During the composition of legal documents, much care is taken to craft the specific wording of each document. This is meant to ensure that the intended meaning of the document can be easily and clearly understood. This is especially true when it comes to the U.S. Constitution. In fact, much time was spent debating virtually each and every word and phrase in our Constitution. So why is it, then, that people insist on adding meaning to the Constitution that is clearly not there? I submit as evidence this analysis of the First Amendment from the Wikipedia (emphasis added):

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution is a part of the Bill of Rights. It was conceived to prevent Congress and the federal government from infringing on five rights. These guarantees were that the government would not endorse any religion or establish a state religion, prohibit the free exercise of religion, infringe upon freedom of speech, infringe the freedom of the press, limit the right to assemble peaceably, or limit the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Now, the actual amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Now, I'm no super-genius, but I cannot for the life of me find any wording in the First Amendment that talks about the government's endorsement of religion, tacit or otherwise. I clearly see the wording that prohibits the establishment of a state religion. In fact, this part of this amendment is commonly referred to as the "establishment clause." And there is clearly wording that enjoins the government from prohibiting religious worship, etc. But I see nothing remotely close to an "endorsement clause." In fact, the wording is very specific in that it only applies to Congress, and in doing so, prohibits Congress from passing certain laws. That said, I firmly believe in the separation of church and state. I think that this separation is needed and beneficial to both religion and the government. But the idea that this amendment was intended to ensure that there are no crosses on city shields, etc., is absurd. But as long as people continue to make the argument that the First Amendment was intended to ensure that the government must remain completely agnostic, this kind of thing will happen. In my opinion, we are clearly a Judeo-Christian nation, and were founded as such. I fully understand that many of the founders were in favor of a purely secular government, but they were also clearly not in the majority. And if the modern day secularist have their way, the day will come when having a Christmas concert at the White House will be considered "religious endorsement."