Next spring, the U.S. Supreme Court will rule on the place of the phrase “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance recited daily by millions of school children across the country.

The case was appealed to the nation’s highest court by both the involved California school district and the Bush administration after the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco ruled the phrase unconstitutional and ordered its omission from the Pledge’s recitation in nine Western states.

For the benefit of religious freedom, tolerance of all people and out of respect for this country’s founders, the lower court’s decision should be upheld. The continued recital of “under God” in the Pledge is a blow to the free practice (or non-practice) of the religion of one’s choice guaranteed in the First Amendment.

The phrase “under God” is a superficial and contrived addition to the Pledge. It was not even a part of the original text, drafted in 1892 and adopted by Congress in 1942 — it was inserted in 1954, in a rash act of anti-communist fervor during the Korean War.

The conservative Christians who lead the charge to keep the phrase use two arguments: first, that the United States was actually founded on the tenets of Christianity, and second, that the “God” alluded to is ambiguous and applicable to all religions.

The first of these assertions is utterly ridiculous.

Thomas Jefferson, a seminal figure in the creation of this country, asked that three accomplishments be inscribed on his tombstone: the writing of the Declaration of Independence, the founding of the University of Virginia and the writing of the Statute of Virginia for Religious Freedom. This latter, relatively unknown, document guaranteed the separation of religion and government in Virginia.

Jefferson, like most of the founders, valued religious freedom and its separation from government above nearly all else, so much so that he insisted on its inclusion on his tombstone.

The second argument from advocates of the status quo, that the “God” referred to in the Pledge is ambiguous, is similarly off base.

The reference to any “God” at all could alienate the atheist segment of our society, as evidenced by this very court case. The reference to “God” as a singular entity could alienate the polytheistic segment of our society. Even to followers of Judeo-Christian sects, “under God” is a loaded statement. For Jehovah’s Witnesses, pledging in such a way is expressly forbidden.

There is no place for references to God in government. If the court upholds the lower court’s ruling, it will uphold the religious freedom of all people, the fairness and balance of our democratic system, and the ideas and wisdom of our country’s founders.