Patriotism is “love for or devotion to one’s country,” or so says Webster. The word “patriot” is derived from the Latin pater, or father. We owe our sense of the word from the Romans whose devotion to patria, or fatherland, was also wrapped up in their religious devotion to their ancestors. During feudal times this “love of country” was bestowed on the person who sat on a throne. The monarch ruled by “divine right,” as stipulated by the church. However, in our times, this connection between religion and government has been severed, most especially in the American Constitution. That document is secular to the core. So what does it mean when presidents, congressmen/women, and senators take an oath to serve and protect the Constitution “so help me God?” I believe it means that religion—whatever religion is individually observed—must be sworn to serve the Constitution of the United States and not vice versa. This exclusivity of religion is the linchpin that allows for religious freedom. As a result of breaking with historical precedent (i.e., of “God and country”), American patriotism requires a unique oath of office. To what purpose you might ask? Well, the preamble tells us in words that should be emblazoned on every member of our tripartite government: to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide a common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure liberty for ourselves and our posterity. This is a very solemn oath that vivifies our founding document as much as the structural checks and balances woven into its fabric. So how must our political leaders carry out this oath to assure its purpose is realized? Whether in debates on the floor of Congress, in wrangling between the Parties, or in the institutionalized tension between the branches of government, I find at least three prerequisites that must be brought to bear: diverse perspectives on governing is presumed; a firm commitment to respective oaths of office is required as witnessed by the Almighty (“so help me God”); and consensus is obliged by the very words that initially established the rules of our governance, namely, “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union . . .” Sometimes, only the first of these prerequisites are observed. If we Americans pledge allegiance to “one nation under God . . . with liberty and justice for all,” then it behooves our leaders to move us forward as one nation under the auspices of God and the guidance of those governing principles elaborated in the Constitution. No ideological, theological, or philosophical argument should be allowed to take precedent over the oaths and pledges that define us as American patriots. To act otherwise is indeed unpatriotic in our American system. Without consensus, that system is simply dysfunctional. Put in other terms, debate is no more required of us than recognition of our common interest and acceptance of the will of the majority.

Now allegiance is a tricky concept. Its manipulation is responsible for many extreme events in human history: the crusades, the inquisition, nationalist socialism, communist totalitarianism, and so on. What makes Americans potentially different is the presumption that our nation represents its founding principles and that its actions are well-debated and critically appraised in the light of those principles before being enacted. Our soldiers, for instance, risks their lives on that presumption. They don’t serve Islam, Christianity, Hinduism, or any other type of “ism.” They serve “the flag of the United States of America and the republic for which it stands.” During a Democratic administration, members of both Parties fought side-by-side in the Vietnam War, as they did again under Republican administrations in Iraq. All citizens of this great country—and especially the band of brothers and sisters in uniform—must demand that both political Parties and all who serve in government give credence to their oaths of office and fulfill the promise of our Constitution. Its preamble, after all, is our common ground.

One final note: patriotism in itself is not what makes us exceptional. Our form of constitutional government is, however, exceptional in the context of history. Nevertheless, John Adams once referred to it as an experiment, for he foresaw its dependence on the wisdom of succeeding generations. No one can predict the future. But we can build on the legacy left to us for our posterity. Our current President keeps reminding us of our need to form a more perfect union. The way to do that is to incorporate the stated goals of our founding fathers into the fabric of American life and to hold our political leaders accountable for the same in their governance. Remember, “We the People . . .”