A Logical Proof Against Either The Pledge of Allegiance or The Declaration of Independence

I've been thinking a lot lately about The Pledge of Allegiance, and have decided that it is irreconcilable with the ideals upon which the United States of America was founded as set forth in The Declaration of Independence. Consider the following:

1. Either the United States of America is devoted to the ideals of The Pledge of Allegiance or The United States of America is devoted to the ideals of The Declaration of Independence.
2. If The United States of America is devoted to the ideals of The Pledge of Allegiance, then The Declaration of Independence is un-American, since the ideals of The Declaration of Independence are in direct contradiction with the ideals of The Pledge of Allegiance.
3. If the United States of America is devoted to the ideals of The Declaration of Independence, then The Pledge of Allegiance is un-American, since the ideals of The Pledge of Allegiance are in direct contradiction with the ideals of The Declaration of Independence.
4. Therefore, either The Declaration of Independence is un-American, or The Pledge of Allegiance is un-American.

You might be asking yourselves, what is it about this pledge and this document that make them mutually exclusive? The answer is that one supports unequivocal loyalty and support to a system of a government, while the other does not.

The ideals upon which The Declaration of Independence are based do not support blind devotion to one's government. According to the Declaration of Independence, "Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed," and "whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive...it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government," as well as "when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is [mankind's] right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security." All of these quotes say the same thing: governments are based upon their ability to provide for the rights of the governed, and any government which does not provide for the rights of the governed should be abolished.

Conversely, The Pledge of Allegiance offers no such qualifications as to what kind of government it is to which we pledge. We are merely expected to pledge our loyalty to our flag and government, which stands indivisible (regardless of whether there have been any of the abuses and usurpations of which the Declaration speaks).

The Paradox of Relativism and Nihilism

Relativism and Nihilism are two philosophical systems that seem to have at least some prevalence in our postmodern world. Although I'm sure not all would agree with how I will be defining them since they are words that contain a plethora of meaning for various individuals, I use the word "relativism" as a philosophical system in which there are no absolutes and criteria is assessed by means of cultural and situational factors. I will use the word "nihilism" as a philosophical system in which all values are baseless and nothing can be known or communicated. These two systems fascinate me in their ability to absolutely deny the existence of absolutes.

Take relativism, for example. Relativists deny the existence of absolutes. But, think about this claim for a moment. In the denial of absolutes, you have created an absolute, for you have claimed that there are absolutely no absolutes. In less, of course, you meant that there are only no absolutes in certain contexts, which makes even less sense.

Then, of course, there's nihilism. Nihilists deny the existence of values and our ability to communicate with one another. As for the first claim (the denial of the existence of values), I wonder what sort of value Nihilists assess nihilism as being, for they certainly seem to hold the value of the denial of values, and the value of the denial of our ability to communicate with one another. Then there is the second claim (the denial of our ability to communicate with one another). Nihilism is a belief commonly held and expressed by multiple individuals. I'm not sure how the first nihilist communicated their nihilism to the second, but they apparently did, proving nihilism to be false. If we weren't able to communicate with one another, then I would not be able to even know what nihilism is. Since I have heard of nihilism, nihilism proves itself to be false.

“The Promised Land always lies on the other side of a wilderness.”