Listener 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 this program meant to you.

Submit Your Reflection about "Liberating the Founders."

Finally the Words (November 3, 2008)
I have struggled for years with how to explain to my evangelical friends why I don't believe my personal morals, rooted in contemporary Christianity, should be made part of the legal system beyond the basic laws required for societal order. This program helped me to liberate that voice.

As for not allowing politicians to invoke God, as proposed by one of the previous commenters, that would be as much a violation of the politicians free speech. The First Amendment prohibits the establishment of a government sponsored religion while preventing the silencing of religion outside of the government. If you have a problem with a politician using the word God, write him/her a letter and vote for someone else.

Kelli Murbach
Marietta, GA (WABE, 90.1 FM)

"Proclaim Liberty Throughout All the Land Unto All the Inhabitants Thereof" (November 3, 2008)
I work in the charge of the U.S. government at the very birthplace of our nation. I speak publicly with thousands of people daily on the subjects of the conversation you had with Mr. Waldman.

I am also passionate about my Quaker faith. You make me even more proud to work at the place where my faith was given the freedom to thrive.

Thank you for bringing Mr. Waldman's voice to me. I will pass it on to my coworkers, and in turn the thousands of people who visit our nation's birthplace.

Christopher Elbich
Philadelphia, PA (WHYY, 91.0 FM)

Putting It Into Words (November 3, 2008)
I appreciated so much how the founding fathers (Jefferson in particular) were used as they truly were. These men have for so long been touted as the most reliable resources that to hear the real story strengthens what I believe, and can be used to appeal to the logical, intelligent sides of people. This author has put into words so well what I've wanted to say for so long about intellect vs. faith or intellect coupled with faith that it almost made me cry.

Lisa Levin
Philadelphia, PA (WHYY, 91.0 FM)

A History of Misplaced Loyalties (November 1, 2008)
I found this program very interesting and wish there were more like it. I think that in most cases my countrymen do not actually understand or even actually think of the meaning of spiritual faith in this country nor the facts of historic meanings behind what we claim to believe.

Found throughout history are the misuses and misplaced loyalties not to mention the outright misuse of 'faith' as a reason to kill the 'enemy' or anyone or thing that contradicts personal beliefs no matter how misled or erroneous. Witness the Salem Witch Trials, The Spanish Inquisition, The Crusades. Your program always gives intelligent and insightful approaches to any subject you embrace but I found this particular one very meaningful.

David Millen
Davisburg, MI (WFUM, 91.1 FM)

True Freedom of Speech (April 24, 2008)
First, I felt the program was enlightening and entertaining. Steven Waldman is certainly a learned man concerning early American History. For one, I had never known that Americans had been executed by the government for their religious beliefs. Nor had I ever known that the early colonies, or even later states, enacted an established religion. In that light, I can see why Madison and Jefferson were so adamant about separating Church and State. The two are truly oil and water, with a certain flammability that has repeatedly proven dangerous.

The first commenter here took issue with a politician invoking the name of God, as it could possibly alienate those of different faiths or those who adhere to no supernatural faith. His comments carry a tinge of religious repression. Why should a politician/citizen be denied religious freedom at any time, behind a podium or otherwise? I agree that if a current politician invoked Mohammed, there would be an outcry. Let them cry. They are not practicing their faith or living up to the American ideal by doing so and should be called to task for it. Besides, there is no guarantee in the constitution or elsewhere to freedom from alienation or insult. When one thinks about it, the First Amendment's freedom of speech and religion almost promises that people will be subjected to being made uncomfortable through speech acts or differences in religious beliefs.

Americans talk about tolerance and diversity, but when they are called to exercise it, such as in tolerating a politician's invocation of a supernatural being, the discussion quickly turns to "you excluded me" or "I certainly don't believe that." First, doesn't exclusion take more than someone saying something as simple as "so help me God?" Second, all disagreement has an element of exclusion, religious or otherwise, so what's the problem? Why does religious exclusion enjoy, or suffer from, such privilege?

Now, there are those who will recall past abuses that arose from religious politicians who, in public, were guilty of no more than invoking God, but in private, worked with fervor towards a religious agenda of real, physical exclusion. Yes, there certainly were those abuses, but their function should not be to repress others' more innocent religious speech. Rather, it should call the populace to be more diligent politically and vote more carefully.

Even though a spiritual man who expresses that spirituality through religious practices, I deeply oppose government legislated religion or even government sponsored religion. As pointed out in this program, there are problems in doing so. I, too, have felt that politics have harmed religion more than helped it. I cringe every time Pat Robertson or Dr. Dobson speak out in the political arena. The image they portray often lacks a Christ-like tolerance. They often seem to be very guilty of ignoring the log in their own eye and worried about the speck in someone else's.

What I'd like to see is a return to the founding fathers' beliefs about state and religion. Keep the two apart for the one will corrupt the other.

Roy Reichle
St. Helena, NE (Listens to SOF Podcast)

Freedom From Religion (March 31, 2008)
I am not religious but I love your show. The archive edition of “Liberating the Founders” was fascinating. Towards the end of the interview, Steven Waldman asserted that it is acceptable for politicians to invoke God in public discourse. I do not think of myself as politically correct, but I have to take exception here. Freedom of religion also means freedom from religion. Invoking God does not alienate a Jew, a Muslim or a Christian because they all speak of and can identify with the generic “God” term. To imagine what an agnostic experiences at the invocation of God, imagine you are Jewish or Muslim and a politician invokes, not God, but Jesus. The Jew and the Muslim would likely bristle a bit, I’d suppose. The slope is slippery. Can you imagine the furor if an American politician invoked the name, Allah or Mohammed? It would bring a firestorm of criticism. The politician would be branded “un-American”. And every Christian would know how it feels to be marginalized … as atheists and agnostics are marginalized. Why is it any different to bring religion and God into any political speech? Religious talk is necessarily exclusive language that alienates and isolates the atheist and the agnostic. Am I making sense?

Tom Whelan
Brewster, MA (WCAI, 90.1 FM)

So Apreciated (March 17, 2008)
Sometimes my husband and I fear that we are the only two people with a single puny brain cell left in the pews of this country, and that the entire fate of America is in the hands of flag-waving, Bible-beating mentally ill Republicans. We are so skittish that while we go to church and tend to be conservatives, we're too scared to join a church in case we would ever get to know someone and have a real conversation — like the one you just had with Steven Waldman. Thanks so much for your interview and the thoughtfulness and intelligence displayed there. It was a true ministry to anyone that heard it.

Tracy Edmonds Herz
Charleston, WV (WFDD, 88.5 FM)

The Original Separation of Church and State (March 16, 2008)
Matthew 22:21. Then he said to them, "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's."

RJ Walker
Perrysburg, OH (WKSU, 89.7 FM)

Keep It Comin'! (March 16, 2008)
The program this week was one of the best and every American should have it as required listening! I hope the uncut version gets out ASAP!

Lindsey Greene
Boulder, CO (KUNC, 91.5 FM)

Liberating the Fathers (March 16, 2008)
Your interview with Steve Waldman stirred a mingling of emotions and a recollection of recent education in religion and the American Revolution. Emotions of elation and joy that I am a Christian and that the basic tenents of the Judeo-Christian faiths and the 1600+ years of Western culture and history were distilled in the minds of the founding fathers (the brightest and the best of their generations) and these tenents are apparent in the wording of our founding documents. A recollection that to this day educators in Great Britain refer to the American revolution as that "Presbyterian uprising!" and with few exceptions in Western history our revolution was right and just in that it was and is based on English common law reaching back to the Magna Carta.

King George violated the rights of all British subjects/commoners in the colonies by taxing them without them being represented before the houses of Commons or Lords. He housed troops in private homes and allowed them to conduct illegal searches, seizures and arrests without due process. The Magna Carta was the first major blow commoners struck against the doctrine of the "Divine Right of Kings." As you probably guessed that doctrine gave kings (and queens) a broad latitude of power including the power of life or death over his subjects by assuming that he was God's representative on earth.

Presbyterian ministers in the colonies were the best educated as a rule, in law, history and Christian theology and being familiar with British common law and the teachings of Martin Luther, John Calvin, and other reformers coined the battle cry in their congregations, "We have no king but Jesus!" and of course, to arms against the tyrant King George they went and we are the better for it.

Derek Smith
Lexington, NC (WFDD, 88.5 FM)

Standing in Line (March 16, 2008)
The program this weekend was especially significant to me as I spent last weekend in Washington, D.C. for a conference. I was standing in line at the National Archives, awaiting to view the Declaration of Independance and the other founding documents of this country. I got in line in front of a group of high school students being led in by a young man who was speaking of the role God played in the lives of the founding fathers. He spoke with such passion about how the faith of these men led them to establish a country with such a high calling. He also talked about how we still need to live up to those dreams and how these young people can be those who help us do so. I did not hear any real evangelizing in his presentation — only that this belief in God made these men see their world differently.

Mr. Waldman's excellent discussion of the original intents of the founding fathers was a great way to supplement what turned out to be a very spiritual trip to the capitol — from that standing in line experience to a visit to the United States Holocaust Memorial Musuem.

Doug Wood
Kalamazoo, MI (WVGR, 104.1 FM)

Steven Waldman Show (March 16, 2008)

That interview was so good it ruined my whole Sunday. I had to drop everything and listen; now I'm an hour behind.

Dennis Tibbetts
Columbus, IN (WFYI, 90.1 FM)