I read this editorial by my least favorite political columnist yesterday in the local newspaper. I was livid that this trash was printed for several reasons. One is that the controversy involved is over a year old and nothing new has happened. So the column simply stirs up culture war antagonisms that have been fought and are now being revisited in spite of no new information. And of course, he takes cheap shots at both France and California because that's what you do when you're a right-wing culture warrior.

More importantly, of course, Greenberg gets this totally wrong. First off, he talks about "censoring the pledge" which is a prepostrous reading of the situation. Preventing something from being mandatory is completely different from censoring it. Furthermore, he makes no effort to explain why one might think this was a good or bad decision--he assumes that "everybody" knows it's a bad decision, and goes from there.

In the whole Pledge of Allegiance debate that has gone on for years, and which sprung up again around this decision a year ago, why is it that nobody makes what, to my mind, is the only point truly worth making--isn't it antithetical to a free society to indoctrinate 6-to-17 years olds by making them mouth a political catechism that they don't even understand?!