·  News ·  Travel ·  Food ·  Arts ·  Science ·  Sports ·  Advice ·  Religion ·  Life ·  Greensboro · 

President Obama backing off on "freedom of religion"?

by SouthernFriedInfidel | Published on July 19th, 2010, 10:35 am | Religion
Apparently, some religious observers are listening closely to speeches made by the President and by Secretary of State Clinton. And they are feeling troubled that when the subject is religion, the terms these two use have changed. Where they used to tout America's "freedom of religion," they have apparently dropped that in favor of "freedom of worship."

It's a fine distinction, one that worries several groups. Stepping back from freedom of religion, so fear, means that the freedoms they are used to in leading their religious lives OUTSIDE of worship (like wearing traditional garb, eating religiously-approved foods and such-like) may be endangered.

Of course, it would also mean that the government may push back when fundies try to insist that science classes have lessons that include the Flintstones or similar pathetic nonsense. And of course, "honor killings" and the use of Sharia Law would be out of the question... so I wouldn't be too upset over that.

But is "freedom of worship" the correct term to use for a more secular world? SHOULD the government get involved in non-worship religious activities? Would "freedom of worship" include protection of non-worship?

Thoughts?
 
 
It is a strange distinction. Not all religions demand 'worship', however they do require observances.

However it is when religions go outside of private worship that the challenges occur. When the religious evangelize or demand their religious law be imposed on all, then their actions impinges on the rights of others and the government has a duty to prevent that.

The First Amendment doesn't use the expression 'freedom of religion' or 'freedom of worship', rather that the government must not establish (or favor) any religion, nor should it prohibit the free exercise of it.

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.

It can and should. If your religion demands you kill infidels, marry minors, mutilate children's genitals, prevent others from using contraception etc then that must be considered a 'non approved expression'. Tough but no one want's Catholic, Islamic or Mormon doctrine forced on them.

But it may well be the whole thing is a manufactured distinction that reads too much into a particular wording.
All stupid ideas pass through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is ridiculed. Third, it is ridiculed
July 19th, 2010, 11:06 am
User avatar
A Person
 
Location: Slightly west of the Great White North
I tend to think that politicians choose such words with more care than we give them credit for. I seriously doubt that the changing of a standard, common phrase like "freedom of religion" was done by accident, or without some specific reasoning. It will be worth following in some detail, to see if the change in syntax signals a future change in actions.
July 19th, 2010, 11:15 am
User avatar
SouthernFriedInfidel
 
Location: 5th circle of hell -- actually not very crowded at the moment.
Given the suspect source, I'd ask whether the premise is actually true

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


This claim is pretty vague and it would take a lot of analysis to see if it's actually true. Even if true, it's quite possible Obama isn't talking about religion much because he has other things to deal with.
July 19th, 2010, 11:26 am
User avatar
A Person
 
Location: Slightly west of the Great White North
It's not a new expression either

save_freedom_worship.jpg
July 19th, 2010, 11:29 am
User avatar
A Person
 
Location: Slightly west of the Great White North
Apparently this is the new meme in Farrightistan

Beck has been pushing it today "A full on frontal attack on religion" (around 15 minutes if you don't want to listen to the whole rambling tirade), as has Christianity Today

"Freedom of worship" has recently replaced the phrase "freedom of religion" in public pronouncements from the Obama administration. Experts are concerned that the new rhetoric may signal a policy change.

"Freedom of worship" first appeared in President Obama's November remarks at the memorial service for the victims of the Fort Hood shooting. Days later, he referred to worship rather than religion in speeches in Japan and China.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton echoed the shift in language. In a December speech at Georgetown University, she used "freedom of worship" three times but "freedom of religion" not at all. While addressing senators in January, she referred to "freedom of worship" four times and "freedom of religion" once when quoting an earlier Obama speech.


Frank Lockwood examines the claims here - worth reading, I won't cut and paste the whole thing here

He points out that the expression was commonly used by FDR, Reagan, Clinton, Bush without anyone raising any concerns. He also points out that Obama uses both phrases, and of course recently proclaimed Jan. 15, 2010 to be Religious Freedom Day - not Worship Freedom Day

In other words this is a manufactured right wing scare which holds Obama to a different, artificial standard and tries to paint him as having a secret anti-Christian, anti-American agenda
July 19th, 2010, 2:31 pm
User avatar
A Person
 
Location: Slightly west of the Great White North
Neat. I appreciate your digging on this.

I wonder who our Farright Town residents haven't jumped on the bandwagon yet?
July 19th, 2010, 5:24 pm
User avatar
SouthernFriedInfidel
 
Location: 5th circle of hell -- actually not very crowded at the moment.
Maybe he just liked the ring of "freedom of worship" more now?

He ran on change.... you know...
This is our chance to change things, this is our destiny.
July 21st, 2010, 12:40 pm
User avatar
Liv
I show you something fantastic and you find fault.
 
Location: Greensboro, NC

Return to Religion