In 2022, a Gallup poll found that a fifth of Americans believe that the Bible is to be read literally. Additionally, 49% believe it to be the word of God but do not believe it should be taken literally, and 29% view the book as “a collection of ‘fables, legends, history and moral precepts recorded by man’”  - meaning they do not read the Bible as a legitimate religious text. Interestingly, while Gallup records data on American interpretations of the Bible, they fail to measure public sentiment regarding the literal interpretation of another text central to American society: the U.S. Constitution. Originalism is a legal theory that the Constitution “should be interpreted as it was understood at the time of its adoption,” according to the Legal Information Institute of Cornell Law School. This method of interpretation should sound familiar, as both originalism and literalism hinge on the belief that their respective texts have timeless, fixed meanings that are easily understood by any given reader. Furthermore, much like Biblical literalism, originalism has strong ties to conservative politics. Conservative Justices Amy Coney Barrett, Clarence Thomas, and Neil Gorsuch are all self-described originalists, while Justices John Roberts, Samuel Alito, and Brett Kavanaugh consistently support originalist rulings (as Alito describes it, he’s a “practical originalist”). This considered, originalists have a defined ideological majority on the Roberts Court. The debate over Biblical literalism is not something that necessarily has bearing on objective science or politics, nor should it. However, originalism, with its focus on constitutional law and the legal theories of America’s founders, very much does have a direct bearing on politics. While literalism and originalism are very easily intertwined, framing the two as inextricable components of the same conservative platform threatens the principles presented by both systems of interpretation.

On April 13th, 2008, CNN hosted a “Compassion Forum” for then Democratic presidential candidates Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. In this forum, which took place at the Messiah College in Grantham, Pennsylvania, the candidates received questions from Christian faith leaders from throughout America. During the second half of the night, when an interviewer inquired how then-Senator Obama would respond if one of his daughters asked whether God created the world in six days, he gave a very interesting response. “What I've said to them is that I believe that God created the universe and that the six days in the Bible may not be six days as we understand it,” said Obama. “I know there's always a debate between those who read the Bible literally and those who don't. And, you know, that, I think, is a legitimate debate within the Christian community of which I am a part. But… I don't think science generally is incompatible with Christian faith. And I think that this is something that, you know, we get bogged down in.”

As Obama rightly observes, the debate over Biblical literalism is a divisive topic among the American faithful, which has spilled over to become a source of political division on the backdrop of broader Christian nationalism. Biblical literalism is the belief held that the Bible should be interpreted along the lines of the “plain meaning” of the text as well as the historical context in which it was written. This approach has been promoted by figures as highly influential as Saint Thomas Aquinas, Martin Luther, and John Calvin. However, Biblical literalism also has strong ties to conservative, fundamentalist conclusions and practices. Because of this, it is often associated with the staunchly conservative ideological conclusions of originalist interpretations of the Constitution. While, on the surface level, these two interpretive systems may seem similar due to their literal nature and conservative cores, many problems arise when one considers both systems simultaneously.

First, the Establishment Clause throws a huge wrench into the relationship between literalism and originalism. As Jefferson himself summarizes, “I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.’” The idea that America should become a Christian nation, as 61% of Republicans believe it should, necessarily conflicts with the Constitution because of the Establishment Clause. While one can prescribe to either originalism or literalism, it’s simply impossible to fully follow both, as the framers of the Constitution did not intend for America to be or ever become a religious state. 

Furthermore, assumptions that the founders were morally unimpeachable and timelessly correct are frankly baseless. The 3/5ths compromise, which legally counted each enslaved person as 3/5ths of a citizen for the purposes of the electoral college, was in the very first Article of the Constitution for 81 years. Advocates for the morality of our founders seem to selectively ignore the compromise today, or at least attempt to justify it. Aside from other qualms, such as the framers’ views on women, another issue arises: It doesn’t seem that the framers of the Constitution were in agreement that judicial review (or legal interpretative doctrines like originalism) should exist at all. Nothing in Article III says anything about judicial review, and the Ninth Amendment further complicates the originalist point of view by implying that judicial review could be a violation of protections for unenumerated rights. Finally, it seems that many of the founders did not want the Constitution to remain a static document. For instance, in 1796, James Madison wrote that the Constitution “‘was nothing more than [the] draft of a plan, nothing but a dead letter, until life and validity were breathed into it by the voice of the people, speaking through [the] several state conventions.’”           

The Free Exercise Clause defends the right of every citizen to practice religion without the interference of the state. Furthermore, religious activism has long had itsplace in American politics as a force for positive change. But any time that Christian nationalism, or any other religious organizing framework, crosses over from public discourse into institutional practice, the founders’ crucial trust in future generations to maintain a secular government is being betrayed. While originalism on its own suffers from logistical issues, when paired with the seemingly compatible practice of Christian literalism, all that can result is an even greater impractical mess.