This week's episode is all about blueberry soup. Whaaa? Oh, sorry for the confusion -- blueberry soup is Icelandic comfort food. Think chicken and dumplings, or perhaps grits.
But, again: whaaa?
This week we're talking about Iceland. Why? Because in the wake of the recent financial crisis, Iceland had itself a full-blown, grass-roots constitutional reform process. And documentary filmmaker Eileen Jarrett was there. And now she'll tell us all about it.
In a 2012 poll, the Pew Research Center noted that almost 20% of Americans responded to a question about their religious affiliation with "none of the above." That's the highest percentage in history. And it may change the way we interpret the Religion Clauses of the Constitution.
We'll talk to Garrett Sheldon, a Southern Baptist minister and a member of the Political Science Department at the University of Virginia's College at Wise; we'll also speak with John Shuck, a Presbyterian minister and the host of Religion for Life, a public radio show produced at WETS, the same station that produces our show. Finally, we'll hear from a college student, Ben Harris, a second-year at the University of Virginia, who'll share his experience with the role of religion on campus.
Correction: our host, Stewart Harris, states twice in this episode that the Supreme Court is currently composed of five Roman Catholic Justices and four Jewish Justices. The actual number is six Roman Catholics and three Jews. We regret the error.
Our good friend Ed Kelly is quite a storyteller, which makes sense, given the wide range of interesting cases he deals with as the general counsel of East Tennessee State University, where our show is produced.
In our fascinating interview, we focus upon Ed's many constitutional cases, which run the gamut from free speech to due process - and also upon some interesting stories from Ed's checkered past.
You've probably heard variations on the term "strict constructionism," typically when a politician calls himself a "strict constructionist." But what, precisely, do these terms mean? Do they provide a roadmap to interpreting the Constitution? Or are they just labels that - strictly speaking - don't mean much?
It turns out that the answer is not so simple. Indeed, over the past couple of centuries, "strict constructionism" has meant different things at different times and to different people. Good thing that we've got Joe Lane, Chair of the Political Science Department at Emory & Henry College, to explain it all to us.
It's been more than 150 years, and people are still debating the question.
We'll talk to Donnie Kennedy, co-author of "The South was Right!" who thinks that much more than slavery was at issue.
We'll also talk to James Loewen, who quotes the explanations provided by seceding states themselves in his book, "The Confederate and Neo-Confederate Reader: The 'Great Truth' About the 'Lost Cause.'"
So saddle up and join us.
Does Intelligent Design belong in public school biology classes? What is "Intelligent Design" anyway? And how does it relate to evolution? And what does the Constitution have to say about it?
We'll talk to one of the lawyers who argued the famous Dover v. Kitzmiller case, in which this very issue was put to the test. It was the second great "Monkey Trial," and this time, a federal court decided that . . . . well, you'll just have to listen to find out.
You've heard of the famous plot to kill Hitler in 1944, code-named Valkyrie. But did you know that the last of the Valkyrie plotters only recently died? His name was Ewald von Kleist, and we'll be talking about him with one of his American relatives, Eric von Kleist. It turns out that the von Kleists, an old aristocratic family from what is now Poland, were anti-Nazi before anti-Nazi was cool. And their adventures make quite a cool story.
What can you do if an ex-lover posts explicit photographs of you online? Aren't there laws against such behavior?
There are, indeed, according to our two guests. But are such laws effective? And, even if they might be effective, do they violate the First Amendment?
Join us for a timely, and disturbing, discussion.