The debate about the 9th Circuit’s controversial Pledge of Allegiance ruling – or the lack thereof, as a recitation of the pledge by the U.S. Senate the day after the ruling demonstrated, seems to ignore the very reason why the court correctly decided the “under God” portion of the pledge was unconstitutional.

The two words were added to the pledge by Congress in 1954 expressly to show that the United States, unlike the Soviet Union, was a God-fearing country. President Dwight Eisenhower said as he signed the act into law that “millions of our schoolchildren will daily proclaim in every city and town the dedication of our nation and our people to the Almighty,” according to a David Greenberg article for slate.com.

There’s just one little problem: the first 10 words of the Bill of Rights: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.”

Did Congress make a law? Yes. Easy enough.

Was that law enacted with respect to an establishment of religion? The legislative history of the 1954 bill stated that the purpose of the act was to “acknowledge the dependence of our people and our Government upon … the Creator … [and] deny the atheistic and materialistic concept of communism,” Greenberg wrote. Add that to Eisenhower’s comments, and it’s difficult to conclude anything but yes.

So, is the act constitutional? Um, no.

The “um” is the problem.

It would be suicide in today’s political climate for a national politician to support the ruling, though its logic is overwhelming. Most politicians know why the “under God” law was wrong, but the implications of the ruling seem to be so vast that the logic is swept under the constitutional rug.

If the Pledge of Allegiance can’t include the words “under God,” what about the God references on our money and our government buildings, just to name a couple obvious examples? Should our nation’s overwhelming majority of believers sanitize their government to the secular extreme to respect the beliefs and non-beliefs of the handfuls of atheists and polytheists out there?

Those arguments are convincing when taken at face value, but ultimately misleading. They could be debunked by those who know better – if our national discourse could handle lines of thought that can’t be scrolled across the bottom of a television screen.

“Under God” is unconstitutional because it was added to the pledge for the exact reason prohibited by the Constitution: to establish religion. “In God We Trust” was added to paper money in 1955 for much the same reason. That’s wrong, too, as are any other religious references meant to show God was on our side against the Russians.

The Cold War’s over, folks, and those who still value tokens of religion over the basic tenets of our Constitution should remember that’s the way our current enemies prefer it, too.

Editorial Board: Dave Roepke, Erin Randolph, Charlie Weaver, Megan Hinds, Rachel Faber Machacha