The pledge of allegiance claims “one nation, under God”, and our elected officials swear an oath that closes with “So help me God” but the constitution itself states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” So which is it? It is abundantly clear that the God that the pledge and the oath of office mention is the Christian God of the bible. This is problematic, as even though the very constitution promised that congress shall neither respect nor hinder any establishment of religion, the government makes an early point of favoring Christianity.

Thomas Jefferson wrote during his presidency, in a letter to the Danbury Baptist Association: “Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church and State”. Between these different statements by the government, a very mixed message is given. The government allegedly supports the separation of church and state but gives credence to Christianity above other religions, and especially above nonreligion. 

Between Jefferson’s letter and the 1st amendment, it should be perfectly clear that the government, especially the federal government, should not meddle in matters of religion. However, as evidenced by the language in the oath of office and pledge of allegiance, the government has done so long before the issues of today. One would think that as time goes on our government would become more aware of these contradictions and take action to preserve the separation of church and state, however, as has been shown by recent events such as Supreme court cases Dobbs V Jackson Dept. of Health, and Kennedy v. Bremerton School District, which allow states to make separate decisions regarding abortion rights and bodily autonomy, and allow school employees to pray in front of students during the school day and school events, respectively.

It should be noted that some will insist that abortion is not a question of religious freedom, but a question of the right to life, or that while school officials have been permitted to exercise their religion as per their first amendment rights, this does not impede the religious freedom of students. However, the entire concept of life beginning at conception, or even during early pregnancy is primarily a Christian idea, which should not be imposed against one's will, especially if the individual is not a Christian. Furthermore, While the act of a school employee praying in front of students could easily be considered as that individual exercising their religion, it is important to remember that the vast majority of school employees hold at least some authority, and students are generally expected to listen to, and to some extent adhere to the values of those officials. Additionally, it would not hinder the religious freedoms of an employee to require that they practice their religion in private. Accommodations are already often made for employees that would not normally have the time to do this  (for example a Muslim staff member would likely be given a modified schedule that allowed them to pray at the times their religion requires them to.) Finally, many schools in the US, especially in rural areas, will take far more liberty than granted by this decision, and by giving the proverbial inch, we give all parties who would do so the opportunity to take a mile.

It is abundantly clear that throughout the history of the United States, our government has subverted its own rules and regulations to a ridiculous extent, in multiple cases, to preserve the illusion of religious freedom, and the reality of Christian theocracy.