Abstract: Protestantism abandoned Christendom by way of the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights, and Catholicism did the same in the Declaration of Religious Liberty of the Second Vatican Council. Because scholars have misinterpreted and manipulated the historical background of the meaning of the Free Exercise of Religion and Establishment of Religion, they have led legislators and judges back into the problem of Church and State that prevailed in Christendom, and that the Amendment solved. As a result, the Supreme Court's interpretation of the First Amendment has reached a point of deep confusion and crisis. Whereas the Amendment was intended to specify government's lack of jurisdiction in religion, modern interpretations of it have conferred upon government power to define the meaning of the Free Exercise of Religion, religious neutrality, and what aids or hinders religion. The way out of the present confusion lies in confining government to what is secular and forbidding it to make religious assessments and decisions. Examining the decisions of the Supreme Court, this work demonstrates that by reconnecting with the history of the First Amendment and approaching it as a limitation on the power of government, rather than as a grant to government to protect religious liberty, the courts can escape the crisis and confusion they are presently experiencing. Religious liberty is a natural right. Within the meaning of the First Amendment, the Free Exercise of Religion means freedom from government jurisdiction in religion, not a government guarantee to allow individuals to exercise the religion of their choice.

Keywords: Bill of Rights, Christendom, Declaration on Religious Freedom, Establishment of Religion, First Amendment, Free Exercise of Religion, religious neutrality, Second Vatican Council, Supreme Court