Here is what one fanatical ideologue had to say about this subject. He is generally regarded as the Father of the Constitution because of his work at the Constitutional Convention of 1787 and his work in promoting it shortly thereafter: "Strongly guarded as is the separation between religion and & Gov't in the Constitution of the United States the danger of encroachment by Ecclesiastical Bodies, may be illustrated by precedents already furnished in their short history."

Moreover, James Madison’s friend and colleague at the constitutional convention, Benjamin Franklin, had a thought which Christians such as Robert Meyer should seriously ponder:.

"When a religion is good, I conceive that it will support itself; and when it does not support itself, and God does not take care to support it so that its professors are obliged to call for help of the civil power, ‘tis a sign I apprehend, of its being a bad one."

Apparently, Mr. Meyer believes his religion is a bad one as he insists upon a form of government support for it.

Turning to James Madison again, we are informed under what condition religion will flourish best: "Every new and successful example, therefore, of a perfect separation between the ecclesiastical and civil matters, is of importance; and I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in showing that religion and Government will both exist in greater purity the less they are mixed together."

Meyer cited United States Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story, an early 19th century jurist, to support his argument that government support of Christianity is perfectly "kosher" as the Founders did not wish to put all religions on an equal footing.

"....Probably at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, and of the amendment to it, now under consideration (i.e., the First Amendment), the general – if not the universal – sentiment in America was that Christianity ought to receive encouragement from the state, so far as was not incompatible with the private rights of conscience, and the freedom of religious worship."

Meyer used this quotation to suggest that the federal government is empowered to encourage Christianity. Story made no such claim whatsoever except to say that there was a sentiment for the encouragement of Christianity.

Following is more accurate of Story’s views on the subject a few paragraphs down from what Meyer quoted: "It was under a solemn consciousness of the dangers from ecclesiastical ambition, the bigotry of spiritual pride, and the intolerance of sects, thus exemplified in our domestic, as well as in foreign annals, that it was deemed advisable to exclude from the national government all power to act upon the subject."

Story then discussed the situation in the states: "The situation, too, of the different states equally proclaimed the policy, as well as the necessity of such an exclusion."

Story thus favored a similar policy of excluding the states from any power to act upon matters of religion and conscience. He went on to explain why:

"In some of the states Episcopalians constituted the predominant sect; in others Presbyterians; in others, Congregationalists; in others, Quakers; in others again, there was close numerical rivalry among contending sects. It was impossible, that there should not arise perpetual strife and perpetual jealousy on the subject of ecclesiastical ascendancy, if the national government were left free to create a religious establishment. The only security was in extirpating the power. But this alone would have been an imperfect security, if it has not been followed up by a declaration of the right of the free exercise of religion, and a prohibition (as we have seen) of all religious tests."

At the time of the adoption of the Constitution the states were free to establish and favor particular religions and sects if they chose to do so. The 14th Amendment to the Constitution made the Bill of Rights not only a federal responsibility but a responsibility of the states also. This is what Justice Story said about the states: "Thus, the whole power over the subject of religion is left exclusively to the state governments, to be acted upon according to their own sense of justice, and the state constitutions; and the Catholic and Protestant, the Calvinist and the Armanian, the Jew and the Infidel, may sit down at the common table of the national councils, without any inquisition into their faith, or mode of worship."

Note that even infidels such as myself would not face any inquisitions on the part of the orthodox.

Justice Story’s remarks are reminiscent of Thomas Jefferson’s autobiography, wherein he references the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom of 1786 by saying the law protected the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and the Mohammedan, the Hindoo and the Infidel."

Because of the mistaken attitudes of Robert Meyer’s Protestant ancestors who believed government should aid Christianity – their brand of Christianity – the use of the Bible in the public schools proved to be a great source of conflict and suffering because Protestants believed the King James Bible was the "real" Bible or "Word of God," whereas Roman Catholics held similar views concerning the Douay Bible, the standard Roman Catholic English translation.

During the early days of Bible-reading in the American public schools, Protestants held absolute political power. They would not allow Roman Catholic children in the public schools to read from the Douay version and even used physical force to make Catholic children read the Bible out loud in the public schools. In the 1840s, riots occurred in Philadelphia because Roman Catholics had the temerity to request use of the Douay Bible for Catholic children. Protestants burned two Catholic churches down and the homes of many Irish immigrants were burned.

In 1890 the Wisconsin Supreme Court outlawed devotional reading of Bible verses in the Weiss decision, when parents of Catholic children attending the Edgerton public schools objected to the reading of the King James Bible. A similar decision was rendered by the Illinois Supreme Court in 1910.

Surely, Justice Story knew what he was talking about when he urged the states to adopt the federal stance on religion and conscience which they eventually did.

Again, Robert Meyer and other Christians who want government to support Christianity ought to reflect upon the fact that their religion may be a bad one. The wise Franklin certainly made this abundantly clear. It certainly is worthy of repetition as a concluding thought:

"When a religion is good, I conceive that it will support itself; and when it does not support itself, and God does not take care to support it so that its professors are obliged to call for help of the civil power, ‘tis a sign I apprehend, of its being a bad one."