I don't think that would pass muster, since the Supreme Court would claim appellate jurisdiction in the matters which were barred to other courts.
I would think that to be constitutional (though admittedly even this would be in defiance of the Founder's intention, except insofar as it may be necessary to counter the Supreme Court's actions in defiance of that same intention) what Congress would have to do would be to create two new appellate courts related to "freedom from relgion" cases. The first court would be predisposed to support reasonable actions by local and state governments even if they happen to somehow mention something related to God or Christianity. The second court would have appellate jurisdiction over the first, but might take awhile to hear certain cases.
Note that I deplore judicial obstructionism, but if evil people can use it, I see no reason for unilateral disarmament.
since the Supreme Court would claim appellate jurisdiction in the matters which were barred to other courts.
In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.
the 107th Congress (2001-2002), Congress used the authority of Article III, Section 2, clause 2 on 12 occasions to limit the jurisdiction of the federal courts http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20031006-085845-5892r.htm