hills, NY (WNYC, 820 AM)
The Discussions That Should Be Taking Place (January 20, 2005)
Thank you for this program. I was a Political Science/Religion major in college so it was a subject close to my heart. I think all the rhetoric is harmful as it prevents us from having a real conversation about finding common ground and solutions. For example, abortion. I have yet to hear either side talk about how to reduce the number of abortions by asking women why they want the procedure.
Do they not have health care? Do they not know how to put the child up for adoption? Is their family rejecting them? Are they embarrassed because their birth control failed? Are they overwhelmed because they are a single mother and do not have any help or job training to support themselves and their children? These are hard questions to ask and hard problems to solve. It is easier to call names and blame the other side than to find real solutions. I enjoy the show. Keep up the good work.
Leanne Schmiesing
Mendota Heights, MN (KNOW, 91.1 FM)
Jane Jacobs (January 23, 2005)
I would greatly appreciate hearing Krista Tippett in conversation with Jane Jacobs, whose recent book Dark Age Ahead looks at the threats to our deepest cultural and spiritual values, the web that has sustained democracy in its truest sense, from the potential loss of communal memory, as it were, of "how you do that or be that," indeed of awareness of how to live a democratic life, of what sustains the subtle, fragile, network of real shared values and civil honoring ways of interaction — written from a structural historical anthropological perspective of death of cultures over time.
Jane Jacobs' book is short and succinct and so full of openings for further exploration; it seems to me that Krista's profound way of exploring such openings offers an opportunity for the very precious, irreplaceable kind of human interaction that carries values forward that Jacobs speaks of. I don't know details of Jane Jacobs' health, but she does speak of a disability — I almost have the impression in reading the book that she is being laconic because she is racing the clock, though I hope that is not the case.
Deborah Seed
Waukegan, IL (WBEZ, 91.5 FM)