Thank you for the two recent shows from "both" sides of the political aisle. (I wonder if we had different architecture and thus used different architectural metaphors, we might realize that there are more than two sides to some issues — imagine an aisle that divides three rather than two! Another topic for another day.)

In any case, Rod Dreher seemed to characterize progressive religious folks as being more interested in searching for truth, and conservative religious folks as being more interested in finding truth.

As a progressive religious person, I'm going to disagree with Dreher's characterization, realizing of course that I may have misunderstood him entirely. In my experience, conservative religious folks are more interested in the truth that has already been found, not in finding truth. His statement helped me formulate some thoughts that have been developing in my mind for a few years.

I am involved with human-subjects research on a couple of levels. On the level of my discipline, there's a divide between quantitative and qualitative researchers. We produce research in both paradigms, but this divide seems to track regional differences. Specifically, my colleagues from the southeast and the midwest (generally conservative regions) seem to produce more quantitative research, while those from the northeast and the west seem to produce quantitative and qualitative research. At this point I'd like to emphasize that I believe both are important and vital!

How is this related to the topic Dreher set up? It seems to me that the promise (and value!) of quantitative research is that it provides proof. Qualitative research cannot do that — it has entirely different purposes: to expand meaning, to understand human experience, and so forth. To extend Dreher's comparison to research, qualitative researchers are more interested in the search for "truth," while quantitative researchers are more interested in finding truth (the lack of quotes is deliberate).

Putting these ideas together, I get the impression that quantitative researchers and conservative religious folks have a lot in common. They are both interested in knowing (and to some degree owning and controlling) truth. One could ask conservatives about the role of faith, if truth and knowledge are what you're about, but again that's another topic for another day and beyond my knowledge base.

Here's the catch, though — at some point, conservative religious folks limit their search for truth! As soon as it takes them beyond "the" (actually, their own) received truth, then the search is over. This is the difference for me, and this is why I don't think I'll ever be conservative in their sense of the word. I just think it's in our own best interest to continue to search for truth.

Listening to Rod Dreher, I heard him say something that I've always believed and have simply taken for granted. About 15 minutes into the show, he was talking about the Traditionalists on the one side, "who believe that there's such a thing as objective moral truth," and the Progressives on the other, "who believe that religious truth is something that can be reinterpreted to suit the demands of the particular situation in society." I've always thought this myself. But when I heard him say it, I thought — that's got to be wrong.

Religious truth is not what Progressives reinterpret. The transcendent, objective truth remains the same. In Christianity, the essence here is love in relationship — with God and neighbor. Progressives do not reinterpret this. What they reinterpret is how our behavior should be judged in light of this truth.

I think a good example is the founding of The Salvation Army. That church was established to minister to the homeless and the prostitutes, who at that time weren't allowed to cross the threshold into a church. The Salvation Army re-thought the church's behavior, Christian behavior, in light of objective moral truth in the context of their particular situation in society. They were Progressives!

Readers may dismiss my argument as over-simplification. But speaking as a Catholic "crunchy con," I believe that we will be judged by how well we've loved.

Dreher made such a great point at the end of the show. Thinking about all the tough moral issues that divide our society and our faith communities, let's never forget that ultimately we're not talking about abstract issues — we're talking about people. Remembering this truth makes arguing more difficult, and makes compassion much easier.

I have often been reticent to challenge folks who have different theological views out of tolerance and respect. However, as a seminary student myself, I am finding it more and more necessary to challenge others when they speak for God in violent ways. I had a classmate say, "As far as I'm concerned, let the blood flow" in regards to one of America's past wars. I found this to be appalling as he acknowledged that he was speaking as a Christian.

With that in mind, I thought it odd that you were portraying the media's treatment of Palin's quote about the troops as unfair. However, I thought her full quote was even more offensive. It is one thing to claim that the troops are doing God's will. It is another to claim that in sending our troops off to war, we must pray that this is God's will. The distinction is that in the former case, she thinks our action is in concert with God's will, whereas, in the latter, she says we must pray that the action we have taken is God's will. To think war is God's will is bad enough, but to pray that war is God's will is even worse. We have made God subservient to our own will. I was struck at how unrepentant we are. In fact, we pray that evil is blessed if it is for America, "the city on a hill."

I was reminded of one of your past guest, Steven Waldman, who informed us that the main distinction between George Washington and George W. Bush is that Washington offered repentance and wanted to make sure we were serving God's will while Bush's speeches lack any form of repentance whatsoever.

Your guest Rod Dreher thinks the problem is that secularists do not understand southern prayers, but I think he lacks clarity on the way in which civil religion has infiltrated the Christian church. I grew up in the south and we worshipped a patriotic God who values soldiers fighting for America greater than folks who give their life to Christ and serve the poor, the disabled, the oppressed. I contend that God loves them all the same, but that God prefers for us to serve as Christ did than to "serve" as we often euphemistically hear it on the right.

I was struck by the guest's final thoughts on the idea that food grown and raised in a humane manner is basically a conservative idea. For a long time in our country being concerned about food and energy sources was discounted as too liberal.

As it becomes more acceptable in other areas of our culture is it necessary to recompartmentalize it into a different political framework? No one political party can or really should attempt to own the idea that raising food in a sustainable manner and understanding how to grow food is ultimately wise for the world and it's populations.

It is wonderful that people of differing backgrounds can come together, in order for them to remain together it is important to refrain from trying to apply ownership to one political party over another. Applying political ownership to cultural ideas is part of how we got ourselves into such a divisive rut in the first place.

I am a conservative Evangelical registered Republican who listens to conservative talk radio. I usually listen to Dennis Prager because he sees the humanity in everyone and regularly has other views represented on his show. I have been trying to find a liberal talk radio show that actually allows call in and discussion, but haven't found any yet (I know that doesn't mean there aren't any). That is how I stumbled upon your program.

I loved the point Rob Dreher made about Evangelicals of his generation (I am 34, I believe he said he was 41) being socially conservative and seeing many issues such as poverty, war, abortion, ect. as moral issues. I think he mentioned that we are far more involved on a personal responsibility level in these social issues then what is represented by main stream media as the usual conservative Christian. The usual conservative Christian is not what is seen on Christian cable T.V.

I agreed also that so many of us (when I say "us" I am referring to socially conservative Evangelicals) have been behind Sarah Palin for the reasons Mr. Dreher stated. She is like so many of us. She is a hard working capable woman. She has conservative values. She chooses to embrace the difficulties of life (such as having a child with Down Syndrome) and love them, without denying the challenges they bring, rather than choose not to go through them.

I don't mean criticism towards those who have had abortions, I have not walked in their shoes. However, I echo Rob's feeling of anger that she was personally attacked in such a mocking way. In those attacks once again I felt that their was no person in the mainstream media who could represent me as a woman. They were criticizing the old school, staunch, judgmental, pharisaical Evangelical and assuming that that is who we all are.

The interesting thing is that, growing up in a conservative Christian home, I was raised with a conservative value system and was taught that everyone has value. My family has helped young women who were recovering drug addicts and needed a place to live after coming out of prison and losing their children. My mother has counseled women who have had abortions, never condemning them but in a way that helps them to find healing from the very real pain they experience as a result of their choice.

I was always taught that it is absolutely legitimate to believe that their is right and wrong without condemning those we disagree with. The Religious Right I know is deeply involved in the community, providing meals for and helping the poor and homeless, doing work projects on homes for people in need — regardless of who they are.

My husband is a youth pastor and has become deeply involved with the AIDS issue in Africa. This interest came from listening to Bono, Bill Hybles (pastor of Willow Creek Community Church unashamedly Evangelical), a friend who at the time worked for Focus on the Family (a swear word to most liberals I know!), and a retired general who was an advisor to the Bush administration. Interesting people who in some cases might be personified by the typical media perception of Christians, yet in reality are nothing like what their representation by liberal media is.

My husband also attended the World Aids Summit at Saddle Back Community Church. That was started by a conservative Evangelical Christian, Rick Warren. Hillary Clinton was there and spoke. That fact Mrs. Clinton took the time to be there really impressed my husband. The church we go to is a "megachurch". We have an AIDS task force that has asked our city what we can do for people who have AIDS or are affected by it in our community, without exclusion. I am involved in a group of conservative Evangelical Christian women who have a passion for women's issues like AIDS, abuse, human trafficking, poverty etc. and are doing something about it. We do this in the name of Jesus. Our compassion comes from who we believe is the Jesus of the Bible and our convictions come from that belief also.

This is the Evangelical community that I have known all my life. I don't mention these things to gain recognition for the church — any good thing comes from God — but at the same time conservative Christians as a whole are very misrepresented. It is absolutely true that there are many Christians in certain positions who undergo "social persecution". They are not allowed to represent themselves for who they really are but are brutally personified by the liberal media. There are some who fit that negative perception, but as someone who has been around Christians all my life, I have met far fewer of those "Christians" then I have of the ones that I have described.

I realize this is long, but I wanted to comment on one other thing that Mr. Dreher mentioned. I don't agree that for the most part most Republican politicians are only concerned about foreign policy and economics. I think that many fear making an issue of the social conservative politics such as abortion and same-sex marriage because of the misrepresentation that occurs toward people who do speak out.

For instance, Focus on the Family has been outspoken for those things and is hated by the liberal media and known in general as anti-gay. There is so much more to that organization, but they were unwilling to back down from social politics because of religious conviction.

Another example is what has happened to the people (i.e. Clarence Thomas) who have been appointed by the president to fill supreme court positions and were being appointed for their conservative social views. They have been ripped to shreds by the media and filibustered by liberal congress. If you have conservative social views on political issues and you concentrate on any for too long you will come under tremendous fire.

So, I think there might be more talk of conservative social issues if politicians weren't afraid of committing political suicide. With that said, there is much that is practical and makes good economic sense in conservative economic politics. It is not all driven by greedy evil republicans who want to make a cheap buck off of hardworking disadvantaged people. Much of conservative economic thought comes from people who have worked hard, faced adversity and triumphed and know how to make money wisely. Everyone benefits from wisdom.

Thank you for letting me have a voice, and I will listen again as long as there continues to be open discussion.

One of the things that kept coming up in this conversation was the "Culture Wars." I believe this is a very real problem in our country today. The format of the debate is such that it highlights the fundamental problem that brings about this "war." That format is one that is couched in an acceptance of the two mainstream parties in America.

Issues have been presented in black and white, with two sides that can only make abstract issues that are all too real to individuals in this country. If you give people two choices and you say one is right and the other is wrong, then this is the worst kind of divisiveness possible. When it comes to a debate about something as charged as abortion, people begin to make fundamental judgments on moral character based on where they fall in the debate. The sides are labeled Baby-Killers v God Fearers or from the other side Rights-Infringers v Fair-Minded Citizens.

Religion should not be operating in this way in any society. We are no better than our fundamentalist counterparts in 2nd and 3rd world countries if we allow ourselves to devolve to this level of abstraction. What should be setting us apart from everyone else is our ability to accept plurality and difference. Religion should be working as a catalyst to bridge the gap between the side.

Sure, protest outside of abortion clinics, pass out pamphlets to inform expectant mothers of the moral side of the issue, but trying to legislate against another citizens right is against everything that our founding documents stand for. Finding a way to live your moral life within those constraints is paramount, because if someone else's life is compromised because of religion then we are merely a theocracy.

I am deeply concerned that we, in the United States, with a Constitution that protects a divide between church and state are discussing the religious beliefs of our candidates. In the early years of my ability to vote, we had John F. Kennedy and discussions of how his Catholicism would impact his Presidency. He made a great effort to observe his own religion in his own life and to protect the rights of all to observe their own religion.

As a Jew, I am concerned that the Religious right of all faiths are more concerned about having their religion dominate the way that our country is governed than they are about protecting the rights of all to practice and to believe as they wish to believe. If people wish to live in theocracies, they can see that in all places where the religion of the country is intolerant to the point of capital punishment for those who do not believe and be glad that they do not live in such a state.

Our founding fathers put in the protections to make sure that each of us are allowed to believe as we wish. I am offended by the Religious Right trying to impose their beliefs through legislation. Gay rights, abortion rights, the right to die should not be decided by those who do not believe in them. In a democratic society we do not force people to have an abortion, we do not force people to decide when life begins, or when is someone dead. We do not force our beliefs, we allow each to act on their own beliefs.

I wish that in this forum, you discussed the fact that it should not be important for our Presidential candidates to declare their religious beliefs and that they should state that they wish to uphold the constitutional separation of church and state.

Let me begin here. You let Dreher off the hook in terms of the implications of the position he takes, for example, on Palin. Discourse that is not taken below the surface of ideological allegiances is too weak to promote the ends that Dreher laments. Dreher is a journalist (so one might ask to whom he has allegiance; but that is not the main reason for my message). This does not make him automatically the kind of thinker who is committed to an ethic of discourse that is beholden less to sound bites and more to careful thought. Alas, again, but Dreher is a journalist. And like other journalists, although he does his thinking in public, he is not a public intellectual. While he is positioned to analyze culture, he needs to take more care with his choice of terms. He appears as much a pseudo-intellectual as someone like Francis Schaeffer, who built his system of thought on the categories crystallized by others (e.g. Van Till) and adorned them with the accessories and details of his contemporary culture — among other things, for Schaeffer a goatee and for Dreher Birkenstocks — both items superficial, although potentially symbolic of the life-style liberal.

Dreher referred to "Fundamentalists who don't have horns." This is stupid. Humans don't have horns. This linguistic framing does nothing but put nuance cliched adornment on old ideologies. To demonstrate the difference between "thinking in public" and being a "public intellectual," Dreher was happy to use the term "elite" when referring to those who attacked Palin. His whole rationale was framed in his work as a journalist working against other journalists, many of whom he wanted to dismiss with the term "elite."

Part of my reason for writing to you arises on this point. I am not, in fact, a journalist, and I take issue at his use of that term to dismiss all those who find fault with Palin. He alleges that Palin "reignited the culture wars." However, journalists like Dreher perpetuate them. They do this, not by attempting with good reasons to defend her, but by the standpoint of their rhetorical activity. When the "country boy come city boy come Catholic come nationally recognized pundit" uses labels and catch phrases he perpetuates the culture wars he says he laments. Consequently, he doesn't help people think beyond these polarities, though he seems to want them to. He goes to bait and switch and leaves the whack to Rush, Sean, or some other verbal-sport caster. The most generous read on their motive here is that it is for entertainment-economic reasons. I worry that their interests are more nefarious.

I have come to a conclusion about your show, as a result of this episode. And here is where the practical parts company from the merely philosophical aspect of my comments. While SOF avoids the overt "bait-switch-and-whack" of a FOX, its questioning pose fails to probe or even tickle the invariable inconsistencies of your guests, even those whose positions I call home and whose articulations and defenses give me a feeling of self-satisfaction. I think you could serve the public interest more by modeling less a discourse of entertainment and more a discourse of responsible and critical public dialogue. You have a program structure suitable to that goal. However, I don't know if your SOF and MPR market strategists would see that discourse model as being at cross-purposes with its economic speculations.

Today's conversation with Mr. Dreher was very interesting, and I would like to share my response, which I have e-mailed directly to him. Thank you for your work.

Dear Mr. Dreher,

As a political and social liberal and as a long-time elder in a progressive Presbyterian church in Baltimore, I was very touched and impressed by much of what you said this morning on "Speaking of Faith." I appreciate the generosity of your witness. Because I believe that in many ways you are looking for common ground among Christians, I want both to affirm your openness of spirit and to try to clarify for you my perspective on some areas where we apparently diverge.

Perhaps the most beautiful thing you said concerned the sense of community among your New York neighbors after the terrorist actions of September 11, 2001. The solidarity and freedom from prejudice which you experienced in that crowd is exactly the world that liberals hope to help create. I want to invite you to understand how difficult it is for us to recognize that vision in the conservative agenda, which seems often to emphasize difference and to disadvantage the unpopular and marginalized minorities whom you were glad to see near you on that tragic day. "Gay and straight together, black and white together…" — is that something that you believe conservatives are working hard to achieve? If so, I will be very happy to work with you.

I also applaud your defense of Governor Palin in the face of unkind remarks. However, I hope you can see that she herself, like many on the right, adopts a contemptuous and sarcastic tone when talking about people like me. Her references to the "New York Times" and to San Francisco strike me as coded appeals to anti-Semitism and homophobia. More important, while I always regret if anyone's feelings are hurt, I do feel that you are applying a double standard in your defense of her. Were you equally vehement when Anne Coulter said that liberals should be hunted with dogs, or when Grover Norquist suggested that Congressional Democrats should be gelded? When I believe that someone's words and policies tend to contribute to the oppression of the poor or to the persecution of minorities, I have to respond; if that person's feelings are hurt, so be it. I don't believe that Moses should be asked to choose his words so as to protect the feelings of Pharaoh. If what it takes for small-town hockey moms to feel kindly treated is that they be allowed to practice all their prejudices unopposed, and to stir up prejudice from the podium, the price of kindness has risen too high.

Thank you for your thoughtful remarks this morning, and all the best. My daily prayers include those for the unity of our nation. I believe that you share that prayer with me.

Yours,
Prof. John C. McLucas, Elder
First & Franklin Street Presbyterian Church
Baltimore

Listening to Rod Dreher was a revelation that gave me hope for the future. I've been an Independent voter for years, but have voted a straight Democratic ticket since the radical-right takeover of the Republican Party. In the past 20 years, for many of us not a part of the religion, the word "Christian" has come to mean "war loving, abortion hating, pro-death penalty, anti-everyone-not-just-like-me zealot that wants to turn the USA into a theocracy where big business runs amok hypocrite." It's a visceral reaction that doesn't take into account the many Christians who aren't like that at all, but the extremists in any group usually define the group to outsiders.

Mr Dreher represents a hopefully growing faction that a person can disagree with while still getting along with. His account of his reaction to Palin was quite interesting. When his emotions get the better of him he defends her, but when he observes her objectively he has doubts.

It's easy to see what Balkanization did to the Balkans (I saw it firsthand as a member of IFOR in 1996) and I sure don't want it to happen here. I applaud Dreher for looking for common ground rather than disagreement and I hope people on the Left can do this as well.

United we Stand.

Thank you for your mind-opening shows to date. But I must take serious issue with your allowing Rod Dreher to use the phrases "media elite" and to talk about "East Coast liberals" without questioning the basic assumptions made in those phrases. They are profoundly offensive to me. I am a patriotic American who is grateful for the free press we are guaranteed as Americans. The "liberal elite" is, for the most part, people who dedicate their lives to reporting news and stories in the most objective way possible, without benefit of a large salary or the respect of their peers. Let's cut them a break and start asking what, really, "media elite" means. I am not a reporter, nor am I married to one.

As for East Coast liberals, I am one and proud of it. What it means to me is that I come from a state founded, grounded in freedom of religion — another freedom for which I am deeply grateful, every day. I do not disdain evangelical Christians; I call some friends. I do, however, object strongly to those imposing their religion over others — just as I object to the element in many religions that claims superiority based on religious affiliation. As far as I am concerned, any religion that espouses that we treat others as we would be treated is as valuable as the next.

You lose your credibility when you don't question these assumptions because they are used as weapons of hate and war. I am surprised by your lack of integrity — objectivity — in this regard.

Thank you for your show and for the rich eclectic variety of topics you address. Your mini-series about the culture wars is especially relevant to the current political season, especially at sunset of the George W. Bush presidency.

A comment that a conservative radio host recently made, which you replayed on your show today, reminded me of what I've always seen as a hypocrisy, but I'm sure that there is a good rationale among those who believe this: that a good conservative believes in right-to-life (at conception) and capital punishment. I don't mean to diminish their belief system by asking this rhetorical question, but how can they support the rights to a life on the one hand and so cavalierly restrict it on the other hand?

Rob Dreher was speaking of discovering pathways for all of us; the religious right and the left; to celebrate community and common values. He spoke of going to the farmers market, where we "…rub shoulders with each other… liberals that are interested in eating clean meat and meat that is humanly raised, which is a conservative thing to do by the way … when you do little things like that, that don't have any overt ideological import to them … it is really hard to see your neighbor … as being less than human."

While offering an idealized model for unification, Mr. Dreyer attempted to co-op movement toward sustainable agriculture. I would not label a commitment to healthful living as liberal or conservative, but was struck that he did. In giving voice to this, he at once injected ideology and sowed the seeds of further division.

There was a comment by someone from the Deep South (not Mr. Dreher) regarding "right beliefs," particularly concerning Sarah Palin. The man in question said that she was in favor of life (that is, against abortion) and also in favor of the death penalty. It seems to me that to be against abortion and at the same time in favor of the death penalty is intellectually and morally indefensible.

The life in the convicted murderer is God just as the life in the unborn infant is God. The taking of a human life, for any reason, at any time, is absolutely indefensible. All life is sacred. All life is God. Exodus 20:13 says: "Thou Shalt Not Kill." No exceptions. Period. (I am a registered Independent in New Hampshire.)

I have always looked in wonderment at people who vote for only one issue. We have seen over the last eight years what that type of thinking has done to our country and the rest of the world. I wonder how the parents of all the children that have been murdered my our Armed Services think about our "pro-life" leaders? I'll leave it here. My anger is to hard to keep at bay as it is. I love your show and listen to it every week. Thank you for being a voice of reason in a world of screamers.

Two of my girlfriends moved to Texas and one of these otherwise "normal" women became very religious. (The other one was always religious, but in a very graceful, quietly active sort of way). Ok, so what is very religious? Her conversation is constantly peppered with God this, God that, Jesus this, Jesus that, isn't the Lord good and great; all this stated with great joy. God bless her. I read the New Testament, I understand that we are supposed to go out and spread the Word.

Still living on the east coast, I consider myself normal. What is normal? I try to keep the words of the New Testament in my daily life. I would like to say I do my best, but I have come to realize this is no easy task. It has occurred to me that other than Jesus, the only living person that has been able to accomplish this is Mother Theresa. I will keep working on it. Right or wrong, I do not go around professing the wonders of God or Jesus unless it is a really exceptional situation — like pointing out to my young niece what a beautiful day it is and that God made this day and no matter what happens God is always there for us and reminds us everyday. I try to follow the Word through my actions; first and foremost: "Love one another" and to continue the phrase "as you would love me." Sacrifice is huge, I can do this, but I find that I can complain about it too.

I am aware that most of the people around me have no daily spiritual exercise or mtc and the ones that do are a combination of those who worship once a week and those who quietly try to live a spiritual existence. Again, the ones who worship once a week are usually the ones who are the most God fearing and extreme and the least patient, forgiving, not to mention that they are better than those of us who do not publicly attend services so that we can be seen being pious. This stuff is right out of the New Testament; it's still going on. I just don't get it.

Anyway, I have noticed that the very people who claim to be so God-loving, God-following are the some of the most unforgiving, extremely opinionated, and actively persecute others. For example, from these people (I have family members living in Florida) I keep receiving this e-mail that the US Postal Service is going to have a Muslim postage stamp and they are against this stamp because the view it as supporting terrorists. Is it me?

I keep getting this e-mail that the U.S. government is going to remove "In God We Trust" from our currency. They are against this. What exactly does having IGWT on our currency accomplish? How does it make a difference? Technically, it's advertising. I kind of think it's insulting to God to have that on our currency, kinda reminds me of the words "den of thieves."

There are so many examples I can state, but the worst by far is Sarah Palin, John McCain, and the rhetoric they are spewing about Barack Obama. It reminds me of "It's not what goes into the mouth that concerns me, it's what comes out; because that comes from the heart."

All my life I have dreamed of becoming an intellectual society. It is clear that "someone" has figured out that the smarter we are the less power they will have over us. Education, and I'm talking ethical education, should be first and foremost on our list of priorities. The fear and loathing that the Republican Party promotes (with the implied backing of God) is beyond disgusting.

I am hoping that Barack Obama can prevail; I am hoping that enough Americans will see through the rhetoric; I am hoping that Barrack will make every effort to take back the hope we have lost that is America. I'm hoping that Americans have not become so ignorant that they can still see what has been going on and stop it. I'm afraid this may be our last chance, because surely another four years, another eight years of the past eight years will surely plunge us into the abyss. God bless us all, everyone.