Perhaps the rhetoric here is (unsurprisingly) getting overheated.

The way I read it, what the intent of Par. 1260 is is that nobody can sue a representative of the government for saying "so help me God", "in God we trust", "thanks be to God" etc.

I think you are reading too much into it in alleging the law would trump the Constitution. An official may acknowledge God without claiming that 1) God's law overrides the Constitution and 2) he knows God's law, and here's what God says.

If he does claim he knows, you can still sue.

The sponsors are aware that there are people (Mudcatters even?) who would be in favor or removing "In God We Trust" from coins, "under God" from the Pledge, and possibly even suing a House Chaplain, for instance, who invoked God in his prayer. This is what Par. 1260 is aimed at--they see it as a defensive measure, believe it or not.

These people are allegedly "strict constructionists". Any other interpretation would be against this philosophy.

Amos--
I cited examples of why the religious Right feels under siege by a secular society. There are lots of others, if you want them. You can also read some of John Hardly's posts in the 10 Commandments thread.