Basically its a gamble. You can gamble on a majority of individuals in your country agreeing with you and somehow (no idea how in practise) communally sorting out all your differences and respecting each other's beliefs OR you can gamble on 1 individual who effectively rules to country to make the choice you want and then oust him if you disagree. Compare the Roman republic to the Roman state under Julius Caesar if you want an example. Getting back on topic, the danger of the phrase "One Nation Under God" in the US cons!@#$%^&*ution is that the US is not "One Nation Under God". The country has a large ethnic mix and a background of Religious intolerance mixed with people escaping from Religious Persecution. One or the other has to give way eventually and "One Nation Under God" suggests that the goverment stance should be one of religious intolerance. So far only extremists have taken the line in this context but until that line is changed, it gives religous puritans some validity. However changing that line is likely to be met from a lot of resistance from Chistians and conservatives who wish to preserve the traditional reading. Which you see as the lesser of two evils is a matter of opinion but from the view of politicians, keeping the line is safest as no-one will blame you for maintaining the status-quo.