Shangdi. Bahá. Bhagwan. Ahura Mazda. Xenu. Allah. Jehovah. God. Theists have many different names for the divine being, and many more different beliefs and sects on top of that.

Having a civil conversation about God is a feat in and of itself—almost a miracle, one could say. It is possible, however.

Try and talk about God’s place in government though, and suddenly that conversation becomes even more contentious and quite impossible.

For years, there has been a dilemma about God’s rightful place in government, particularly over the use of the word “God” in both the Pledge of Allegiance and on American currency.

Since 2002, one of the people leading the fight to take God out of the government has been atheist Michael Newdow. He sued his daughter’s California school district in ’02, arguing that “the wording violated the Establishment Clause of the Constitution’s 1st Amendment, which prohibits the enactment of any law or official policy in support of a religion,” according to an article in the Los Angeles Times.

Last week, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed its controversial 2002 decision on the case. In ’02, it ruled that the “one nation under God” bit in the pledge made it unconstitutional, due to the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause.

Now however, the court says that the line “doesn’t violate a citizen’s right to be free of state-mandated religion,” according to the same LA Times article, because there is no federal law or mandate that requires students to recite the pledge or the religious mention in it.

Let’s get down to the heart of the matter. If the founding fathers were so worried about keeping faith and government separate, then why does the Pledge of Allegiance even have “under God” in it in the first place?

The answer’s simple: it was added in. The original Pledge of Allegiance was written in 1892 by Francis Bellamy. It read: “I pledge allegiance to my Flag and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.”

The “under God” part was a proposed addition by Congress in 1954 and signed into law by then-President Eisenhower that same year. It is a common misconception that the words were added as a way to combat the USSR’s so-called godless communism; it was not. Nor was it a way to use a so-called “divine right” to justify the U.S. becoming a global power, as some others have said.

The truth of the matter is that the words come from a part of Abraham Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address, where he said: “that the nation shall, under God, have a new birth of freedom.” Eisenhower, a newly born-again Presbyterian, was only too eager to add the words in.

The original decision of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in 2002 was that including “under God” in the Pledge constituted an unconstitutional endorsement of monotheistic practices. They were right, and should not have reversed their stance.

Our great country is made up of so many people of so many faiths (and no faiths). Sure, saying the Pledge of Allegiance is not required, nor is saying the “under God” part mandatory. But why even have “under God” in there in the first place?

There are many religions that recognize more than one deity. Plus, there are agnostics that believe in a higher power, even if they cannot place a name to it, and there are of course atheists like Newdow who do not believe in a supreme being.

They are all Americans, as much as those who do believe in God. Or Allah. Or yes, even Xenu.