Most students are familiar with early memories of grade school when teachers instructed the class to stand at attention and pledge allegiance to the nation—ensuring that the 31-word recitation, and appreciation for the nation united “under God,” would be forever engrained in their young, impressionable minds. Those seemingly innocuous memories, however, have since garnered new meaning, stirring a growing sect in the country to take issue with the pledge’s non-secular phrase.

When an agnostic Californian father, Michael A. Newdow, won a case in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in June 2002, the San Francisco court guaranteed that his 9-year-old daughter would not be subjected to the daily ritual of reciting “under God” in the closing of the pledge. For the states under the Ninth Circut Court, the ruling retired the requirement that public school teachers lead students in the pledge. Now, after the subsequent uproar, the Supreme Court has decided to take the case and consider the constitutionality of the decision.

Phrases incorporating “God” are not a novelty among things held dear to Americans—our country has “In God We Trust” set in bold on its currency. And, as The New York Times pointed out, even the Supreme Court justices “begin their daily sessions with heads bowed as the marshal intones ‘God save the United States and this honorable court.’” But, the words “under God” were not included in the original construction of the pledge; they were added in 1954 during the Eisenhower Administration in recognition, according to Eisenhower, of “our most powerful resource.” Originally, the words had been intentionally excluded because of author John W. Baer’s wish to respect the idea of separation of church and state. This sentiment ought to be reinstated.

While it’s true that students are not forced to participate in the pledge—and haven’t been since a 1943 decision instigated at the behest of Jehovah’s Witness—the daily tradition perpetuates an uncomfortable situation for children, and one in which they can be pressured into saying the creed. The Bush administration and other antagonists have tried to rebuff attempts to sustain the ruling, claiming that to recite “under God” is more a tribute to patriotism than a declaration of religious beliefs.

But the opposition forgets that America enjoys an open culture, and tolerance of citizens’ myriad beliefs is key in maintaining this ideal. It is on these principles that the court ruling criticizes the pledge as “a profession of a religious belief, namely, a belief in monotheism.” To retain this slogan is to impose a conviction that not all Americans share.

After Justice Scalia’s controversial remarks at an event associated with the Knights of Columbus—a Catholic organization, and, notably, one of the groups that urged the inclusion of “under God” in 1954—he has opted out of the case’s hearing. His recent recusal raises the possibility of a 4-4 split, which would uphold the current ruling. We hope the ruling is upheld and the 9.6 million students within the court’s jurisdiction will no longer be subject to this daily ritual.