Speaking of Faith reaction

She Who Is Deranged misspelled Birkenstock. Criminal, in my book.

I enjoyed your interview.
I was surprised how much I would agree with you on so many things.
I don't quite understand why you describe yourself as a Republican; it seems you would have many disagreements with the party.
Aligning ourselves with one of the two opposing camps seems simply to create a lot of unnecessary friction.
It seems to me that useful argument develops out of quietly discussing specifics and not from those emotional generalizations that we often end up resorting to.
One example of this was a reference in a response on this blog to government as a parasite. I know this is currently a popular stance, but it ignores all the things we have achieved through organized government, such roads, sewers, the legal system, police forces, fire brigades, free schools and so on. Isn't it a good thing that we have building codes, child labor laws, and such?
Anyway I found your viewpoint refreshing. Thank you.

Rod, I'm so sorry that my fellow NPR/SOF listeners had this reaction to your interview. But then again, if you go through the Reflections section of many shows in the archive, you'll see a lot of negativity. I'm kind of thinking I made the wrong choices about my life, since I don't have the time to engage in any voluntary activities, like listening to a radio show, that are so unenjoyable to me as to inspire vitriol.

But I don't think these commenters are representative.

As a centrist liberal, I was going to take you to task for your occasional willingness to beat the partisan drums, but this is trait so many of us share. I understand that you are dedicated to fixing your party, and the day when the GOP looks more like you will be a good day for America. I very much appreciated your attempting to explain one of the central questions of the religious/political divide, which is why abortion is the deal breaker. I still can't quite wrap my head around it, but I did get some insight from your answer. I also learned much from your story of turning to Reagan, which seemed to have set off the first commenter. I'm your age, and I saw and lived those events differently, but I do understand your point, and think it a valid one.

I left the show confused, in a good way, about what "conservative" and "liberal" really mean, in terms of family and community values. I think you may have done what we all tend to do, which is to describe your personal values in political terms. You talk about buying organic and shopping at farmers markets as "conservative", but you did not explain why it is conservative. It may be, and I think we "liberal" locavores and ethical carnivores might even agree with you, but this behavior seems to have nothing to do with the public face of political conservatism. Or liberalism, for that matter.

What is clearer and clearer to me, and your comments fit this narrative, is that we are in the midst of a very dramatic political realignment, and I am not sure where I will end up when it all shakes out. You put an attractive face on conservative ideas, one that we certainly don't see enough of right now. You make arguments for a conservatism that perhaps some current Democrats can embrace. Interestingly, I see Barak Obama as a potential catalyst of the realignment-we may not agree on that, but I suspect he will quickly be forced to deal with harsh and hysterical critics on the left. I see the potential for him to nucleate centrists on both sides of the divide as a contervailing force against the extremists on the right and left who are more interested in the fight than in progress.

But I digress. I thank you for agreeing to open yourself up to the attacks you've received. I found your comments insightful, and both the common ground as well as the important differences between liberal and conservatives were brought into sharper relief.

sheesh, you and I don't agree on everything, but I thought you came across as pretty reasoned.

I loved the way the first person you quote above somehow inferred from the interview what your ideas about evolution are. As I recall the subject didn't come up. But, of course, in her mind all religious conservatives conform to a stereotype.

I am also amused by the fact that she seems to assume that you voted for Reagan. Unless I'm mistaken, you're about 5 years younger than I am (I'm 46), which means that you weren't old to vote in either presidential election in which Reagan ran.

I listened and finally got to put a voice to the name and words and work of someone I have followed closely since "Crunchy Cons" was published. It was 'right on' and solidified my good vibes about you and your stuff. I listen to SOF randomly and am always challenged and often encouraged for the effort. Proves that even NPR can present a balanced and unbiased program. If the quality of their staff and depth of presentation was as balanced across the board, it would be a beautiful thing.

More interesting than most Speaking of Faith interviews. Krista Tippet didn't follow up on a number of your comments; she too often seemed to be following a list of prepared questions and going down the list.

I am a rock-climbing, modern-dancing Christian conservative who works for a large ministry in CO. I usually don't listen to SOF...the relativism makes me want to gag. But I happened to catch your interview and was so thankful Tippet not only respected you and your positions, but that you didn't water down your positions at all for a liberal audience. As a 20-something conservative Christian, I often feel like the "odd one out" in many of my social circles. I can't wait to read your book...I'd love to see what other "young crunchy cons" are out there doing.