&quot;we should treat it as any other irrational belief&quot;<p>How do you distinguish between a rational and irrational belief?<p>I am strongly influenced by Kurt Vonnegut&#x27; &quot;granfalloon&quot; - &quot;a group of people who affect a shared identity or purpose, but whose mutual association is actually meaningless&quot;. Quoting from <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Granfalloon" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Granfalloon</a> :<p>&gt; The most commonly purported granfalloons are associations and societies based on a shared but ultimately fabricated premise. As examples, Vonnegut cites: &quot;the Communist Party, the Daughters of the American Revolution, the General Electric Company—and any nation, anytime, anywhere.&quot; A more general and oft-cited quote defines a granfalloon as &quot;a proud and meaningless association of human beings.&quot; Another granfalloon example illustrated in the book were Hoosiers, of which the narrator (and Vonnegut himself) was a member.<p>What makes you certain that believing in &quot;the US&quot; is any more rational than believing in various gods?<p>To be certain, there is a consensus reality which says the US exists, and if you fail to go along with the consensus you may be subject to negative consequences. Just like if you fail to express certain religious beliefs, you may subject to negative consequences, even in secular countries.