>As Madison said, the national government had no "jurisdiction" over religion or any "shadow of right to intermeddle" with it. June 12, 1788, James Madison speaking to the delegates (speaking against Patrick Henry's assertions) at the Virginia Constitutional ratifying convention, as reported on page 330, The Debates of the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution 1787, VOL III by Jonathan Elliot. J B Lippincott Company 1888)
>
>The Founding Fathers could not have stated the principle of separation any more clearly than when they wrote: "No religious Test shall ever be required as a qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States" (U. S. Constitution, 1787, Art. 6, Sec. 3).


You confuse the notion of seperation of Church and State with the seperation of God and State. Madison was a religious man, not an athiest. What the constitution says is that the U.S. cannot have a "state religion." As a Baptist, I wouldn't want the government telling me I had to become a Muslim, Catholic, Jew, or any other religion. That's what the bottom line of the constitution is. Here's what Madison said on the issue of God and country...

In the 1785 session of the General Assembly of the State of Virginia, James
Madison explained in his Religious Freedom, A Memorial and Remonstrance,
why he was against the Establishment of Religion by Law:

"It is the duty of every man to render to the Creator such homage... Before any man can be considered as a member of Civil Society, he must be considered as a subject of the Governor of the Universe.

Because the policy of the bill is adverse to the diffusion of the light of Christianity. The first wish of those who ought to enjoy this precious gift, ought to be, that it may be imparted to the whole race of mankind. Compare the number of those who have as yet received it, with the number still remaining under the dominions of false religions, and how small is the former! Does the policy of the bill tend to lessen the disproportion? No; it at once discourages those who are strangers to the light of Truth, from coming into the regions of it...

Whilst we assert for ourselves a freedom to embrace, to profess, and to observe the Religion which we believe to be of divine origin, we cannot deny an equal freedom to those whose minds have not yet yielded to the evidence which has convinced us. If this freedom be abused, it is an offense against God, not against man: To God, therefore, not to man, must an account of it be rendered. "

Sounds like a God fearing man to me? Notice the "not yet yielded to the evidence."