"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; "

Doesn't making laws that give money to religious organizations to allow them to promote their religion count? The unconstitutional interpretation would be to prevent religions from using their OWN money to promote their religion.

Giving money to a religious charity that, for example, requires a homeless person to pray in their particular approved manner before getting a bowl of soup is in reality providing funds to one religion in order to help them prosteletize.

Secondly, it forces individual taxpayers to unwilling give money to promote religious prostelization they don't support, which inhibits their free exercise of religion (or lack thereof.)

Following your logic no practicing person of religion should recieve ANY governmental services

No, that doesn't follow. We are talking about the establishment (i.e. promotion), not the free exercise thereof. Providing federal funds to non-religious activity isn't relate to this discussion -- which is why courts have decided in the past that religious organizations who keep their charitable work separate from their prostelization are eligible for federal funds.