I don't think so. I totally agree with what is said in the Constitution. I left out "establishment", but implied it in my initial statement. The point is that it applies to Congress, and not to any other branch.
What Congress cannot do is establish a religion as the required religion, or pass any laws requiring any particular religious actions or behavior. That's an establishment.
At this point in time, though, the 1st Amendment has been so perverted by the ACLU, etc., that establish means to allow a little girl to have her prayer beads in school.
So, it's obvious there's a significant difference between establishment and endorsement. In Federalist #84, Hamilton wrote:
I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power. They might urge with a semblance of reason, that the Constitution ought not to be charged with the absurdity of providing against the abuse of an authority which was not given, and that the provision against restraining the liberty of the press afforded a clear implication, that a power to prescribe proper regulations concerning it was intended to be vested in the national government. This may serve as a specimen of the numerous handles which would be given to the doctrine of constructive powers, by the indulgence of an injudicious zeal for bills of rights.
As can be easily seen today, Hamilton pegged this one right on the money. I see any attempt to degrade our rights as citizens by changing "establishment" to "endorsement" as being the same usurpment Hamilton warned of.
The USSC has similarly usurped with their recent Kelos decision, changing "public use" to "public purpose". We must be vigilant all the time.