One nation under the constitution
The current issue of The Humanist magazine has a wonderful interview with Maryland State Senator Jamie Raskin, entitled “One Nation Under the Constitution: Reason, Politics, and Morality in the New Century.” I highly recommend it. Here are a couple excerpts:
[On his stance against adding "under God" to the Pledge of Allegiance]: I went on a conservative talk show to defend the decision. The host kept insisting that we must be “one nation under God” or one nation under something else. “What do you liberals want us to be under?” he asked. “Gee,” I said, “how about ‘one nation under Canada’? At least it would be geographically correct.” But then I suggested, quite seriously, “one nation under the Constitution.” After all, I argued, we aren’t of one religion, one race, one ethnicity, or one party, but we do have one Constitution and one Bill of Rights.
[On humility]: Human progress today depends, as it always has, on an alliance of people from different philosophical and theological standpoints working together to advance tangible and measurable social goods. This progressive alliance, in turn, depends on all of us giving up a bit of pride in our certainties and dogmas, whether of a theological or ideological cast. “The spirit of liberty,” said Judge Learned Hand, “is the spirit which is not too sure that it is right; the spirit of liberty is the spirit which seeks to understand the minds of other men and women.”
Kate Lovelady, 38, of Dogtown is the Leader of the Ethical Society of St. Louis, which was founded in 1886 and is currently the largest Ethical Society in the nation. Kate's life partner, Billy Dechand, is a local musician. Kate's hobbies include vegan baking and riding her 49cc scooter. 
Well said.
I have always wondered what the impact was of asking people to declare something they may not have chosen for themselves, such as God. I wonder if God holds us beleivers accountable for asking people to speak his name thoughtlessly or without belief.
Sometimes I wonder if people accept that they have a choice in the country they choose for themselves.
Both in faith and country we are often born into it, and there comes a time, or not, when we choose it. We can be responsible for creating the space for the choice for others, and we can only make it for ourselves.
I’m not a fanatic crazy about this topic, but I will take a counter point, not that we must have this wording in our pledge, but we can.
We were clearly founded on a principal that we were given unalienable rights, not by a constitution, not by a declaration, but by a creator. Liberty and freedom were not seen as just virtues that could be realized by secular governance, but as rights that we already had prior to any government authority. The declaration acknowledged this truth and the constitution wrote it into law. But neither created the notion, nor did they invent these rights…they existed as a self-evident truths.
This is how we understand our rights and freedoms. Should we hide this history? Does acknowledging it take away these rights from those who believe differently? Does it establish a religion? Am I saying we should be a Christian country? The answer to all is no. But should we expunge all acknowledgment of the fundamental basis for our right to create the government we have? Still the answer is no.
I want to make another distinction.
“…they existed as a self-evident truths.”
I would suggest that they did not “exist” in the world as “self evident truths”.
The power of our founder’s statement is that they “…declared them to be self evident truths”, and then proceeded to support that agreement and declaration with their lives and property.
It is one of the most audacious and powerful human acts of creation in the history of our nation, and maybe in government.
They were not Moses coming down from the mountain with the 10 commandments
declaring “Truths” with the authority of God. I will assert that their language demonstrates they understood this distinction.
In the context of their faith as Christian, they were guided by the acts of Jesus. We owe much of who we are today to that faith. The founder’s language is clearly filled with acknowledgment of the source of their inspiration. For that I am grateful.
I want the power of my faith to be a choice for others. I believe this glorifies God. The result of that belief for our founder’s is the freedom of religion that is written so powerfully into our documents.
If you want to rewrite the pledge to acknowlege God as a source of inspiration for the men that founded this country, you are welcome to try. Its reference through out the founding documents is enough fo me.
I would not ask those who do not believe be forced to pledge that they are a “nation under God” to be a loyal citizen of this country.
I would argue that covertly manipulating others to pledge an alligance to God, that they may not accept or agree to, lacks integrity when done in the same breath with a pledge of “liberty and justice for all.”