The Originalist Truth: 'Freedom of Religion' Covers Only Protestantism, Catholicism, and Judaism

The First Amendment of the United States Constitution, ratified on December 15, 1791, states: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” Under an originalist interpretation—where the Constitution’s meaning is locked to what the framers intended in their time—this “Freedom of Religion” applies only to Protestant denominations, Catholicism, and Judaism. It does not extend to Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, Taoism, or any other faith outside the framers’ 1791 world. This article lays out the unvarnished case: the amendment’s scope is fixed, narrow, and exclusive to the religions of the early American colonies.

WONDERFULLY MADE: Wonderful Are God’s Works

Buy Now

Originalism Defined

Originalism isn’t a suggestion—it’s a rule. The Constitution means what the framers wrote it to mean in 1791, nothing more, nothing less. Modern views don’t get a vote. Take the Apostle Paul’s dictate in 1 Timothy 2:12: “I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet.” What Paul meant then—women don’t lead in church—holds now, no ifs or buts. Same deal with the First Amendment. The framers’ words aren’t a springboard for today’s diversity; they’re a snapshot of their reality. “Religion” isn’t a catch-all—it’s what they saw in their backyard.

CAN WE TRUST THE BIBLE?

Buy Now

The 1791 Religious Lineup

In 1791, the American colonies were a Christian stronghold, period. Protestant denominations ruled the roost: Anglicans in Virginia, Congregationalists in New England, Quakers in Pennsylvania, Baptists popping up everywhere. Catholicism hung on, mostly in Maryland, despite Protestant side-eyes. Judaism scraped by with a few synagogues—think Newport and Philadelphia—small but there. That’s it. Native American beliefs? Not on the framers’ radar as “religion” in any legal sense. Islam? Maybe a handful of enslaved Africans kept it quiet, but no communities, no footprint. Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, Taoism? Zero presence, zero relevance. The framers lived in a Judeo-Christian bubble, and that’s where “Freedom of Religion” starts and stops.

THE FACES OF ISLAM: Faith or Facade: Decoding Islam’s Strategies

Buy Now

The Text Means What They Meant

The First Amendment’s words—“religion” and “free exercise”—aren’t vague if you’re an originalist. They’re specific to 1791. The establishment clause blocks a national church (think England’s Anglicanism), and the free exercise clause guards what people were practicing: Protestantism, Catholicism, Judaism. Madison’s Memorial and Remonstrance (1785), a blueprint for the amendment, hammers Christian concerns—state overreach into church affairs—not some global faith free-for-all. The framers weren’t dreaming of mosques or mandirs; they were wrangling over pews and priests. “Religion” equals what they knew, not what we wish.

ISLAMIC ESCHATOLOGY: Awaiting Al-Mahdi—The Twelfth Imam and the Future of Islam

Buy Now

No Room for Outsiders

Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, Taoism? Out of bounds. They weren’t in the colonies, so they’re not in the amendment. Originalism doesn’t bend for hypotheticals—if it wasn’t there, it doesn’t count. The framers didn’t write “all religions ever”; they wrote “religion” as they lived it. Paul didn’t hedge on women teaching; the framers didn’t hedge on this. The text’s silence on other faiths isn’t an invitation—it’s a boundary. Want them included? Amend the Constitution. That’s the rule.

ISLAM & THE QURAN: Examining the Quran & Islamic Teachings

Buy Now

The Fallout

This isn’t soft—it’s strict. Modern cases like Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah (1993), protecting Santeria, don’t fit the originalist mold. An originalist says that’s judicial overreach, plain and simple. The framers didn’t sign up for animal sacrifices or prayer rugs—they signed up for churches and synagogues. Critics will cry foul, claiming it guts the amendment’s spirit. Tough. Originalism isn’t about spirit; it’s about intent. The Constitution doesn’t evolve unless you rewrite it.

IS THE QURAN THE WORD OF GOD?: Is Islam the One True Faith?

Buy Now

The Bottom Line

“Freedom of Religion” in the First Amendment, under originalism, covers Protestant denominations, Catholicism, and Judaism—full stop. Not Islam, not Hinduism, not Buddhism, not anything else. That’s what the framers meant in 1791, and that’s what it means now. No gray area, no wiggle room. If you don’t like it, take it up with Article V.

About the Author

EDWARD D. ANDREWS (AS in Criminal Justice, BS in Religion, MA in Biblical Studies, and MDiv in Theology) is CEO and President of Christian Publishing House. He has authored over 220 books. In addition, Andrews is the Chief Translator of the Updated American Standard Version (UASV).

1 Comment

Artie Fox

Apr 09

Freedom of religion is false. Jamies 1:26 - 27, KJV talks about pure undefiled religon. It is one. It talks about what Jesus did. People who talk like the non condemning Jesus will have religon that is not vain. Jesus is pure undefiled religon. Jesus is not ISA in the Quran. There is no such thing as another faith. Faith waits for what is not yet seen. Why need faith when what is not yet seen is finally seen? Jesus is the source of faith. Money is a faithless thing. 1 Corinthians 14:36, KJV. Truth comes to both sexes. Qurans words are the fallenn Lucifer. That being cannot use the name Father God. "Substituting human opinions for divine wisdom." Peop…

Edited