Send us a text

Feeling squeezed to pick a side? We’re two longtime friends—a progressive Christian and a conservative atheist—who refuse the script and get honest about how change actually happens. Instead of scoring points against “the other,” we explore why declaring what we’re for creates room for unlikely allies, better policy, and more durable wins.

We cue up Martin Luther King Jr.’s “I Have a Dream” and sit with its power to invite a nation into its own ideals—equality by creed, dignity by character, freedom shared by all. Then we turn to Malcolm X’s “The Ballot or the Bullet,” a masterclass in focus and force that names enemies, centers self-determination, and explains the practical logic of economic enclaves. One vision inspires, the other galvanizes; both confront real pain. That tension sets the stage for a deeper question: what is your end goal—defeat people, or transform conditions?

From a candid story about wanting opponents to “just leave” to a hard-won commitment to build rooms where disagreement belongs, we map the trade offs between assimilation and identity, purity and persuasion, outrage and invitation. You’ll hear practical habits to practice being “for”: pause before posting, translate anger into a positive aim, criticize behaviors not identities, and anchor debates to shared outcomes like safety, fairness, and dignity. We also get real about the cost: loving the person your tribe calls “the problem” may get you hit from your own side. If change is the goal, that’s a price worth paying.

If you’re hungry for conversations that bridge divides without papering over hard truths, you’re in the right place. Hit follow, share with a friend who thinks differently than you do, and drop us a note with one sentence about what you’re for. Let’s grow the tent together.

©NoahHeldmanMusic

https://livingoncommonground.buzzsprout.com

Send us a text

Start with a simple question: when your world divides you into teams, how do you stay friends across the line? We stress-test that question by putting our own friendship on the table—a progressive Christian and a conservative atheist—and then follow the thread from art museums to ancient theology to modern Stoicism. The journey is winding, but it holds together: what you focus on, how you practice, and which stories you trust will shape the way you live.

We trade museum stories first, including a “headless” dog in a Dalí painting that was there all along if you looked closely enough. That becomes our metaphor for interpretation: certainty can be a costume for inattention. From there we dive into discipline—early mornings, 500 lines, writing before scrolling—and why Stoic ideas like temperance and craftsmanship help us create instead of perform. Social media exits and anxiety have their place, but we talk about building sustainable habits rather than chasing extremes.

Then we go deep on belief. Does faith evolve because God reveals more, or because humans understand differently? We track the arc from henotheism to monotheism, exile to meaning-making, and how cultures borrow from neighbors—Persian influence on Sheol included. Along the way we question whether development always equals progress. Maybe some changes are side steps. Maybe monotheism gained moral focus and lost mythic nuance. We argue for intellectual hospitality: diverge to gather, converge to decide, then repeat. Science, philosophy, and theology are not rivals but lenses that help us see reality from complementary angles.

If you’re tired of being told to pick a side, this conversation offers a third way: rigorous curiosity with good faith. Listen, reflect, and tell us what belief, habit, or assumption you’ve reframed lately. Subscribe, share with a friend, and drop a review—help more people find common ground without dumbing anything down.

©NoahHeldmanMusic

https://livingoncommonground.buzzsprout.com

Send us a text

Division sells, but it doesn’t solve much. We sat down—one progressive Christian, one conservative atheist—and stress-tested whether two people who disagree on faith and politics can talk through fear, foreign policy, and identity without turning each other into enemies. The short answer: yes, if we swap hot takes for honest motives and keep the relationship above the scoreboard.

We start with a spiral: news about Venezuela and saber-rattling around Greenland sparks late-night dread about drafts and war. From there we unpack how negotiation theater, “naked empire” rhetoric, and shifting justifications fuel anxiety, and why history makes it hard to pretend this is all new. We explore restraint in leadership, what bluster sometimes hides, and how much of our outrage is really about signaling who we are to our tribe rather than changing anything in the real world.

The heart of the conversation is cognitive, not partisan. We break down the dance between divergent thinking (opening possibilities, examining assumptions) and convergent thinking (deciding and acting). Wisdom requires both, whether you’re weighing environmental policy or parenting a teenager you fear is headed for pain. We borrow from stoicism to set a practice: prepare for what you control, stop rehearsing disaster, and guard your attention from feeds that mistake repetition for importance.

By the end, we offer a model for disagreement that keeps human dignity intact: name the actual outcome you want, surface everyone’s motives (including your own), and commit to one action in your control this week. If you’re tired of debates that win points but lose people, this one’s for you. If it resonates, subscribe, share with a friend who votes differently than you do, and leave a review telling us where you found common ground.

©NoahHeldmanMusic

https://livingoncommonground.buzzsprout.com