The bell rings through the hallway of a public school. Sleepy-eyed students rise to their feet, place their hands over their hearts, and face the flag on the wall. Enunciating each syllable, these students recite the pledge of allegiance: “…under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.” Later, these students will trickle into the cafeteria, perhaps pulling bills or coins out of their pockets for lunch. Etched upon the money is the phrase “In God We Trust.”

“In God We Trust” is the national motto of the United States. This phrase, which appeared on some coins throughout the 19th and 20th centuries, was cemented as the official motto of the U.S in a 1956 law passed by Congress and supported by President Eisenhower. This law mandated that the phrase “In God We Trust” be adhered to all forms of U.S. currency. Also in 1956, the words “under God” were added to the Pledge of Allegiance of the United States, which had previously been recited without it for years.

Congress passed these laws in the face of the Cold War, amidst a strong fear of communism throughout the nation. Supporters of the addition to the pledge of allegiance hailed it as a way of separating the U.S. from the atheist-aligned Soviet Union. They believed that adding the “under God” to the U.S. pledge of allegiance was the only way to separate it from an arbitrary pledge that could be recited in any nation. The “In God We Trust” law was supported for similar reasons.

However, in creating these laws, these legislators forgot about the Constitution and its system of government precisely intended to separate the U.S. from undemocratic countries. In an effort to distinguish the United States from totalitarian communist nations, these laws set in place a blatant contradiction that still exists today.

The Bill of Rights, containing the first ten Amendments to the Constitution, was ratified in 1791. The famous First Amendment to the Constitution provided for several basic freedoms, including freedom of religion. It also established the separation of church and state.

Intended to safeguard the U.S. from religious conflicts that had devastated other nations and especially important today due to the diverse beliefs in the country, freedom of religion and separation of church and state should ensure that an individual can practice whatever religion he or she wishes without prosecution or patronization from the government and that the government is not affiliated with any one religion.

However, it’s hard to take these principles seriously when they are being violated in ways that we witness every day. The First Amendment says, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” If Congress is not supposed to make a law respecting an establishment of religion, than why is “In God We Trust,” the national motto? This motto is a clear reference to religions that worship a single God. Though these religions may be the majority in the U.S, they certainly do not encompass all of the country’s citizens, and so there is no reason why one religion should be shown such preference in the government.

“In God We Trust” is an acceptable motto for a religious institution, but not for a government that is intended to have no religious affiliation. Likewise, the phrase “under God” does not belong in the pledge of allegiance, which is meant to be an expression of patriotism. If the United States is a country with freedom of religion, then a reference to God should not be necessary to make a statement supporting the country.

The general response of the U.S. judicial system has been that these phrases do not actually contain any religious meaning and are simply a ceremonial tradition. For example, in 1970 an appeals court rejected a legal challenge to the motto “In God We Trust,” stating, “It is quite obvious that the national motto and the slogan on coinage and currency ‘In God We Trust’ has nothing whatsoever to do with the establishment of religion. Its use is of patriotic or ceremonial character and bears no true resemblance to a governmental sponsorship of religion.” Various court cases have produced similar statements about the “under God” in the pledge of allegiance.

However, it is easy to see that “under God” and “In God We Trust” have everything to do with an establishment of religion and were certainly intended as a government sponsorship of a religious exercise. After the “under God” in the pledge of allegiance became law, President Eisenhower stated, “From this day forward, the millions of our schoolchildren will daily proclaim in every city and town, every village and rural schoolhouse, the dedication of our nation and our people to the Almighty.” He obviously did not view the addition to the pledge as simply “of patriotic or ceremonial character”; for him, and for those who supported the law, it was clearly about religion. Similarly, some religious groups today strongly defend these references to God; if they ony considered it ceremonial, they would not be so invested in the fate of these words.

Many of these religious groups justify their argument by claiming the U.S. is a Christian nation and that the Founders have always intended it to be so. However, if the Framers of the Constitution had truly intended the U.S. to have a Christian-affiliated government, they would not have written separation of church and state into the document. Many of the U.S. Founding Fathers approved of separation of church and state. Thomas Jefferson once wrote that there should be “a wall of separation between church and state.”

If the judicial system were to declare the references to God in the government unconstitutional, it would be better for everyone. Those who identify with no religion at all or a religion that does not worship a single God would feel included and represented in their country. Those who do worship a single God would still be free to practice their religion, and would know that the First Amendment is protecting their right to do so. E Pluribus Unum, the Latin for “Out of many, one,” which is also on United States coins, would be a perfectly suitable motto, reflecting the diversity and history of the country.

The problem with the national motto and the pledge of allegiance is not about religion. It’s not about God. It’s not about atheism. It’s not about who’s right or who’s wrong. It’s about the constitution, freedom of expression, and liberty and justice for all citizens. If we want these things in our country, we must acknowledge that religious references do not belong in government.