How the Cold War Shaped America’s Sacred Symbols: From the Pledge to National Identity
How the 1950s rewired American civic identity; on purpose; and why it still shapes classrooms, courtrooms, and politics today.
Congress and the White House embedded religious language into U.S. sacred symbols during the Cold War. That legacy now powers a new wave of laws and lawsuits that are testing church-state boundaries.
In the 1950s, Washington didn’t just fight communism abroad; it imprinted faith into the nation’s subconscious at home. In June 1954, Congress inserted “under God” into the Pledge of Allegiance. Two years later, lawmakers made “In God We Trust” the American national motto and ordered it onto all paper money. These weren’t accidental embellishments; they were strategic lines in an ideological war. Today, as states mandate religious displays in classrooms and courts shift constitutional tests, the Cold War’s sacred proverbs still do political work.
Part 2
The Cold War Era: When Congress Put “God” Into the Script
In response to the Cold War, Congress made significant amendments to the Pledge of Allegiance, transforming it into a explicitly theistic daily school ritual. On June 14, 1954, Public Law 83-396 (68 Stat. 249) was enacted, inserting the phrase “under God” into the Pledge. This amendment elevated the daily recitation of the Pledge to a religious ceremony. President Dwight D. Eisenhower justified this change as a counter to “materialistic philosophy,” emphasizing that “millions of our school children will daily proclaim…the dedication of our nation…to the Almighty.”
Building on this, Congress codified “In God We Trust” as the American national motto on July 30, 1956 (H.J.Res. 396). This expansion extended the phrase beyond coins to encompass all paper currency. The motto remains a federal law, specifically codified in 36 U.S.C. § 302. Notably, it was reaffirmed by Congress in 2011, underscoring its enduring and entrenched status.
Quote: “From this day forward, the millions of our school children will daily proclaim… the dedication of our nation and our people to the Almighty.” — President Dwight D. Eisenhower, Statement on Signing, June 14, 1954
Analysis: This was more than religious devoutness; it was a policy. During the McCarthy era, piety became a differentiating factor from “godless communism,” and Congress made it law.
From Pulpit to Statute: Who Pushed, Who Signed
Clergy and civic organizations, including the Knights of Columbus, campaigned for the inclusion of “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance. This push coincided with Eisenhower’s embrace of public religious rituals, such as the National Prayer Breakfast and the Capitol’s prayer room. The “under God” insertion moved swiftly through Congress. Legislative text can be traced back to H.J.Res. 243, which was later enacted as Public Law 83-396.
Two years later, H.J.Res. 396 elevated “In God We Trust” from a coinage tradition to an official motto, receiving unanimous congressional approval. The policy architecture designed to ensure daily repetition (through the Pledge in schools) and universal contact (through the motto on currency) served as a mass civic catechism.
Quote: In 1954, Rev. George Docherty, a Presbyterian pastor, stated that “The addition of ‘under God’ was intended to distinguish the United States from the atheistic Soviet Union,” as described in historical summaries.
Analysis: The group behind these changes knew exactly what repetition would do. If propaganda is about saturation, the United States ran it through every corner of society.
The New Legal Playbook: Tradition Over Separation
In 2022, the Supreme Court made a significant shift in its approach to Establishment Clause cases by abandoning the Lemon test. Instead, it instructed courts to consider “historical practices and understandings” when evaluating religious symbolism in government. This change has reshaped the landscape of challenges to religious symbols in public spaces. Scholars have noted that this shift makes it more challenging to challenge religious symbols like “In God We Trust” and “under God.” These symbols are now viewed as part of national tradition rather than as religious endorsements. As a result, courts are less likely to find these sacred symbols in violation of the Establishment Clause.
The Columbia Undergraduate Law Review (2023) emphasized the far-reaching impact of this shift. They argued that the complete abandonment of the Lemon test has caused a ripple effect, affecting the lives of students in various ways. The South Carolina Law Review (2025) further explored the implications of the new test. They argued that displays of the American national motto, “In God We Trust,” are unlikely to offend the Establishment Clause because courts view the motto as nationalistic rather than religious.
Quote: Maya Gardner, a writer for the South Carolina Law Review, underscores this point. Gardner stated, “Laws requiring schools to display the national motto, ‘In God We Trust,’ are unlikely to offend the Establishment Clause due to the nation’s history of displaying the motto in a nationalistic rather than religious manner.”
Analysis: When “history and tradition” are used as the yardstick, yesterday’s political choices become today’s constitutional shield. This is not neutral; it is path dependency disguised as doctrine.
Fallout in Schools: Mandates, Injunctions, and a Culture War Pipeline
Multiple states have pushed for classroom mandates of the Ten Commandments, leading to federal courts issuing injunctions as appeals progress. This could potentially result in Supreme Court review of the 1980s Stone v. Graham precedent. Education Week reports a surge in school chaplain laws and directives aimed at incorporating the Bible into public school curricula, which civil liberties groups perceive as coercive.
In Oklahoma, the first state-funded religious charter school faced opposition and was blocked. A 2025 Supreme Court deadlock has temporarily upheld the lower court ruling. Organized resistance is emerging. Multifaith coalitions, including Americans United, the ACLU, and the FFRF, are litigating these mandates across states.
Quote: “By adding the phrase “under God” … Congress was attempting to distinguish the politics of the United States from godless Communism … this change divided our nation further rather than uniting its citizens.” — Sally Wright, great-granddaughter of Francis Bellamy, letter quoted in USHistory.org (2002)
Analysis: The classroom serves as the battleground of choice. If you can manage a child’s civic recital, you can shape tomorrow’s boundaries of belonging.
What It Means
The 1950s infused religious language into the nation’s rituals to wage an ideological war. Today, these choices have become legal, cultural, and emotional precedents. The “history and tradition” test serves as a constitutional legal cover for Cold War branding, marginalizing nonbelievers and minority faiths while empowering lawmakers to introduce sectarian content into public schools. For a pluralist democracy, these exclusionary optics are not just superficial; they are policy that defines who is “in” and who is “out.”
What’s Next
Ten Commandments laws on appeal: Watch injunctions in Louisiana, Texas, Arkansas; potential Supreme Court petitions could reopen core precedent on religious displays in schools.
School chaplains and Bible directives: Implementation fights and new lawsuits are unfolding; track committee hearings and district-level policies in states named by EdWeek.
Religious charter schools: After the St. Isidore deadlock, parallel cases or a reconstituted court could invite a fresh challenge to church-state boundaries in public education.
Call to Action
Share your story: Have “under God” or “In God We Trust” policies affected your school or workplace? Tell us what happened and what you did.
Get involved: Join a local Americans United chapter or legal observer network this month; learn how to document and report violations in schools (au.org).
Educate your board: Bring a one-page brief on constitutional obligations to your next school board meeting, citing current injunctions and legal standards.
Methods & Verification
All factual claims were cross-checked against primary legal documents (laws, resolutions, official statements), court-focused reporting, and academic/legal analysis. Quotes and data were confirmed via official archives, reputable journalism, and law review publications listed below.
References
National Archives (DocsTeach), Joint Resolution of June 14, 1954, Public Law 83-396 (68 Stat. 249). https://docsteach.org/document/joint-resolution-of-june-14-1954-public-law-83396-68-stat-249-to-amend-the-pledge-of-allegiance-to-the-flag-of-the-united-states-of-america/
The American Presidency Project, Dwight D. Eisenhower, Statement on Signing “Under God” Bill (June 14, 1954). https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/statement-the-president-upon-signing-bill-include-the-words-under-god-the-pledge-the-flag
GovTrack, H.J.Res. 396 (84th Congress), “In God We Trust” national motto—text and status. https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/84/hjres396/text
History.com, President Eisenhower signs “In God We Trust” into law. https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/july-30/president-eisenhower-signs-in-god-we-trust-into-law
Congress.gov, H. Rept. 112-47 (2011) — reaffirmation of national motto; historical background. https://www.congress.gov/committee-report/112th-congress/house-report/47/1
EBSCO Research Starters, “Pledge of Allegiance: ‘Under God’ Added.” https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/history/pledge-allegiance-has-under-god-added
University of Chicago Law Review Online, analysis of Kennedy v. Bremerton’s shift to “history and tradition.” https://lawreview.uchicago.edu/online-archive/offended-observer-standings-last-stand-kennedy-final-nail-flawed-doctrines-coffin
Columbia Undergraduate Law Review, “Analyzing Kennedy v. Bremerton’s Influence on U.S. Law” (2023). https://www.culawreview.org/journal/preserving-religious-freedom-or-upholding-constitutional-principles-analyzing-kennedy-v-bremertons-influence-on-us-law
South Carolina Law Review, “Establishment Clause Jurisprudence and the Constitutional Limits on Religion in Public Schools” (2025). https://sclawreview.org/article/establishment-clause-jurisprudence-and-the-constitutional-limits-on-religion-in-public-schools/
Education Week, “How States Are Testing the Church-State Divide in Public Schools” (June 2024). https://www.edweek.org/policy-politics/how-states-are-testing-the-church-state-divide-in-public-schools/2024/06
UU World, “Ten Commandments in Public Schools? Lawsuits and Injunctions” (coverage of multistate litigation). https://www.uuworld.org/articles/ten-commandments-public-schools-lawsuits-unitarian-universalists
Word&Way, “The Supreme Court Case That Could Dismantle Church-State Separation” (St. Isidore developments, April 29, 2025). https://wordandway.org/2025/04/29/the-supreme-court-case-that-could-dismantle-church-state-separation/
USHistory.org, “The Pledge of Allegiance: Documents & Commentary” (Sally Wright letter excerpt, 2002). https://www.ushistory.org/documents/pledge.htm
Congress.gov, H.J.Res. 243 (83rd Congress) — legislative text/record for Pledge amendment. https://www.congress.gov/bill/83rd-congress/house-joint-resolution/243/text
Have you seen schools or boards in your area adopt new “In God We Trust” displays or prayer policies? What happened, and how did people respond? Reply with your story or tip for our next installment.