Does the Constitution Create a Wall of Separation?

I've been wrestling with the question of "the separation clause" today. I looked at a few different websites, but the most notable ones were:

http://members.tripod.com/~candst/art4piii.htm
This one got me thinking. They maintain that the spirit of separation is alluded to all over the Constitution even if the words themselves aren't there. At first glance, it looked pretty convincing, but when I read it more closely, the very quotes from the letters and documents displayed to prove an original intent to keep church and state separate, seemed weak. If anything, the letters showed that removing any vestige of religion from the government was surely never the intent of the writers.

http://razorskiss.net/wp/index.php?p=17
This is a legaliese word study of the Constitution. I braced myself for some new insights that would convincingly prove that separation was always the intent, but I got through a portion of it and their arguments seemed really weak, they were making a better case for the other side . . . and then it slowly dawned on me as I was reading that the website wasn't trying to prove separation, but was trying to show that it's impossible to read separation into the First Amendment as it's written. Oh well, I guess I can say I saw both sides.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/707590/posts
This is the comment section of a conservative site. I'm guessing it's a conservative site, I didn't look at any page except the comments, which turned into a back-and-forth bickering about whether the wall of separation is legitimate or not. Near the bottom is an interesting post that says it doesn't matter what the Constitution says because, in 1804, Chief Justice John Marshall changed the US from a Constitutional Republic to a Judicial Fiat in the Marbury vs Madison case. That means that the Constitution says whatever the judges say it says, the document is meaningless because it's only the fluid, living document in the minds of the judges that counts. I plan to think a little more about that one.

Anyway, that's how I spent my Saturday. I can think of a few other things I'd rather have been doing besides reading about politics.

And my conclusion? That whatever preconceived conclusion you bring into this issue can be proved pretty convincingly either way, although the straight data taken by itself indicates more strongly that removing religion was the last thing on the minds of the writers of the Constitution. But if you want to believe that it was intended, there's a good case to be made. Too good to be convinced otherwise by arguments from the other side.