You said "not a single mention" regarding the level of organization. You made no reference to the timing. And it is cited widely, as you well know.
Second - your insistence that a church must have some undefined level of "organization" to be an "established" state religion is disproved all over the world.
It's "disproved" only by your interpretation of what goes on in those other countries. You call it establishment. I call it limitation of free exercise. We discussed that above.
Third - your reinterpretation of Madison's words borders on the dishonest. I can have duties to my Creator, and discharge those duties, without ever having a single contact with an organized Church. He never said anything about the level of "organization" which would qualify a religion as one which can be "established" and you know it.
I wasn't saying he was. I was quoting him as a way of countering what appeared to me to be your view that "religion" and "religious belief" are synonymous. That's what I believe is at the center of our disagreement.
You talk of my "interpretation" of establishment in Islamic countries, but you post nothing to refute or even question it. Feel free, if you can. But those countries have state religion, with a relatively unorganized religion. The fact that this is alien to your experience does not make it any less so.
As far as your remarkable twisting of Madison's words - we certainly do disagree on what constitutes a "religion" since you contend that it means a "church." So, tell me, what level of organized religion do I need to be involved with before my "religious beliefs" rise to the level of "religion." Do I have to have an ordained pastor? Do I have to attend services in a consecrated building? Do I have to subscribe to a set of Biblical interpretations handed down by a central authority?
You need to realize that not all religions resemble your own - and that this does not make them any less "religion".