On February 21, 1811, Congress tried to get President James Madison--"Father of the Constitution" and cochairman of the six member joint Senate-House conference committee which worded the final draft of the religion clauses of the First Amendment--to sign a proposed law which violated the constitutional principle of separation between religion and government by authorizing a "religious establishment," in this case a single Episcopal church, to become a "legal agency" for "carrying into effect a public and civil duty." In other words, the federal government would approve its legal incorporation, including specifics of its organization. Madison vetoed the proposed bill: (1) "Because" it violated the constitutional prohibition against Congress making laws "respecting an establishment of religion," "exceeds the rightful authority to which governments are limited by the essential distinction between civil and religious functions," and would, therefore, "be a religious establishment by law"; and, (2) "Because" it legally vested in "an incorporated church an authority to provide for the support of the poor and the education of poor children of the same, an authority which, being altogether superfluous if the provision is to be the result of pious charity [CHARITY], would be a precedent for giving to religious societies [RELIGIOUS SOCIETIES] as such a legal agency in carrying into effect a public and civil duty" (Writings of James Madison, 8:132-133).
On February 28, 1811, Congress tried to get President Madison to sign a proposed law which would establish a precedent and principle by which public property (land) could be given to "a religious establishment." President Madison said such a law was unconstitutional: (1) "Because" it "comprises a principle and precedent for the appropriation of funds [FUNDS] of the United States for the use and support of religious societies," and (2) it violated the provision of the Constitution which forbid Congress from making laws respecting "an establishment of religion," in this case a single Baptist Church (Writings, 8:133). Madison said, in regard to the specific Baptist church in Kentucky, it was not constitutional to establish by law a legal precedent for giving public property or funds to an institution of (faith-based) religion.
In essence, President James Madison said the two vetoed laws (1) would have established a legal connection between religion and government and (2) would have ignored and mocked the constitutional principle of separation between religion and government. Let there be no misunderstanding as to what Madison meant. In the two presidential veto messages, Madison applied the Establishment Clause in terms of a constitutional distinction between government and religion establishments (in this case single faith-based churches or religion societies). He applied the constitutional principle of separation because he understood (1) the broad constitutional protection given to religion freedom, including freedom from involuntary taxation and government establishment, and (2) the danger religion freedom faced from institutions of religion. After leaving the presidency, he wrote the essay "Monopolies, Perpetuities, Corporations, Ecclesiastical Endowments," in which he proclaimed, "Strongly guarded as is the separation between Religion and Government in the Constitution of the United States, the danger of encroachment by Ecclesiastical Bodies, may be illustrated by precedents already furnished in their short history" ("Detached Memoranda," William and Mary Quarterly, 3:555). Then Madison listed several examples of encroachment, for instance, "the establishment of the chaplainship to Congress is a palpable [easily noticeable] violation of equal rights, as well as of constitutional principles."
The above examples from James Madison provide specific reminders to Congress about its authority: (1) Congress has no authority to make laws such as Madison vetoed, (2) the correct understanding of the constitutional principle regarding religion is "separation between Religion and Government," not the legal establishment of ties between religion and government, (3) public funding and property is for public purposes and for institutions owned and controlled by the public, not for churches or other faith-based establishments of religion, and (4) the Constitution does indeed make a distinction in regard to ³religion societies," such as churches and charitable institutions, which is not discrimination because they are private organizations and not entitled to public property or coerced public tax money which is for public purposes and public institutions--discrimination would apply only to public institutions which were denied "equal rights" to public property and tax money.
In America the constitutional principle of separation between religion and government is the essence of the principle of voluntarism in matters of religion. Religion establishments are to exist completely without support of government because government is the essence of coercion. Congress has no constitutional authority to fund, promote, or endorse religion. The Establishment Clause is worded to affirm a principle which is aimed directly at the constitutional relationship between government and religion, including faith-based establishments of religion, regardless of their voluntarily chosen private or public purpose. Faith-based institutions, "whatever they may be called or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion" (Everson v. Board, 330 U.S. at 15), are not to be funded or established, directly or indirectly, by law or by government at any level: "What is directly prohibited cannot be indirectly permitted, lest the Establishment Clause become a mockery" (Abington v. Schempp, 374 U.S. at 230).
For those Presidents, Supreme Court Justices, Congress members, clerics, educators, and other history revisionist or deficient types who in 2003 attempt to indoctrinate Americans with the erroneous propaganda (1) that the Establishment Clause applies only to a state church, national religion, or official denomination and (2) that the Constitution allows financial support for "faith-based" charities, church schools, and other institutions of religion by force of government and involuntary taxation, you probably will not be persuaded even if James Madison were to rise from the dead in order to repeat his words to you, but here is one additional comment:
"Notwithstanding the general progress made within the two last centuries . . . , there remains . . . a strong bias towards the old error, that without some sort of alliance or coalition between Gov[ernment] & Religion neither can be duly supported. . . . Every new & successful example therefore of a perfect separation between ecclesiastical and civil matters, is of importance" (James Madison, 1822, Writings, 9:101-102).
In the United States of America religion and its institutions are to be supported voluntarily. To assert otherwise is "error." James Madison said so.