I love you and your show. I'm sorry to report I did not like the politico interplay between two pundits on "Obama's Theologan—" Please forgive me for not being interested in more political talk radio as I am a recovering Republican who used to be hooked on daytime talk radio. I am not so impressed with any politician as I feel they are just trying to manipulate public opinion. Your guest seemed more interested in scoring political jabs than enlightening us on faith or spirituality.

In the Dionne/Brooks discussion of Niebuhr you initiated one segment of the discussion with essentially asking about Niebuhr's relevance to today's America, so multiculturally different from the time in which he lived. This prompts me to suggest that you mount a future discussion on Who Are We?, the 2004 book by the late Samuel P. Huntington.

As I am sure you are aware, this work discusses how far America has moved from its roots and distinct culture grounded in the English language, Protestant values, and individualism (as opposed to the current emphasis on group rights), to one increasingly challenged by bilingualism, multiculturalism, devaluation of citizenship, and anti-nationalism. Huntington provides highly informative background on how we got from there to here and a highly provocative account of what it portends for our country's future. It would make for an excellent Speaking of Faith program.

I was again dismayed that Native American, Wiccan, Neo-Pagan and other minority religions have been left out of dialogue on the topic of Religion in America. While our Founding Fathers were crafting the architecture of our imperfect union and developing its institutions, Christian missionaries were the driving force behind the eradication of Native American culture and religion. The victors always write history in their own terms and attempt to erase the losers from existence.

Many if not most gay men, lesbians, bisexuals and trans-gendered Americans are also people of faith. Some struggle to claim their place in mainstream religions. The current debate in the Episcopal Church is a clear example of this struggle, though it goes on in other Christian communities as well. Other LGBT men and women seek out religions that are intrinsically accepting of their unique place of value in the world and their contributions to the larger community of humankind. Clyde Hall's "Two Spirit" tradition of Native Americans is but one example.

During the George W. Bush presidency and under the leadership of the Religious Right our Congress found gay marriage to be a greater threat than the changing financial instruments that have turned out to be the basis of our current economic crisis.

President Obama has reached out to the LGBT community in unprecedented ways. Just look at the Human Rights page of the White House web site. I wonder to what degree Niebuhr's writings influenced him in this matter of public policy. The Religious Right seems to be advancing an agenda of making the United States of America a Christian nation. They use a broad brush to blur the distinctions between Jewish, Christian, and Muslim principles and teachings. President Obama seems to have taken a stand against this trend.

Our Democracy allows winners and losers. I don't find this an ethical, moral, or even an appropriate framework for matters of religion, faith or an individual's relationship with the God of her or his understanding. This seems like the tyranny of the majority.

I hope that Speaking of Faith might explore this issue in greater depth with future programs.

I don't want to presume too much. You probably had a perfectly good reason for having two overused news commentators: David Brooks (a Jew, I believe) and E.J. (a Catholic, I believe) lead a discussion on one of America's greatest Protestant theologians. Nevertheless, I feel it would have been more meaningful to have someone deeply rooted in liberal/mainstream Protestantism with a vision for the present political/economic situation as guest. (Such rare birds I guess that no one can cite a single one of renown or enthusiasm!)

It strikes me as odd that we assume that news commentators can simply put on Protestantism like an old hat and speak with authority and conviction and proper appreciation about Niebuhr and Protestantism.Upon reflection, isn't it disrespectful to this historic faith, so intertwined with American history, to treat it as a matter of simply being well-educated, like the air we breathe — anyone can get it right? "Protestantism 101" or "Protestantism for Dummies: Learn just enough to claim superiority over an anachronism!"

I am not questioning Krista Tippett's tone — she is wonderful as host — but your choice of guides to a liberal Protestant theology and politics left something to be desired. At the very least they should be Protestants: they come in many stripes, which also is important to appreciate. Nevertheless, because of your program perhaps some people will be introduced to Niebuhr and want to read his books. Thanks for that.

Interesting convergence — the new President honors his alma mater by having them lead off the inaugural parade. Punahau School has its roots in the work of Congregational (now United Church of Christ) missionaries and not surprisingly Central Union Congregational United Church of Christ is not far away — just down the street from a street named for the school's missionary founder, Hiram Bingham.

Reinhold Niebuhr, and his less famous theologian brother H. Richard, both have their roots in another branch of the United Church of Christ. Is it any surprise then that the new president found his way to Trinity United Church of Christ?

I was disturbed by your comment yesterday that white male Midwestern Protestants shouldn't have a privileged voice in the public discussion of faith and politics today. Just what do "white male Midwestern Protestants" look like to you?

One of the difficulties of being a flesh and blood white male Protestant these days is that despite my view that all voices are privileged enough to be heard I often hear myself lumped in with and reduced to someone else's caricature of a "white man". Add to that label "Midwestern" and "Protestant" and I don't even recognize myself sometimes when I look in the mirror! Statements like that reduce all Midwestern white Protestant men to a shorthand stereotype.

Let me just ask a couple of questions based on that phrasing:

• Do midwestern white protestant women deserve the privileged voice that men don't?
• What about white male Protestants from the West?
• How about white male Protestants who are Midwestern and gay?

Do you really think that the elements of Niebuhr's "white male midwestern protestantism" you were talking about yesterday deserved to be associated with a trite, loaded cliche? I won't speak for the dead but I can say that I sure feel demeaned when I'm reduced to being nothing but a "white male Midwestern Protestant".

You do a very good job of being nuanced in most of your work. Please show white male midwestern protestants (whatever we are to you) the same level of careful and nuanced consideration that you give to other groups.

Very disappointing. The entire broadcast was empty, void of any real insight into Niebuhr or President Obama's spiritual mindset. David Brooks has never had anything good to say about our new president, so I knew his thoughts would be empty. The entire program left me very frustrated.

I was dismayed to hear that American Indian basket weaving still passes as a punchline in the 21st century. While we have gone to great lengths to eliminate derogatory and racist language from our public discourse for most non-white groups, it appears that American Indians and their rich and diverse cultures are still fair game.

I was especially disappointed to hear this throw-away comment in a discussion of American theology/philosophy/leadership in the world as reflected in the work and interpretation of Niebuhr. We laud the study of material cultures of Europe, Asia, and Africa in minute detail, yet retain in our unexamined imagination the denigration of Native American culture, a vestige of Colonial policy that was socially and politically motivated to permit the systematic destruction of hundreds of peoples on our own soil.

That Americans still laugh at the mention of American Indian basket weaving, and that such a comment would go unchallenged on a program like Speaking of Faith betrays a significant blind spot in our collective consciousness and assessment of ourselves. Our soul-searching must include an acknowledgement of our own history, on our own soil, and its byproduct of our enduring disdain for Native peoples and our blithe willingness to tolerate the enduring poverty that we created for them.

Thank you so much for the wonderful program with David Brooks and E.J. Dionne at Georgetown. I was fortunate to have known the Niebuhr family who were friends of my father-in-law, the late Reverend William H. Kirk and family. They summered together in Heath, Massachusetts.

This morning was the most outstanding programs of yours that I've heard yet. There IS a place for deep intellectual thought regarding real faith without any proscribed or prescribed dogma of blind acquiescence to narrow thinking. Thank you for being there.

Was Niebuhr really a "theologian"? The program tended to imply a negative answer, though it was more about Obama and our historic moment in America than a comprehensive overview of Niebuhr. Moreover, your timeline of his life was full of academic and political milestones, but nothing I would call "theological" in any strict sense.

An [Eastern] Orthodox aphorism is "the true theologian is the one who prays well." There is no room in Orthodoxy for religious admiration of academic theology that could be — and sometimes is — done by people who have lost their faith (or even, theoretically, never had faith). Such "theology" is utterly incapable of saving, though it may distract and divert one for a while.

It seems to me from what I heard on this program that while Niebuhr was not in the mold of unbelieving academic theologian, he was a Christian political philosopher more than a religious philosopher, and not at all visibly one who adored, prayed to, and ultimately became united to the Holy Trinity. His political philosophy seems usefully if not robustly Christian because it assumes profound brokenness in the world and a consequent inability to achieve ultimate (versus proximate) solutions to our roiling problems.

While I don't expect Speaking of Faith to conform to the Orthodox usage of the term "theologian" (we are a small, if growing, minority after all), even in my former Christian tradition — Wheaton College type Evangelicalism — Niebuhr comes across as no more a "theologian" than Wheaton's best-known alumnus, evangelist Billy Graham (often stupidly called a "theologian" by media, too).

So I'm not convinced yet that Obama has a theologian. I would recommend to him (you have his ear, don't you?) St. John the Theologian or St. Symeon the New Theologian.

I was intrigued by the topic of the show and disappointed in the content. Listening to Brooks and Dionne recycle the conventional wisdom in U.S. politics and try to rationalize it by quoting Niebuhr was frustrating. What we need is people willing to speak in the prophetic voice and challenge power, not subordinate themselves to it.

Before you go any further, let us not equate religion and spirituality. Niebuhr may have, but he spawned the Serenity Prayer, used as a spiritual guide by all kinds of people, believers and non-believers alike!

More elementary — the words and ideas of John Trudell will turn your mind to the realness of where this earth is right now and how the lies of established religion (Manifest Destiny, capitalism, slavery, et al.) have brought us today … and until the American people confront the immorality of the lies that institutions are built upon, we keep destroying ourselves and others along with us.

Thank you for sharing philosopher Niebuhr, and Barack Obama's words. At times I feel so desperate during these times … better times will come, I know, yet my spirit begins to tire. I could speak volumes though not tonight. Thank you. Keep up this wonderful work.

As a biblical reacher and teacher for the past 30 years, I'm amazed at the lack of biblically accurate teaching that is perpetrated on the public by these so-called theologians. They don't seem to have any answers for the questions of the day.

The Bible is very specific as to when life begins (Genesis 2:7) when a person takes their first breath. The question of whether or not evolution is in harmony with God's word is also answered, if the theologian would only use a concordance to see that the second verse of Genesis says "the earth was without form and void" everywhere else in the Bible the Hebrew word that is translated as "was" is translated as "became" which allows for 14 billion years to pass by and evolution to be part of God's word.

Why is it that me, a regular person, can easily find this out, and more, like how 3 days and 3 nights don't fit in between Good Friday and Easter Sunday. If they read the word they would see that Christ was crucified on a Wednesday evening and got up on Saturday night. But hey, let's all just believe what these experts have been rehashing since the Nicene council.