The Rational Boundary Between Church and State

In a republic such as ours each generation is posed with unique issues that define their place in history.There are however a few issues that confound succeeding generations as it seeks to find a reasonable resolution.The most potent of these is the principle of separation of church and state.What, if any are the limits,the boundaries of this separation?
I have often been perplexed that no one has expressed my sense on the subject as it seems obvious. Freedom to worship is of course guaranteed in the Constitution, and specifically the Bill of Rights.In the two intervening centuries since our Founding Fathers drafted the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights later ratified, the boundaries have been altered. The reason of course for this alteration is due to the increasing complexities of a greater and more diverse society seeking to enjoy its guarantees and the promise of prosperity that it may sanction.
In recent decades eforts have been made by individuals who deny the existence of a divine being (god) to remove any reference to "god" from the public forum.All of us have the right to believe or not to believe in the existence of a god or gods without being reduced or diminished by the state. This right to choose our individual sense of faith and the means to express it does not however grant one the right to impose it upon another.That, of course is fundamental.
The overwhelming majority of Americans express a faith in the existence of a divine being, and relatively few have chosen not to accept.If people in accepting the existence of a god cannot impose it on the broader public, why then do those choosing not to accept seek to deny even the most generic of references in a public forum?The choice not to believe in a god is protected, but where in the Constitution,by extension does it provide them with the power to deny public expression in the most generic of terms by the government representing the expressed will of the people?Why should those who believe be binded by such restrictions while those who do not are not?
Do not misunderstand me.I am in no way suggesting that we ought to eliminate the established boundaries between church and state.I merely sugest a rational formula to govern it.If the overwhelming majority of Americans accept the existence of the divine,then a generic,but not faith specific reference by government is by no means unconstitutional.If our currency states "In God We Trust", or our Pledge of Allegiance includes "One Nation Under God", then as long as it is the generic use of "god",it is acceptable.Why? Because it doesn't use faith specific references to Jesus,Moses,Muhammad,etc. A generic reference to a "god" covers all and not being faith specific does not cross a rational boundary.
Many, of course will suggest that any reference to a "god" by the government in any form violates the protections in the Constitution for those who opt out on the existence of a divine entity. This view is intellectually and legally sustainable.However, it can also be argued that atheism as a choice is itself an article of faith and as such to remove even those most generic reference of "god" from public currency,speech or documents is as much a violation of the greater principle as imposing one denomination upon society.
Our government while securing freedom of worship may legitimately express the will of that greater majority that accepts a divinity as a matter of faith.It may only be unconstitutional if its references seemingly favor one over the other and as long as it's generic,applying to all faiths or personal accomodations for those who express a personal faith without denomination.
There are perhaps many who would determine this view as a means of excluding those who have no expressed faith in the existence of a "god". A sense of exclusion in this case is not imposed against their will, but the mere result of their exercising their right to dissent from the prevailing sentiments in the nation. One cannot impose their personal faith or lack thereof due to their unwillingness to recognize self exclusionary decisions and their results. It is time that we recognize, this more generic,and I would argue rational boundary to govern the principle.