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

Send us a text

Feeling squeezed to “pick a side” on every issue? We pull the lens back and ask a deeper question: what is a right, and what do we owe each other to make it real? With Elena joining the table, we test our friendship across belief lines—a progressive Christian, a conservative atheist, and a listener who pushes hard on language and policy—to map the territory between personal liberty, social duty, and the state’s role.

We start by sorting fundamental rights from civil and social rights and examine the claims-and-duties framework that underpins them. Does calling something a “right” add moral gravity or muddy the waters by demanding other people’s labor? We explore charity and taxation through the “Forgotten Man,” consider whether a fair trial is a state construct we traded for order, and question the costs of outsourcing care to impersonal systems. The theme keeps returning: rights can protect us from each other, but responsibilities connect us to each other.

Education becomes our test case. Alayna argues that free, quality public education is both a moral obligation and a safety measure that strengthens communities and competitiveness. We separate the goal of raising the floor from the means of public versus private delivery, and we debate the language of “deserve” for children versus a clear duty owed to the vulnerable. Along the way, we unpack social contract theory, individual autonomy, and why entitlement grows when we export responsibility to the state.

By the end, we land on real common ground: claims must be matched by obligations, and outrage needs to become action. Alayna’s fight against a third-grade retention law—paired with hands-on support for families—shows how to move from critique to care. If you’re tired of rights talk that never leaves the page, this conversation offers a practical path back to community: feed the person in front of you, teach the child across town, and rebuild trust one responsibility at a time.

If this resonates, follow the show, share it with a friend, and leave a review to help more people find Living on Common Ground.

©NoahHeldmanMusic

https://livingoncommonground.buzzsprout.com