This just in:

President-elect Barack Obama has requested that the words “so help me God” be added to the end of the oath of office to be administered by Chief Justice John Roberts on Inauguration Day.

As much as I would have liked Obama, a Constitutional scholar, to break with this tradition (though perhaps not quite as traditional as has been thought), one has to recognize that he has to do it. If not, then the right wing would erupt in a frenzy of “SEE?!? HE IS A MUSLIM!!!” that would make their flag-lapel-pin frothing look like a love-fest. He would be hobbled right out of the gate. Even with the society-mandated Christian oath, many on the right are still not giving him any credit, still either believing he’s a secret Muslim or, knowing he’s not, but figuring on how they can benefit by making the others think he is.

Lest one needs reminding:

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

–United States Constitution, Article Six

At present, it is a de facto religious test–no president could survive the religious outrage in this country if they opted not to utter those words in their oath. The “tolerant” Christians would not allow it. Neither would the legal system–including the vociferously pro-religion right wing of the Supreme Court–give even the time of day to a lawsuit which, by all legal rights, should be an obvious winner.

Right wingers point out that, according to a Supreme Court decision, such public oaths to god “are ceremonial, not theological.” But if a president were not to utter the words “so help me god” in the oath, religious voices everywhere would claim that this president is either not religious or anti-religious, neither one being acceptable. The omission would result in nationwide religious outrage. That’s religious, not ceremonial. If it were ceremonial, then the omission would simply be a matter of style to which one could only take offense in a trivial fashion, soon forgotten and dismissed.

In a country of “religious” freedom, the non-religious are not free to believe as they wish–not openly, at least–without widespread public derision, scorn, and sometimes even persecution. They are reminded at every turn that their beliefs are not welcome, and they’d better just shut up and take it.