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

3/21/2012

(Page 2 of 3)

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 word is carefully chosen to convey meaning and interest, there is an even more important situation that could be taken by some in the world community as a signal that freedom of religion or belief is not a priority for the administration.

"USCIRF notes that 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. The same holds true for many of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's speeches.

"This change in phraseology could well be viewed by human rights defenders and by officials in other countries as having concrete ...
- - -

Pope Benedict XVI's Prayer Intentions for January 2013
General Intention: The Faith of Christians. That in this Year of Faith Christians may deepen their knowledge of the mystery of Christ and witness joyfully to the gift of faith in him.
Missionary Intention: Middle Eastern Christians. That the Christian communities of the Middle East, often discriminated against, may receive from the Holy Spirit the strength of fidelity and perseverance.

Keywords: words, religious liberty, religious freedom, freedom of religion, freedom of worship, Obama, public policy, rhetoric

NEWSLETTERS »

Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3 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 20 Comments

Rob
1 year ago
Sometimes when I consider this this issue, I think, this is a no brainer, the Chruch will prevail and this will be nothing more than a really stupid, political move that Obama will pay for in November. Then I have to step back and consider how much government funding some of these institutions take. Devil is in the details. I wonder how many of these institutions, by virture of the dollars they receive, will be somewhat akined to federal contractors. I'm not sure of the law in that area. But what should be alarming to the Bishops and to which I really haven't heard a peep, is that the level of obedience in a majority of these institutions doesn't exactly help our cause any. Maybe we will win on a legal technicality, but I sure wish our lived witness in this regard spoke for us. If we don't start getting our house in order, this won't be the last time the government tries this. Honestly, I'm suprised it's taken this long. If we win this issue, what is going to be our response? Back to the status quo?
Lee
1 year ago
The First Amendment makes it clear that the church has no obligations to the state. But the reverse is not the case. The state is prohibited from interfering in religious faith by creating an established church akin to the Church of England, which was established by Henry VIII and Elizabeth I as a means of preventing the Catholic church from making the states of Europe the instruments of its nefarious commands: Kill these heretics! Segregate these Jews! Burn these witches! The newly established church was subordinate to the Crown – and still is. In contrast, American churches are free. It is no wonder that they are so much admired by the pope, who applauds the way they use their freedom to reestablish the domination over the state that he believes is rightfully theirs.
JoAnn
1 year ago
michael: The Church has been through many challenges since She was established by Jesus over 2000 yrs. ago. When Jesus ordained Peter as the first pope He said "the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it." And Satan has been hard at work trying to destroy Her, but it will never happen. She will exist eternally because the Holy Spirit protects and guides Her. We will get through this challenge as well. The only disadvantage is that we do not know how long it will take. I believe we are in for a major purging from God, but if we stay on His side, we will get through it. Pray for strength in our Faith and trust in Jesus. God bless.
Anita Andazola
1 year ago
I am free to worship God. If there is no Church building, I continue to have faith, the Rosary, the Bible. My priests can consecrate bread and wine wherever it's needed can't they? Using Rush Limbaugh as an example of a double standard just makes me cringe because someone who follows Christ is clearly barred from tit for tat attitudes by the words of Christ. This article is a grasp at many straws leading to no logical or morally defensable conclusion. I am a Roman Catholic. I support everyone's free-will right to seek God, because I believe that those who seek God will find God.
techwreck
1 year ago
Brian and Doug, that is a nice try. Unfortunately you did not supply context that has significance for the current issue. Reagan was not opposing the right of churches to establish doctrine and operate in accordance with that doctrine. The same can't be said for President Obama who is supporting a government regulation in direct opposition to the teaching of a number of churches. The Obama administration is trying to limit the role of churches in the public square by denying their right to operate in accordance with their doctrines. So the expressions "freedom to worship" and "freedom of religion" take on a much different meaning, because of the aggressive attempt of the Obama administration to limit role of churches in the public square.
michael
1 year ago
What amazes me is that President Obama is sticking to his guns. This is a calculated risk and politically dangerous. Yet, he must see some weakness in the membership of Holy Mother Church. Modern, secular leaders have always sought to eviscerate Holy Church by dividing her members. The last 50 years or so have been a disaster for the members of Holy Church...divisions are everywhere...people are ignorant of the Faith and consider the Revelation of Jesus Christ to be one of many opinions. Obama, who is the Great Divider, is going to ride this one out and see the results through. In a sense, he would like to see another Gabbatha moment where he hears Catholics yelling crucify our medieval Church...we have no King but Caesar.
DLL
1 year ago
I don't believe that the US Constitution or The Bill of Rights could have ever been conceived without the Idea of all having Religious Freedom and the Freedom to Worship God as is seen fit. Moral law is non existent in a society without Religious Freedom,as without this Freedom there is no such thing as any freedom. In Christ is justice and mercy,this is only to be known through faith. God is merciful and kind and fair,as we can only know this through the example of whom is Christ Jesus. If you don't believe what I am writing than at best freedom is a roll of the dice,a chance at best. There is as much of a chance for a dicey freedom as there is in trying to balance a 16 trillion dollar deficit in spending. There is hardly any financial freedom in an economy continually running on deficit spending. A society without religious freedom has a deficit in justice,mercy,fairness,kindness and as a result becomes a society without love or truth to govern it,as evientually it will become violent and oppressive,as these societies become a law unto itself,selfish and self serving at best.
Doug Indeap
1 year ago
I occasionally hear some work themselves into a lather over this supposed distinction between “freedom of religion” and “freedom of worship.” While I have heard some casually use the terms seemingly as equivalents and have heard others condemn the latter as encompassing much less than the former, I have NEVER heard anyone actually suggest, much less advocate, that the First Amendment should or does only protect the latter.

Sounds to me like a made-up bogeyman. Can you show any evidence of someone, anyone, even once championing the idea that the Constitution protects only a narrow freedom of worship of the sort you claim President Obama and others have in mind?
lisag
1 year ago
Obama and company want Christians to keep it the church. Yet, they want to come into the church to tell us how to speak and what is right. I think they are drooling over the Catholic charities, schools and hospitals. Why wouldn't they confiscate these buildings and material to use in their own way. Obama just signed a regulation last Friday to do so in economic or any national distress.
vance
1 year ago
DLL, I love your post.

Prev12 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