Since loyalty to one's ideology create suffering for the innocent, the real question is whether the ideology is sound or not. A sound ideology may breed pride. However, an ideology may be unsound, yet one may be proud of their ideology, as they are unaware of the flaws. What I mean by 'sound' is with respect to its internal and external consistency. A sound philosophy is one that is consistent and irrefutable by any logical argument. That is, it has no logical fallacies. An ideology may be quite convincing (apparently sound), but may suffer from a logical fallacy that ultimately reveals it to be either limited or incorrect. I'm simply saying that people may believe in ideologies that are extremely convincing, but not entirely correct; believing it to be infallible, they become proud. A true ideology does not rest on pride, but on the strength (soundness) of its internal and external consistency. It is mathematically true, and provably so. Me being proud of 2 + 2 = 4 does not make it any less or more equal to 4. It is simply so, irrespective of my beliefs (or disbelief) in it. That said, many ideologies are not provable, limiting their soundness - that does not however mean that people will stop believing in them. All that said, the very definition of ideology, is not entirely clear. In the strictest sense an ideology is the science of ideas. But in the general use, it is a world-view, or a belief structure that shapes (one might say, biases) one's perspective. What do you think? Is ideology sound or unsound? What is the definition of an ideology?