I understand the argument that attempts to draw a distinction between “freedom of religion” and “freedom of worship,” but find it to be a rather pointless one.
One’s worship is dictated by one’s doctrine. Therefore, to affirm “freedom of worship” is to affirm freedom of religion, since both doctrine and worship are necessary components of religion.
Arguing for a distinction between the two appears to be one of those areas where certain conservatives try to get onto a high horse and thump their chests about how they’re just a little more knowledgeable than everyone else, since make an esoteric distinction that others don’t. I guess Patrick Henry was just kind of a dummy and didn’t understand the distinction,
“It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions, but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason peoples of other faiths have been afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here.”
Jefferson readily acknowledged with the Virginia religious freedom bill that it affirmed “freedom for the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and the Mohammedan, the Hindu and infidel of every denomination.”
Clearly, the Founders didn’t draw the semantic distinction you’re trying to draw.
I see your point. However, the Founders were not facing the situation we are facing today, in which a dictatorial government is attempting to make what might seem a semantic distinction into a legal one.
Consider the example of Saudi Arabia or Kuwait, in which (foreign) Christians can hold a church service, as long as it's unnoticeable by Moslems, but can do practically nothing else toward openly practicing Christian faith. Do they have "freedom of worship"? And if they do, is that the same as the "free exercise of religion" that our Constitution recognizes?