About This Show
A reliable, honest and entertaining podcast about Washington D.C’s people, culture and politics.Read more »
Most Recent Episode
225: Where's the line between religious freedom and civil rights?
Dec 28, 2017
The clash of two American values - religious freedom and freedom from discrimination – didn’t seem so huge when a broad coalition of religious and civil rights representatives got together in a room in 1993. While starting from different ends of the political spectrum, this group came together to push for a new law, The Religious Freedom Restoration Act, meant to protect the religious practice of all faiths – no matter how small. RFRA became the law of the land. But just a few years and a cultural shift later – the law was found to be only applicable at the federal level, and that coalition could not balance religious freedom with the civil rights of LGBT person and woman. And that rift continues today as we continue to ask what does it mean to be free to exercise one’s religion? We hear from the people who were in that room in 1993 – and now are living with the consequences of their efforts.Read more »
Episodes of This Show
Dec 21, 2017
Dec 14, 2017
Dec 7, 2017
Nov 30, 2017
Rated 5 out of
Really enjoy the topics and presentation
It is always a pleasure to listen to Decode DC. I really enjoy the focused topics and the extensive deep dive into why the topic is important and an exploration of the varying points of view. I really appreciate having a deeper level of information about a topic which can often make me think about an issue completely differently. Thank you! Mark
Date published: 2014-01-21
Rated 5 out of
A refreshing look at American politics
Decode DC is a much needed show that examines American politics with a no-nonsense, objective look at the way things are. It's never too conservative, nor too liberal. They simply tell it like it is. If you're looking for a solid political podcast that isn't trying to sway you one way or the other, this is it.
Date published: 2015-09-12
Rated 4 out of
Very good show but ...
with a weird sound mixing.
I really like that show the content are always interesting and smart but as a headphone listener it often feels very raw the way the stereo is mixed.
On character on only one ear instead of an increased volume ratio.
Date published: 2014-05-28
Rated 5 out of
Great show with interesting topics!
This show was introduced to me through a friend and I have enjoyed each episode I have listened to. I am still catching up on older episodes, but so far it has always been interesting and informative.
Date published: 2013-12-03
Rated 1 out of
I just listened to episode 154, on slavery and the second amendment, and was really disappointed.
I am a gun control advocate and a progressive, and I wanted to be convinced. Alas, the podcast seems intended as fluff rather than education.
The piece begins by laying out a superficially attractive argument grounding the origin of the second amendment in the need for southern militias to suppress slave revolts. So far so good. The narrator then asks, "Why haven't I heard this before?"
A good question, since slave-revolt-suppression argument is not generally mentioned by scholars of high bipartisan regard, such as Akhil Amar. I was therefore expecting to hear a well-known or at least mainstream constitutional law expert discuss the proposition, perhaps in light of new evidence.
Instead the piece pivots to audio recordings of several random and mostly uninformed citizens spouting their off-the-cuff opinions, married to a brief boilerplate history of the NRA's recent second amendment advocacy. The clear implication that the reason we don't all know this is that we were propagandized by the NRA.
Really? Are all the bipartisan experts bamboozled too? Even those who give various strong arguments against the usage of the second amendment as an individual right, albeit mysteriously missing the one showcased in the piece?
If you're going to present a new, exciting, hitherto unknown non-standard theory, you need some solid support other than that given by ONE source.
A quick online survey suggests that the presented argument is flawed via anachronism; while I am not expert enough in the subject to independently confirm, I am sufficiently expert in careful logical argument to know that the show failed to present anything of the kind.
This is intellectually shoddy stuff. Bad work.
Date published: 2016-08-09