As Mudcatters may or may not know, each side feels under siege by the other. You feel besieged by the religious Right and they feel besieged by the secularization of society (e.g. battles over Christmas carols in school, ridiculing by Hollywood of Christians, a general coarsening of society--misogynistic and violent rap) etc.

I read the Wall St Journal every day, and while the reporting gives lots of ammunition to use against Bushites (especially considering the source), the editorial page tells you
what the Right is thinking. And this feeling of siege by secular forces is a favorite theme (along with the threat to Western civilization posed by trial lawyers).

Let's have a little sober examination of the bill itself (provided by Bill D's link).

Section 101 appears to say that nobody will be able to sue a government representative for acknowledging God publicly. That's all it says, as I read it. What am I missing?

I would be far more concerned about Title II Sec 302, which seems to say that if a judge engages in any activity "that exceeds the jurisdiction of the court of that justice or judge" this is grounds for removal.

ANY activity? As determined by whom?

As I noted in the 10 Commandments thread, there are far bigger fish to fry than sitting in a courtroom with a plaque you'd rather not see.

Here, not the 10 Commandments plaque, is where the battle lines should be drawn.