Obama Moves away from 'Freedom of Religion' toward 'Freedom of Worship'?

By Randy Sly
7/19/2010
Catholic Online (www.catholic.org)

Words matter - listen carefully to our current administration

Since the initially strong language on religious freedom used in President Obama's Cairo speech, presidential references to religious freedom have become rare, often replaced, at most, with references to freedom of worship. A purposeful change in language could mean a much narrower view of the right to religious freedom. Does this change of language indicate a change of policy? As Catholics, this is an area where we must remain vigilant. These small changes can be used to change our perception of rights and freedoms.

'Religious freedom, in turn, which men demand as necessary to fulfill their duty to worship God, has to do with immunity from coercion in civil society. Therefore it leaves untouched traditional Catholic doctrine on the moral duty of men and societies toward the true religion and toward the one Church of Christ.'

Facebook Delicous MySpace

Twitter Stumble Digg

More Destinations

WASHINGTON, DC (Catholic Online) - The change in language was barely noticeable to the average citizen but political observers are raising red flags at the use of a new term "freedom of worship" by President Obama and Secretary Clinton as a replacement for the term freedom of religion. This shift happened between the President's speech in Cairo where he showcased America's freedom of religion and his appearance in November at a memorial for the victims of Fort Hood, where he specifically used the term "freedom of worship." From that point on, it has become the term of choice for the president and Clinton.

In her article for "First Things" magazine, Ashley Samelson, International Programs Director for the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, stated, "To anyone who closely follows prominent discussion of religious freedom in the diplomatic and political arena, this linguistic shift is troubling: "The reason is simple. Any person of faith knows that religious exercise is about a lot more than freedom of worship. It's about the right to dress according to one's religious dictates, to preach openly, to evangelize, to engage in the public square. Everyone knows that religious Jews keep kosher, religious Quakers don't go to war, and religious Muslim women wear headscarves-yet "freedom of worship" would protect none of these acts of faith."

In the administration's defense, Carl Esbeck, professor of law at the University of Missouri, is quoted by Christianity Today as saying, "The softened message is probably meant for the Muslim world, said. Obama, seeking to repair relations fractured by 9/11, is telling Islamic countries that America is not interfering with their internal matters."

Let's be clear, however; language matters when it comes to defining freedoms and limits. A shift from freedom of religion to freedom of worship moves the dialog from the world stage into the physical confines of a church, temple, synagogue or mosque. Such limitations can unleash an unbridled initiative that we have only experienced in a mild way through actions determined to remove of roadside crosses, wearing of religious t-shirts and pro-life pins as well as any initiatives of evangelization. It also could exclude our right to raise our children in our faith, the right to religious education, literature or media, the right to raise funds or organize charitable activities and the right to express religious beliefs in the normal discourse of life.

In the Second Vatican Council's Declaration of Religious Freedom entitled "Dignitatis Humanae", the Church summarizes this right: "Religious freedom, in turn, which men demand as necessary to fulfill their duty to worship God, has to do with immunity from coercion in civil society. Therefore it leaves untouched traditional Catholic doctrine on the moral duty of men and societies toward the true religion and toward the one Church of Christ."

As we can see, the practice of religion permeates the very fabric of our lives. It cannot and should not be separated into approved and non-approved expressions. Unfortunately, such limits are being instituted across the globe. Samelson writes, "The effort to squash religion into the private sphere is on the rise around the world. "And it's not just confined to totalitarian regimes like Saudi Arabia. In France, students at public schools cannot wear headscarves, yarmulkes, or large crucifixes. The European Court of Human Rights has banned crucifixes from the walls of Italian schools."

The list of countries and limits is growing constantly.

Michelle Boorstein, religion reporter for the Washington Post, notes that "Knox Thames, director of the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom -- a Congress-controlled body tasked with monitoring religious freedom abroad - spoke at a recent briefing about the worry, reportedly saying he sees a change in lingo and that it's not an accident."

In presenting a forecast of religious freedom for 2010 to the House Subcommittee on International Religions, Human Rights and Oversight, Georgetown professor Thomas Farr stated, "Those of us in the business of sniffing out rats know that this is a rhetorical shift to watch." Farr was the former head of the State Department's International Religious Freedom Office.

Human rights lawyer Nina Shea, who is a Senior Scholar at the Hudson Institute, is also concerned. "I'm very fearful that by building bridges, we're actually stepping away from this fundamental principle of religious freedom. It is so critical for Western, especially American, leaders to articulate strong defense for religious freedom and explain what that means and how it undergirds our entire civilization."

Leonardo Leo, Chairman of the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom made these remarks in the presentation of their 2010 Annual Report in April: "in the world of foreign policy and diplomacy, where every ...

1 | 2 Next Page

Rate This Article

Was this helpful to you? Very Helpful Somewhat Helpful Not Helpful at All

Would you be interested in more articles like this? Yes, I am Interested No, I am not Interested

Rate Article

1 - 10 of 144 Comments

John
10 months ago
I will not follow the corrupt, selfish ideology of Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, or Fox News!
Robert
2 years ago
Politics will swing any which way the wind blows. Even without "freedom" EVERYONE can worship and practice the way they choose, EVERYWHERE. Even in North Korea there are christians, it just might be harder since in some countries you have to hide practices, but, the point is, politicians could abolish religion altogether, the truly faithful won't be persuaded. Just as they said after the financial collapse, to become squaters in your own homes, so must we stick to our own convictions and beliefs. -Shalom
vadhopper
2 years ago
I think this interpretation - and most of the anti-Obama comments here are way overblown. In fact, they ooze political mindlessness - instead of presenting rational arguement and theology.

It could equally be interpreted that freedom of worship is in fact MORE comprehensive that the freedom of religion. Freedom of religion means you can believe whatever you want. Freedom of worship mean you can believe HOWEVER you want (which would therefore include whatever you want). So in direct opposition to this author's conclusion, the Obama administration is in fact strengthening our freedoms.

There is no evidence provided here (or anywhere that I am aware of) that Obama has abandoned the concept of freedom of religion. In fact, if anything, he is fighting hard against the many right-wing "christians" who promote hate mongering and want to limit the ability of Muslims to worship how and where they want (i.e. build Mosques on their own land - even 2 blocks from ground zero).

As to what I belive, I'd like to applaud and concur with Matthew Liddle's comments:
"As a Catholic I believe our most important role and responsibility is to engage with the world, it's people, it's politics - as disoriented as they may be - and not to retreat into paranoia, ignorant posturing and hateful speech. The present president is no greater risk to the Church than any other president. As always the greatest risk to the church is the mindlessness of its members."

Couldn't of said it any better myself.
bighead
2 years ago
this help me with my home work and i thank you so much you rock in a way any ways thnx!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!?????????
gene
2 years ago
Geez, the anti-Obama fanatics leap on anything. Their PR mission is to tailor their ugly smears for every interest group that they can find. This abysmal rant isn't about gov policy or religion; it's sheer partisan politics.

What's shocking is to see such it published in the Catholic Online.
Maureen Sullivan
2 years ago
quite interesting-------how changing just one word can bring such a different meaning to everything---

just like referring to a baby as products of conception or "clump of cells" OR unwanted pregnancy--------------

Even people in Canada hailed Barrack Obama as osme kind of "saviour"

They are so blinded, in my opinion---and I know I'm not right about everything but my gut tells me he is not a good man.................He has deceived a lot of unsuspecting people for sure.
mike
2 years ago
Read a lot of comments about how BHO got into office and the blame game that is taking place. Fact, regardless of who did it, the majority voted and now we have to live with it (at least for a while). Media (most anyway) did nothing to probe the depth of BHO's true nature and made no issue of his background. Many attacked any inquisition into the man's background, thoughts, ideas, past dealing, or any historical facts, by making claims of racism if there was any questions or issues BHO generated by his comments or past. Thanks Revend Al! Good, now you have what you got. Haven't you noticed the people who are in power in the USA (media, politicians, ACLU ETC) have a value system that is all screwed up? Then they blame the rich for all the US's problems (I am poor by the way). Bottom line, people did not get past the color of his skin, due to liberal media, and were unable to judge him by the content of his character. Unfortunately, there were not enough of us who have the gift of discernment who understood what "hope and change" really meant by this radical nut job. There is a silver lining to all of this: we all understand the directions liberals want to take the USA. Vote these people out ASAP and keep them out forever! Good Day and God Bless everyone.
Tom
2 years ago
That is the best article I have ever seen people need to see whats going on.
Matt
2 years ago
I believe that it'd be good if 'freedom of religion' is to be changed to 'freedom of worship' in the Constitution, because there are some religious practices that are against the law. ex. If my religion states that it's okay for me to kill others outside of my religion, and I get arrested for murder, then there's a conflict between my religious practices and the law, therefore no true freedom of religion in the first place. So, as long as your religious practices don't come into conflict with others' rights, then the change from 'religion' to 'worship' shouldn't affect you.
Matthew Liddle
2 years ago
I couldn't agree more with David Zawistowski. As a Catholic I believe our most important role and responsibility is to engage with the world, it's people, it's politics - as disoriented as they may be - and not to retreat into paranoia, ignorant posturing and hateful speech.
The present president is no greater risk to the Church than any other president. As always the greatest risk to the church is the mindlessness of its members.

Prev12 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next

Comments submitted must be civil, remain on-topic and not violate any laws including copyright. We reserve the right to delete any comments which are abusive, inappropriate or not constructive to the discussion.

Though we invite robust discussion, we reserve the right to not publish any comment which denigrates the human person, undermines marriage and the family, or advocates for positions which openly oppose the teaching of the Catholic Church.

This is a supervised forum and the Editors of Catholic Online retain the right to direct it.

We also reserve the right to block any commenter for repeated violations. Your email address is required to post, but it will not be published on the site.

We ask that you NOT post your comment more than once. Catholic Online is growing and our ability to review all comments sometimes results in a delay in their publication.

Name *

Email *

Comment *

Send me important information from Catholic Online and it's partners. See Sample

Post Comment