These are fine.
No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion.
Not fine. Do Federal and State governments stay well within the bounds of Article I Section 8? No. Since they do not, it is not feasible to maintain a Madisonian strictness here. There is a danger that government will hamper religious works. Hampering religion should be treated as a greater danger than aiding it.
Anywhere treasury funds are used to support private activities or institutions of any kind, the government should not discriminate against a religious organization which provides an equivalent.
By the way, my personal preference would be to repeal all federal welfare legislation (excepting the sort for humanitarian disaster relief). The government should not tax us chumps and feed the money to non-religious charities. That takes it away from the religious charities, which on balance do a better job of helping the poor and addicted.
Well, I guess that failing to tax citizens to pay a pastor could be seen as hampering that pastor's work. But I think most reasonable people believe that the Establishment Clause means that taxpayer money should not go to support religious institutions. Due to the tax-deductability of charitable contributions the government already indirectly supports the choices of its citizens to pay for their pastors.
The fact that one part of the Constitution is not well enforced should not call the entire document into question. Unfortunately, it does. Brushing aside the First Amendment makes respect for the document suffer further.
I certainly agree that cutting back on mandatory taxes would free up more money for charitable contributions, but that is really a separate issue.