Blog by Sumana Harihareswara, Changeset founder

27 Jun 2002, 9:43 a.m.

Today I explained the Supreme Court's decision on the Pledge…

Hi, reader. I wrote this in 2002 and it's now more than five years old. So it may be very out of date; the world, and I, have changed a lot since I wrote it! I'm keeping this up for historical archive purposes, but the me of today may 100% disagree with what I said then. I rarely edit posts after publishing them, but if I do, I usually leave a note in italics to mark the edit and the reason. If this post is particularly offensive or breaches someone's privacy, please contact me.

Today I explained the Supreme Court's decision on the Pledge of Allegiance to Camilla, who is from Italy. Even though I hadn't done it in years, I knew the ritual by heart and could easily demonstrate it to her. Note: as my family moved westward, I found myself performing the Pledge less and less at school. Are Pennsylvanian traditions or laws different in this regard from California's, or can I chalk it up to a difference between grade school and high school?

Jon Carroll's ambivalent reaction, while insightful, doesn't seem to take any position at all, and just wrings its hands while switching between them. On the other hand, Seth Schoen's nuanced, heartfelt, skeptical assessment takes a definite position, provides answers (of a sort), and provokes thought. He makes me want to make him dinner, since he doesn't have a tipjar. And the thing is, he writes like this all the time! If you aren't already reading his journal, you're not hip.

The reason I had to explain the Pledge to Camilla: I had ejaculated, "That jerk!" upon reading the teaser for this Salon Premium editorial by Alan Wolfe, which starts, "The Ninth Circuit's official sponsorship of atheism..." What a malicous, fallacy-spewing bastard! There's a difference between "sponsorship" and "recognition as a legitimate viewpoint." It makes me tired.