It is cultish brainwashing to some extent. Why do you think they have it primarily for little kids in school? And from a governmental point of view it makes sense; you want you citizens to follow whatever you say and be proud of it.

Personally, though, a country should only get our respect and loyalty as long as it does things worthy of that respect. I recently refused to stand during the playing of O Canada at a show at the Parliament buildings in Ottawa – the presentation was a fluffy piece of patriotic drivel so I wasn’t feeling particularly positive about my country at that time.

Your us/them conception of the country is misguided. We are the country. We pledge are allegiance to each other and the principles of our form of government, hoping that by this and every other means we can retain them as they were given to us by the founders (time and change accounted for). Brainwashing? Of course, but so is child-rearing, public education, and general enculturation. What needs to be examined and questioned are the ideas being introduced, not the mode of their introduction.

BTW, I think I should have also pointed out that you have just invoked Godwin’s Law, which I believe means that this thread is done and you’ve automatically lost the argument.

The Religion then of every man must be left to the conviction and conscience of every man; and it is the right of every man to exercise it as these may dictate. This right is in its nature an unalienable right. It is unalienable, because the opinions of men, depending only on the evidence contemplated by their own minds cannot follow the dictates of other men.

What influence in fact have ecclesiastical establishments had on Civil Society? In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of the Civil authority; in many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny: in no instance have they been seen the guardians of the liberties of the people.

===============================================================
=== LESSON #2 (1791): Freedom of Religion ===
===============================================================
Amendment 1 – Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression
Ratified December 15, 1791

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

===============================================================
=== LESSON #3 (1802): NO LAW for Religious Establishment ===
===============================================================
From Thomas Jefferson
January 1, 1802.

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

===============================================================
=== LESSON #4 (1947): Separation of Church and State ===
===============================================================
U.S. Supreme Court
Everson v. Board of Education
Decided February 10, 1947

“The ‘establishment of religion’ clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect ‘a wall of separation between Church and State.’”

===============================================================
=== LESSON #5 (1971): LEMON TEST ===
===============================================================
Laws must:

* have a secular purpose, and
* be neutral towards religion (neither hinder nor advance it), and
* not have excessive entanglements between the government and religion.

U.S. Supreme Court
Lemon v. Kurtzman
Decided June 28, 1971

Held: Both statutes are unconstitutional under the Religion Clauses of the First Amendment, as the cumulative impact of the entire relationship arising under the statutes involves excessive entanglement between government and religion.

===============================================================
=== LESSON #6 (1984): ENDORSEMENT TEST ===
===============================================================
A law is unconstitutional if it favours one religion over another in a way that makes some people feel like outsiders and others feel like insiders.

U.S. Supreme Court
Lynch v. Donnelly
Decided March 5, 1984

In my view,

those involvements of religious with secular institutions which (a) serve the essentially religious activities of religious institutions; (b) employ the organs of government for essentially religious purposes; or (c) use essentially religious means to serve governmental ends, where secular means would suffice

must be struck down.

===============================================================
=== LESSON #7 (1989): COERCION TEST ===
===============================================================
A law is constitutional if it recognizes or accommodates a religion, as long as its demonstration of support does not appear to coerce individuals to support or participate in a religion.

U.S. Supreme Court – COERCION TEST
County of Allegheny v. American Civil Liberties Union, Greater Pittsburgh Chapter
Decided July 3, 1989

Whether the key word is “endorsement,” “favoritism,” or “promotion,” the essential principle remains the same. The Establishment Clause, at the very least, prohibits government from appearing to take a position on questions of religious belief or from “making adherence to a religion relevant in any way to a person’s standing in the political community.”

Those historical facts explain the enormous size and scope of government today, and the USA’s growing police state. They are reasons for massive reductions in government, taxation, spending and socialism.

The “Nazi salute” is more accurately called the “American salute” as it was created and popularized by national socialists in the USA. It was the early salute of the Pledge of Allegiance. The Pledge was written by Francis Bellamy. Edward Bellamy and Francis Bellamy were self-proclaimed socialists in the Nationalism movement and they promoted military socialism.

They wanted the government to take over education and use it to spread their worship of government. When the government granted their wish, the government’s schools imposed segregation by law and taught racism as official policy. The official racism and segregation was a bad example three decades before the National Socialist German Workers Party, and decades afterward.

The Pledge was mandated by law in government schools for three decades before, and through, the creation of the National Socialist German Workers’ Party.

Many people do not know that the term “Nazi” means “National Socialist German Workers’ Party.” Members of the horrid group did not call themselves Nazis. In that sense, there was no Nazi Party. They also did not call themselves Fascists. They called themselves socialists, just as their name indicates.

The historian Dr. Rex Curry showed that the early Pledge Of Allegiance did not use an ancient Roman salute, and that the ‘ancient Roman salute’ myth came from the Pledge Of Allegiance. The discoveries have been reviewed and verified on wikipedia

The original pledge was anti libertarian and began with a military salute that then stretched out toward the flag. In actual use, the second part of the gesture was performed with a straight arm and palm down by children casually performing the forced ritual chanting. Due to the way that both gestures were used sequentially in the pledge, the military salute led to the Nazi salute. The Nazi salute is an extended military salute via the USA’s Pledge Of Allegiance.