Every four years when I watch the presidential inaugurations, I see presidents sworn in on the Bible. While it’s supposed to be a moving moment, as a non-Christian, I don’t feel the significance that it is intended to have. Instead, I feel disconnected because the president’s promise on the Christian Bible means nothing to me.

This is not the only time I feel excluded when seeing American processes that endorse the Christian faith. For example, I remember saying the Pledge of Allegiance in elementary school with the words, “One nation, under God,” and seeing the phrase, “In God we Trust” embedded on coins and feeling confused. I was shocked because these two commonly used phrases seem contradictory to the fact that the United States has a separation of church and state.

The First Amendment states that the government can’t stop citizens from practicing their religions. This means that legally, presidents can be sworn into office on anything or nothing at all. Still, most presidents, following George Washington, have sworn in on a Bible simply due to tradition. But this tradition of religion in the inauguration process is more problematic than positive.

First, religious affiliation in the United States is only continuing to decrease. While 5% of Americans reported being religiously unaffiliated in 1972, this number has grown to 29%, according to Pew Research Center. Rates of Christianity also went from 90% in the 1990s to around 67% today, mainly due to the decrease in religious affiliation. This shows a large number of people that likely feel disconnected from the inauguration process. 

Additionally, some Christians consider swearing, especially relating to God, to be against their religion because it is forbidden in Christian texts. This means that even some Christians may feel uncomfortable with this tradition, taking away from the meaning of this inauguration ceremony. 

The president should be an advocate for all U.S. citizens, and America was founded on the principle of being a melting pot for all religions to be practiced freely. Everyone should be able to feel connected to political ceremonies, not just those of a certain religion or group.

The inauguration itself is not relevant to the Bible. When swearing in, presidents promise to “faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States” and to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution” to the best of their abilities. The Bible is not what presidents should be agreeing to protect when they take office. Why does this oath seem to declare that the truth of the Bible depends on a person’s ability to uphold the United States Constitution?

I strongly urge our next president to forgo the swearing in on a book entirely. Tradition is important, but this one needs to be modified to better represent and unite the American people. This will help everyone feel more connected to the inauguration process, and therefore to this country. 

This logic also applies to our motto, which has officially been “In God we Trust” since 1956. There are many issues with this motto being official and appearing on coins, bills and crests. Not only does it not reflect the many beliefs of citizens of our country, it also doesn’t reflect our values. A motto that promotes action, rather than suggesting faith would be a much more effective way to accomplish things.

The government should think long and hard about certain religiously affiliated traditions and whether they are necessary. Religion should be practiced publicly, but when ceremonies and expressions that should apply to everyone exclude many, it doesn’t help to unite an already divided nation.