Bachmann, Kline keeping the atheists at bay

​With the nation at war, struggling through the recession and confronting the need for health care reform, U.S. Reps. Michele Bachmann and John Kline are among 43 members of Congress who have signed on to an amicus brief filed in U.S. District Court in Madison to keep the evil atheists at bay.

The American Center for Law and Justice, a conservative evangelical Christian legal advocacy group, filed the brief. It's in response to a lawsuit filed earlier this year by the Freedom From Religion Foundation, which seeks to prevent  "In God We Trust" and the Pledge of Allegiance, including the words, "one nation, under God," from being engraved in stone at the new visitors center at the U.S. Capitol. The group says in its filing that the engraving would violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment because it would have the state endorse religion and have the effect of making belief in God synonymous with citizenship.

"This challenge is another misguided attempt to alter history and purge America of religious references," the amicus brief says.  "We're hopeful it will meet the same fate as other flawed challenges and be rejected by the court."

We might mention here that history was altered the first time around when "In God We Trust" was added to coins in 1864, and wasn't made the official U.S. motto until 1956.  And that the words "one nation, under God, were not part of the Pledge until 1954.

Never mind that, the brief says. "These expressions simply echo the sentiments found in the Declaration of Independence and recognize the undeniable truth that our freedoms come from a source higher than the state. These sentiments were adopted for the express purpose of reaffirming America's unique understanding of this truth."

Of course, one person's undeniable truth is another's quaint creation theory. Never the less, "Plaintiffs' crusade, targeting religious expression in the federal government, serves no purpose other than to waste judicial resources at a time in our Nation's history when those resources are needed in cases involving real threats to American liberties."

As opposed to, what, having the government endorsing religion? No serious threat to American liberties there? Seems like a point worth pondering to us.