I try to listen to your show often and appreciate its thoughtfulness and encouragement to think about faith and religion in ways that I have not considered. As usual, I found your show this weekend on faith in the Democratic Party interesting. However, I feel that the conversation assumed that the Democratic Party should be doing more to invite the religious, specifically Christians.

I would be more interested in a conversation and reflection about what is the appropriate role of religion in party politics. It doesn't surprise me that over time the Democratic Party moved away from discussing faith and religion — as the more diverse, heterogeneous party — the role of religion is difficult and I don't know if it has an appropriate place as too many sects of Christianity evangelize — where they actively try to get you to join them and you have to believe their beliefs because they are the only ones correct about the meaning of life. If I want this experience and discussion, I would go to church. This is not what I'm looking for in a political party.

I believe peoples' moral compass and how they want government to work can come from a lot of places, including (but not only) their faith. I'm interested in my party defining its policy platform and candidates describing what/how they think government should do to help people. I'm not interested in my party worrying about if they can/should/have to discuss Jesus, Buddha, or Allah.

As a social liberal, politically independent, who often votes Democrat, I mistrust politicians on the left who espouse faith or religion, not because I feel that this moves them toward the right, but because I mistrust faith and religion.

I was raised Catholic and psychologically abused by priests and nuns. At a very young age, I was attracted to science and overt fantasy, and repelled by faith. As an adult, I have noted with distress that most of the believers I have met seem to be intolerant, untrustworthy, or emotionally damaged.

I have one close friend who is seriously faithful. He is a fine person, blessed with a more skeptical partner who respects the choice of faith, and helps his friend deal honestly with the world.

But in general, as faith is defined as the intentional avowal to suspend rational thought and tangible evidence from ones most basic connection to the universe, I mistrust faith itself, and observe that religion and faith have been the source, the disguise, or the excuse for most of the greatest horrors thru history.

I note that acknowledged agnostics and atheists are less than half as likely (on a percentage basis) to be convicted of a serious crime than avowed faithful. Non-believers are also less likely to have had an abortion, or to have been divorced.

I prefer my politicians to be as non-religious as possible, be they Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, or Independent.

I have listened to this program regularly throughout my years as a rabbi, and have usually come away with inspiration to bring directly into my talks and teachings to the congregation. This morning, for the first time, I come away with rage and despair.

The issue about faith and politics is not whether or not our religious fervor belongs in the public forum, but whether a single theology or ideology can claim to represent the full spectrum of legitimate religious understanding in this country. That was certainly not the understanding of our deeply religious founding fathers, who crafted a political system that protected and encouraged religious diversity, both as an inalienable right and as a foundation for value-based discussion and debate on the burning issues confronting an emerging democracy.

With the refreshing exception of Barack Obama's own words, refusing to yield to a spokesperson from the Christian right who dared to politicize the question of whether salvation through Jesus Christ is the only way to salvation, as well as the final minutes on the abortion issue, I came away from this broadcast hearing only that the faith liberals and Democrats are supposed to espouse is the faith of the Religious Right.

The low point was Amy Sullivan's comment that in trying to be something for everyone religiously, the Democratic convention ended up being nothing for anyone (sorry if my paraphrase is inaccurate), and that they even (God forbid!) deliberated whether to use the name of Jesus. It sounds as if Ms. Sullivan is not familiar with the niceties of interfaith dialogue. In public forums, it is understood that my Christian colleagues in the clergy do not ask my congregants and me to pray in the name of Jesus Christ, and we Jews do not bring in prayers blessing the people Israel, God's chosen people. This is not lame political correctness, but rather a product of a deep respect for the integrity of each other's faith, borne of a commitment to seek and affirm the common ground that brought us together.

With all due respect for our Evangelical brothers and sisters, they do not represent a majority of the religious persons in this country, and it is not for them to define how the rest of us understand morality, values, and the prophetic call. There are lots of us out there — Christians, Jews, and Muslims — whose reading of the Bible and deep religious convictions are the basis for our support of gay marriage, a woman's right to choose, separation of church and state, pacifism, generous allocation of tax dollars to assist the most vulnerable members of society, environmental protection, and a primary focus on the well-being of all humanity rather than putting the interests of our country above the rest of the world. There are plenty of deeply religious people whose morality is shaped not by specific interpretations (often, if I dare say so, questionable ones to those who seriously study the nuances of Biblical text in its original language) of passages out of context (especially around sexual behavior), but rather is grounded in the unequivocal message of the prophets of all faiths to care for the poor, feed the hungry, struggle for justice, and to beat the swords of the warmongers into plowshares that they no longer learn the ways of war.

It was the genius of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. to ground his deeply Christian message, based firmly in his own Southern Baptist convictions, in the universal language of the Hebrew prophets and inspiration of the Exodus from Egypt. As a Jew I am proud that so many of my people marched courageously under this banner as an expression of their faith, and that Dr. King and Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel could find a common language and a common purpose. This, in my opinion is the true message of faith — "Justice, justice shall you pursue!" — that can and should rally progressive forces in this country, not distorted messages confusing homophobia and sexual repression for genuine morality.

I really enjoyed today's broadcast. I came to the website and had a chuckle at the front page. I grew up in a home that had three pieces of art in it: The obligatory landscape painting above the couch, Salman's Head of Christ upstairs, and a bronze bust of JFK in my father's study. Amy Sullivan would have been very welcome at the dinner table as we almost always touched on religion and politics when discussing the news of the day. And there was never any arguing just a desire to understand what informed the moral life of your loved ones.

I am listening to your show relating to the Democrats and religion. I am an atheist, and I have always enjoyed your show, as it usually speaks of people of various faiths without promoting any specific beliefs.

Today's show, however, buys into the idea that religion should have a place in politics. The President of the United states, as with all elected officials, is in office to serve citizens of all faiths, be they Christians, Mormans, Muslims, or Atheists.

The Democrats have long understood the separation of church and state, which is why you haven't heard it as a talking point. The Republicans have forced the Democrats to begin using it as a marketing tool, as they have used it for that purpose to great success.

Neither party, however, should be "speaking of faith" while on the campaign trail. By doing so, they merely demonstrate that they will be working toward in the best interests, not of all citizens, but of only the "select few."

I am very sorry to see your show take any position except that the two should remain separate. Your show has, over repeated listens, shown an understanding of all faiths (including the absence of faith), and I am quite disturbed that you would now begin supporting Christianity as the official faith of America.

I usually enjoy and gain enlightenment listening to SoF, but this week's program I found deeply troubling, shocking, and regrettably even offending. The words "faith" and "religion" were used throughout the hour solely in reference to "Christianity" — as though these words were interchangeable and synonymous, and Christianity were the only legitimate form and test of faith and morality — for politicians or anyone else.

The program lost sight of two essential facts: first, many religions and faiths make up this country, and particularly the Left; second, this is not a Christian country. Politicians should never be judged according to their adherence to Christian beliefs and doctrine. Christianity, in this country, is not the litmus test of faith.

As a Jewish person, I am both religious and believe in reproductive rights — there is no incompatibility there. The same is true for many non-Christian, religious Americans.

I find it offensive that the position of other faiths in America with regard to these wedge issues were not even recognized in this discussion of faith and the Left. If you had meant to discuss solely Christianity and the Left, this should have been the title of your program; and the words "Christian" and "Christianity" should have been used throughout — not "faith" and "religion."

It is an ongoing struggle, for non-Christians in this country, to maintain, for the country, not only the boundary between religion and state, but also the very pluralism of faiths and freedom of religion upon which our country is founded. It is an ongoing struggle for non-Christians across this country to keep the creche off the front lawn of their town halls.

This is the reason for the secular position of the Left: it is in response to that relentless pushing of those boundaries; it is not a negation of faith, but an attempt to protect the pluralism of faith. Unfortunately, even some members of the Left have lost sight of this important role.

It is right that Sen. Obama has framed his Christian beliefs as personal to him. Were he or any other politician to state otherwise — to state that their Christian beliefs were the only true beliefs — that would not be an expression of faith. That would be an expression of extremism — no different than the extremism of Muslim fundamentalists who consider all of us, including Christians, to be godless and immoral infidels.

I was raised to believe that separation of church and state protected both. I was raised to believe that faith is a private matter. I do not require declarations of any faith as a shibboleth for political candidate — for example, I believe that whether Obama is a Christian or a Muslim is entirely immaterial as to whether he can be president — and the law of the land supports me in this. Do people even know anymore that the law of the land does not require a President of the United States be a Christian? In fact, the law of the land supports in regard to separation of church and state — why is it, then, that I and people who think like I do, are the ones getting drowned out?