The gist of it is: we do not have to deny the very foundation of our rule of law, our moral codes, nor do we have to promote those codes in a way that offends others.
If the name of God is on our money, in the prayers before our congress everyday, in our hearts and instilled in our rule of law via the founding Father's careful acknowledgement in the Bill of Rights, perhaps it is ok to allow certain symbols that HONESTLY relate to our heritage to remain, no matter how the minority rails against this 'offense'. There cannot be a WALL dividing religion and government when the foundations of one are noted in the formulation of the other. That is not to say one religion is to be sanctioned above all others-but to DENY its historical relevance is somehow, well, clintonian in that the truth, once again, gets crushed under the weight of of the false wall.
How does an oath have any meaning without a higher authority overseeing it? Why does our President lay his (or her) hand upon a Bible when swearing in-and the same with all judges, etc. THERE IS NO WALL HERE....nor is there a wall between our code of moral behavior within our system of laws and religious rules for conduct.
The wall is just as the Judge indicates-a very bad metaphor. Regardless of who first stated the wall concept.
God flows throughout our system of laws, and tho no one religion is to be held above others, and certainly not state sanctioned, a higher ruling authority does deserve acknowledgement. It is in our Bill of Rights. Precious and not to be denied.