Patriotism, at the time, was often displayed through symbolic gestures that distinguished us from the Soviet Union. Both the Cincinnati team and the Soviet Union were “Reds,” and we didn’t want anyone in 1953 to believe participants in our national pastime could be card-carrying members of the Communist Party. It’s a wonder we didn’t remove a color and give two cheers for a new version of “Old Glory” in just white and blue. By 1959 our national chromatic fears had diminished, so the team once again became the Cincinnati Reds, their original name when they joined the National League in 1890.

Besides being red, the Soviet Union was also godless. So in 1954 our politicians added “under God” to the “one nation, indivisible” Pledge of Allegiance, which was originally written in 1892, only two years after the Reds entered the National League. And thus we turned our unifying and inclusive secular pledge into a divisive and exclusive religious pledge that public school students were expected to recite every day.

Here my analogy ends. Professional baseball teams are private, and it’s none of the government’s business what a team calls itself. The Reds changed their name for a silly reason and wisely returned to their traditional name, but that was their choice. They can change their name to the “Under God Reds” if they want, though they would lose a lot of atheist fans. On the other hand, public schools are not private. The government funds public schools and it must not imply to students or their parents that the government favors one religion over another or religion over non-religion.

Recent court cases have argued that the pledge should be declared unconstitutional, and perhaps brought back to the traditional “one nation, indivisible” form. A lower court agreed with attorney Michael Newdow, bringing suit on behalf of his school-aged daughter, that the phrase “under God” in the pledge constitutes an endorsement of religion, and therefore violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. However, the U.S. Supreme Court overruled Newdow on procedural grounds, citing that he did not have custody of his daughter after a divorce and therefore didn’t have the right to bring suit on her behalf.