And exactly how many times does it take to really pledge one’s allegiance? One would think pledging it once would do the trick. “I pledge my allegiance.” Done. Simple. Thanks. Maybe, just maybe, you should have to renew it every four years. Like a driver’s license. You know, just to make sure.

But that’s not the way you indoctrinate people. You indoctrinate them by making them do something over and over, and it’s especially effective if you start young.

How many four year-olds were pledging their allegiance in the 60s and 70s while the US military was busy spraying napalm on people (thank you George Carlin)? How many six year-olds said the pledge of allegiance in the weeks after August 6th, 1945 while tens of thousands of civilians slowly died of radiation poisoning? The shadows of elderly women were burned into the sidewalk half way around the world by the US government, yet, there they were, in their first grade classrooms, pledging their allegiance to something they could never understand. You could argue that dropping nuclear weapons on civilians was necessary, and you can say that torching the forests and people of Vietnam was justified. We can have a conversation about this as adults. Those little kids in the classroom, though? They have no idea what these things mean.

And this is exactly why we have three or four year-olds pledging their allegiance to a piece of cloth every morning in school. Does anyone think that a child that young—or even a child as old as eleven or twelve—can truly understand what it is that they are saying?

I don’t think that’s the point of the pledge, though. The point is to make sure children believe that this country is about liberty and justice and it’s the greatest country on earth. This is what we were all taught in school, and we were taught it every single day when we said the pledge. It is brainwashing in the first degree.

Yes. The Pledge of Allegiance is used to brainwash the children of America.

Most Americans have said the pledge hundreds, if not thousands of times. Myself, I believe I began reciting the pledge of allegiance in kindergarten and continued to do so through my senior year of high school. By the time I was a senior, I may not have been pledging my allegiance every day, but I would at least mumble along with the rest of the class most of the time. That’s 13 years of pledging my allegiance roughly 170 times a year. That’s 2,210 times, and that’s only counting what happened in school.

Would I be more “American” if I go over the 2,500 mark? Would it make me a better person, or would it make me love my country more? No. Pledging my allegiance hasn’t done much for me at all. All I have done is speak words to a piece of cloth, a piece of cloth with colors and stars which was probably not even made in America. Is this how Americans are truly judged when it comes to their patriotism?

What we should be pledging our allegiance to are the principles America is supposed to stand for, not America itself. America is a very strange place right now, and it has often does things with which I disagree. America will continue to do things with which I disagree. So, I am hereby rescinding my pledge of allegiance to America. You know what is now receiving my pledge? Freedom, peace, and equality. I pledge my allegiance to those things, not some meaningless flag. If America is actually committed to freedom, peace, and equality, I’m on board. Count me in, America. Count me in because those things are bigger and more important than you. Those things are actually worth fighting for. Those are the things which deserve my allegiance.

The problem most people have with Ramsey is that he is in some way denigrating Islam by referring to it as merely a “cult” and not giving it the status it properly deserves as a religion with a worldwide adherence of 1.4 BILLION people. I guess you could get all upset about that. Or, you could be reminded that essentially, all religions are cults. No. Really. They are.

What is the different between a cult and a “mainstream religion?” Usually, the number of people who believe it.

Does graduating from “cult” to “mainstream religion” have anything to do with the validity of the claims of those religions? Nope. Does it have to do with anything being “proven” about a specific religion’s teachings? Nope. The difference between cults and religions has nothing to do with “truth.” Let’s think about these things for a second.

It’s pretty much just as likely that Jesus was the Son of God as it is that Allah had any contact with Mohammad. It’s just as likely that the Jews spent 40 years wandering around the desert as it is that Joseph Smith actually discovered gifts from God in the ground. It’s just as likely that Nirvana or Karma exist as… I think you get the point. All religions, from Sunni Islam, Episcopalian Christianity, and Wahhabism to Orthodox Judaism, Jainism, and Taoism are on equal ground when it comes to actual evidence. Each of them, however, believes the others to be false or incomplete. They may have millions of followers, but in terms of evidence, they are no more true than the claims of David Koresh, Jim Jones, Marshall Applewhite, or L. Ron Hubbard.

In an effort to be somewhat conciliatory, they may be true; it’s just that no one can prove that they are true. Who knows? Maybe Koresh was right, and we killed Jesus. Again.

So, the next time you think your religion is right and true, or the next time you’re offended that someone has denigrated your ideas about the supernatural, realize that no one believes what you believe outside of your cult. As a matter of fact, the people who are outside of your cult probably think, in the best case scenario, that you’re wrong and misguided. In the worst case scenario, they probably want to kill you.

The only thing that separates you from being widely regarded as “in a cult” is the sheer size of your group. So, when people in mainstream religions call other beliefs about the supernatural “cults,” it’s the logical equivalent of saying, “Even though we’re equally correct in terms of evidence, more people believe what I believe, so we win.” Good luck with that. Odds are, you’re both also equally wrong.

Here’s an especially interesting snippet:

“The principle error of the new atheists lies in their inability to understand religion outside of its simplistic, exoteric, and absolutist connotations. Indeed, the most prominent characteristic of the new atheism–and what most differentiates it from traditional atheism–is its utter lack of literacy in the subject (religion) it is so desperate to refute. After all, religion is as much a discipline to be studied as it is an expression of faith. (I do not write books about, say, biology because I am not a biologist.)”

This is problematic for a variety of reasons. First, what Reza is saying here is that only those who study religion as a discipline have a right to talk about it. After all, religion (or, as Reza tries to shoehorn in shortly after this quotation, “the transcendent”) is something to be studied seriously, and those who aren’t erudite in studying religion should reserve judgment on it entirely. Because, you know, religion and the transcendent are like biology, so Dawkins, a biologist, should not be talking about religion. This is a true echo of Dinesh D’Souza’s refrain about Dawkins: “This is what happens when you let scientists out of the lab.”

The problem is that religion and the transcendent are nothing like biology at all. Claiming that a god exists based on entirely immaterial claims is NOTHING like biology. Biology deals with cataloging and observing material things. They couldn’t be farther from one another. There are things such as biological truths—things you cannot argue about because you’ll just be plain wrong, demonstrably. Religion doesn’t work like this. I would very much like Reza to point me to the person who has religious truths—truths with which all religions will agree. It’s impossible.

Religion, quite simply, has no physical evidence to back it up. Pointing to physical things as evidence for something other than material existence is reasonable, but the moment that happens, the discussion is no longer about the material—it becomes about philosophy and reason. Reza’s insistence that only people who are not “literate” in religion should keep quiet is ridiculous. The only things in which someone needs to be literate in order to have a religious discussion are the religious texts upon which those beliefs are based. Everything after that is an exercise in thought and reason—a field open to anyone with a brain. So, sorry Reza. I must say, atheists don’t need to know what other people say about religion before  they criticize it. St. Augstine’s thoughts are useless. The work of current theologians  is useless. There is not a hardcore, demonstrable religious truth in which atheists can be illiterate.

Reza also says, “One should at the very least have a sense of what the term ‘God’ means.” Again, who has a monopoly on this? Does “God” mean the same thing to all people? Or is it just your definition of “God?” Because atheists may or may not disagree with your definition, they should be quiet about it?

This comes from earlier in the article, but is just as inane.

“There is, as has often been noted, something peculiarly evangelistic about what has been termed the new atheist movement. The new atheists have their own special interest groups and ad campaigns. They even have their own holiday (International Blasphemy Day).”

It is “evangelistic” to have interest groups and ad campaigns? EVERYTHING has interest groups and ad campaigns. Claiming this as a negative against new atheists condemns every organized group of people on the planet. And also, “their own holiday?” Could you point to one prominent atheist thinker who characterized it as such? I guess “Draw Mohammed Day” was a holiday for atheists, as well.

Reza keeps digging:

“What the new atheists do not do, and what makes them so much like the religious fundamentalists they abhor, is admit that all metaphysical claims—be they about the possibility of a transcendent presence in the universe or the birth of the incarnate God on earth—are ultimately unknowable and, perhaps, beyond the purview of science.”

Reza, you’re making things up. Either that, or you have no idea what you’re talking about. You seem like you have missed the point entirely. Let me try to put this simply for you as an atheist:

It is possible that that all metaphysical claims—be they about the possibility of a transcendent presence in the universe or the birth of the incarnate God on earth—are ultimately unknowable and, perhaps, beyond the purview of science. It’s possible. But how can they be “knowable” if they are beyond the purview of science? How do we “know” things without evidence? All atheists demand is that you provide evidence for your claim. If you say you don’t have any evidence, then atheists don’t believe what you believe. It’s that simple. Atheists refuse to believe things without seeing evidence for it, and they do think it is stupid if you do. If that’s “narrow-minded,” then so-be-it. You can continue to make things up philosophically and study what you call “theology”—something with no backing in material things—but atheists want material evidence. Philosophical evidence is not enough. Plain and simple.

Except for right at the end. Here’s the real gem. The brilliant quotation from Barron that skewers him in what should have been a fairly inconspicuous column.

“So read Christopher Hitchens; disagree with him and get angry with him; defend the faith against his attacks. And pray for him.”

On it’s face, it may seem innocuous. But, you know what strikes me as pernicious? These are all commands. This is a Reverend telling his followers exactly what to do. He’s not encouraging anyone to think. He’s not encouraging anyone to read the book and come to their own conclusions. No. The reverend is telling his followers exactly what their reaction is before they have even turned a page.

Thou shalt disagree with Hitchens.

Thou shalt be angry with Hitchens.

Thou shalt defend thine faith, which I have given to you, from Hitchens.

Thou shalt pray for Hitchens.

He manages to sound almost magnanimous here, but it’s cut short by the same arrogance that many Christians accuse atheists of having. Hitchens is weaker than we are, so he needs our prayers. You should not be making up your own minds, so listen to me.

Hitchens encourages people at all steps of the process to think for themselves. Surely, he’s forceful that they should agree with him, but he never tells people what to think. The Reverend, on the other hand, doesn’t play by those rules.

It’s subtle, but it’s there.

Undoctrinate.

Gillard, openly atheist PM

The new Australian Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, has publicly said that she will not hide her atheism in an attempt to court more religious voters.

In America, there really shouldn’t be anything remarkable about this. Prime Minister Gillard is talking about her belief system and how she will not compromise her beliefs in an attempt to get votes. We hear this kind of thing all of the time from American politicians; it’s what they do. They talk about their principles, their moral and ethical foundations, and their record of getting things done. Gillard is doing nothing different than most politicians here.

But, this is remarkable. In America, there is only one elected member of the national government who is openly atheist: Representative Pete Stark of California. If we include both houses of Congress and the President and Vice President, that’s 537 people. If we extend this to include the Supreme Court, that’s 546. Only ONE out of those 546 people admits to being an atheist. That’s 0.18 % of the government. Not even 1/5th of 1%. Yet, according to a 2007 Pew Research poll, at least 10% of Americans claim to be unaffiliated with any religion whatsoever. Instead of there being around 50 people in the government without religious beliefs, there’s one.

Quite simply, atheistic Americans are VASTLY underrepresented in their government. Yet, in Australia, the most powerful executive not only openly admits her atheism, but also asserts it strongly by telling her country’s religious believers that she is not going to feign belief just to make herself a more attractive politician. In British politics, religion is a relative non-issue. Yet, in America, everyone was worried about Obama’s Church or his Muslim heritage during the election process.

Theistic belief, of whatever variety, should not be a requirement for making the right decisions in leading this country, yet it seems like that is the case. America needs to catch up.

Above all else, we here at Undoctrinationblog want you to think. If you see something here or on some other site, question it. Engage with it. Dissect it.

Become involved in the discussion that is already affecting you.