There are good reasons why there is a separation of church and state.

In 1954, after a campaign by the Knights of Columbus, Congress added the words “under God” to the Pledge of Allegiance.

It was less a theological statement than a reflection of America’s desire to stand against “godless communism.” And yet its theological implications are hard to ignore.

I was 9 years old at the time and my complaint then was simply that it was one more darn thing for school kids like me to remember. My complaint about it now is that it challenges the constitutionally rooted concept of separation of church and state, placing the coercive power of the state on the side of religion. I feel the same about the phrase “In God We Trust” on our money.

As the Supreme Court considers whether to ban that “under God” wording, it’s time for people who pledge allegiance to one religion or another – as I do to Christianity – to think carefully about what relationship government and religion should have, and especially about whether government’s support or endorsement of religion is in religion’s best interest. I say it almost never is.

The only role for government in this matter should be to guarantee religious freedom. The people who wrote our Constitution understood the dangers of government establishing an official religion. In the early history of white settlers in the New World, that issue was very much in doubt until Roger Williams helped create Rhode Island as a haven in which freedom of religion was guaranteed.

As Paul Johnson, in “A History of Christianity,” correctly writes of Rhode Island, “This was the first commonwealth in modern history to make religious freedom, as opposed to a mere degree of toleration, the principle of its existence, and to make this a reason for separating Church and State. In fact, once this decisive breach had been made, it was inevitable that America, with its lay predominance, should move steadily towards religious liberty and the separation of Church and State.”

I often hear people argue that nowhere in the Constitution can one find the term “separation of church and state.” That’s true, but the concept is embedded in the First Amendment’s prohibition against state-established religion, as case law has shown.

Similarly, nowhere in the New Testament can Christians find the term “Trinity” as a reference to the monotheistic concept of a godhead with three persons. Like “separation of church and state,” the doctrine of the Trinity is a derived concept, and without it Christianity wouldn’t be Christianity.

History shows that religions – particularly Christianity – often do best when they are being persecuted. When people of faith have to defend themselves against other religions or particularly against the forces of government, they redefine and often strengthen their own commitment to that faith. In stark terms, they clarify what is worth dying for, though they pray it never comes to that.

When, by contrast, the state supports or even administers religions, it tends to drain religion of energy. One need look only at the dispirited and nearly empty state-sponsored churches in much of Europe for examples of this phenomenon.

That experience is one reason I find it so hard to imagine why people who call themselves conservative Christians in America so often want the state to support and even promote their faith through such means as the “under God” wording in the Pledge of Allegiance, organized prayer in public schools and construction of Nativity scenes or Ten Commandment monuments on public space.

The state should not prevent the free exercise of religion, but neither should it organize the display of a religion’s most powerful symbols. I say let the church be in charge of Nativity scenes and other symbols while the state worries about the flag and the eagle. Once the state gets involved, religious symbols that carry deep meaning and mystery get debased by being displayed with Santa Claus, Rudolph and Frosty.

So, should the Supreme Court strike down “under God”? The purist in me says yes because it shouldn’t have been added in the first place. But the public reaction may be so angry that it could further undermine the court’s credibility. Maybe that can be prevented if Americans – an increasingly diverse lot – take time now, before the ruling, to understand what’s at stake.

Bill Tammeus is an editorial page columnist for The Kansas City Star.