Here's some more of Madison's entire correctness:
Yes, Madison held the "no preference" doctrine, which held that government could not support any religion, but could endorse faith generally. So while he would not publicly endorse Christianity, he would endorse faith in some kind of creator, without violating his principles. Today, that is not an option. From a site that has been inclined to favor establishment of religion:
There is nothing in the drafting history of the First Amendment that contradicts Washington's understanding of the appropriate relation between government and religion. In the First Congress, the committee proposal in the House read, "no religion shall be established by law, nor shall the equal rights of conscience be infringed." But some evinced concern that the phrase might put in doubt the legitimacy of some of the states' own religious establishments. Six of the original thirteen states had established churches. James Madison believed modifying the phrasing to prohibit a "national religion" would be sufficient to allay that concern and would make clear that the new government was not to impinge on the rights of conscience by establishing a governmental connection to a church. Representative Samuel Livermore of New Hampshire suggested that "Congress shall make no laws touching religion or the rights of conscience." The House finally settled on this language: "Congress shall make no law establishing religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, nor shall the rights of Conscience be infringed." The Senate preferred the formula "Congress shall make no law establishing articles of faith, or a mode of worship, or prohibiting the free exercise of religion," which likely would have permitted direct financial support to a sect. In the end, the conference between the House and the Senate agreed on the current version: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." The addition of the word "respecting" is significant. It prohibits Congress from legislating either to establish a national religion or to disestablish a state religion. As Laurence Tribe has written, "[a] growing body of evidence suggests that the Framers principally intended the Establishment of Religion Clause to perform two functions: to protect state religious establishments from national displacement, and to prevent the national government from aiding some, but not all, religions."
...
Nonetheless, when it came time to speak upon the matter, the Supreme Court preferred to base its conception of the original understanding of the clause on its interpretation of a phrase from a letter by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Association of Connecticut (1802). Although he had been in France during the Constitutional Convention, Jefferson's metaphor of a "wall of separation" was interpreted by the Court as the authoritative statement of a "high and impregnable" barrier between church and state
https://www.heritage.org/constitution/#!/amendments/1/essays/138/establishment-of-religion
Before you reply, just imagine Donald Trump's name signed at the bottom. How would you respond?
I'd point out that while this was certainly once legal, subsequent Supreme Court rulings have expanded religious rights to the point that the precise wording of the 1st Amendment applies. It does not merely prohibit support or restriction for a particular religion, it specifically prohibits support or restriction for religion generally.
As Madison said, there are
de minimus violations that are not necessarily banned. The courts have cited "In God We Trust" on coinage as an example, pointing out that it no longer has any meaning to most people. This is one of the reasons Madison cited in saying that government support for religion is a bad thing for religion.
