Your choice of Flame kind of suggests you expected an argument, Frank; I hope you're not disappointed at the mild responses ;-)

The issues around "The American's Creed" are the same as those of the Pledge of Allegiance. The Pledge was established in 1892 by Presidential proclamation, and I wonder if the Creed was meant as an alternative.

A compulsary loyalty oath bothers many people, including me. And some have religious objections, viewing an oath as in some sense a conflict, and in the case of the Pledge's oath toward the flag, idolatory. The potential for discord in such an oath was demonstrated by the violence perpretrated against Jehovah's Witnesses, in the early 1950s, because they objected to the Pledge as idolatry. I don't share their religious beliefs, but I think that they had a right to their opinion; but oaths such as the Pledge create a climate of intolerance in which violence can flourish.

I've never encountered "The American's Creed" before you posted it, but it strikes me as the lesser evil compared to the Pledge of Allegiance, if we had to have some sort of national loyalty oath. Instead of the Pledge's blind worship of the flag symbol and obedience to a God that not everyone believes in, at least the Creed focues directly on America's secular founding values.

The last paragraph does mention the flag, but only in terms of respect, rather than allegiance to the symbol. I'm a bit troubled by the last paragraph's resonance with "America, love it or leave it"; love can't be compelled by duty, let alone a loyalty oath, and you either feel love or you don't. That bit's a little heavy-handed.

Bottom line: Loyalty oaths are divisive and oppressive, and if the Creed was compulsory I'd probably go out of my way to repudiate it (because in that case it would, in fact, be a false creed). But as long as it's not compulsary, I can say, sure, sounds about right.