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

3/21/2012

(Page 3 of 3)

implications. Freedom of worship is only one aspect of religious freedom and a purposeful change in language could mean a much narrower view of the right, ignoring such components as religiously motivated expression and religious education as well as ignoring incursions such as discrimination in government benefits and privileges or the creation of climates of impunity, where private religiously-motivated violence isn't prevented and punished."

Mark Twain used to say, "The difference between the almost right word and the right word is really a large matter - it's the difference between the lightning bug and the lightning." 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. In retrosprect, the past hundred years gives us a number of significant issues in which this has already happened to one degree or another. Abortion, contraception, marriage, the family, and gender have all been re-engineered to fashion a new worldview.

What may seem an innocent shift in language now could possibly end up as a "tipping point" for our religious freedom. Make no mistake; this is the goal and desire of the many inside and outside our current administration.

------------------

Here is the shift to which we've referred:

In June 2009, the president highlighted religious freedom in his Cairo speech saying, "Moreover, freedom in America is indivisible from the freedom to practice one's religion. That is why there is a mosque in every state of our union, and over 1,200 mosques within our borders. That is why the U.S. government has gone to court to protect the right of women and girls to wear the hijab, and to punish those who would deny it."

A few months later, in November, he was delivering remarks to the crowd gathered to remember the victims of the Fort Hood shooing when he said, "We're a nation that guarantees the freedom to worship as one chooses."

On the heels of that speech, he then delivered another in Tokyo that same month stating, "The longing for liberty and dignity is a part of the story of all peoples. For there are certain aspirations that human beings hold in common: the freedom to speak your mind, and choose your leaders; the ability to access information, and worship how you please."

He traveled on to China, where in speaking at a "Town Hall" with future Chinese leaders he stated, "These freedoms of expression and worship -- of access to information and political participation -- we believe are universal rights."

This abrupt shift with reference to the constitutional freedom of religion was also noticed in the public discourse of Secretary Hillary Clinton. At Georgetown University in December 2009, she used the phrase three times.

"To fulfill their potential, people must be free to choose laws and leaders; to share and access information, to speak, criticize and debate. They must be free to worship, associate, and to love in the way that they choose. In China, we call for protection of rights of minorities in Tibet and Xinxiang; for the rights to express oneself and worship freely. And when a person is too hungry or sick to work or vote or worship, she is denied a life she deserves. Freedom doesn't come in half measures, and partial remedies cannot redress the whole problem."

In January 2010, Clinton delivered a speech about Internet freedom at the Newseum in which she used the "freedom of worship" theme several times: "Franklin Roosevelt built on these ideas when he delivered his Four Freedoms speech in 1941. Now, at the time, Americans faced a cavalcade of crises and a crisis of confidence. But the vision of a world in which all people enjoyed freedom of expression, freedom of worship, freedom from want, and freedom from fear transcended the troubles of his day."

[Editor's Note: In Roosevelt's famous "Four Freedoms" speech to congress on January 6, 1941, he did include term religion not worship in his list and then used "worship" later as a description - "No realistic American can expect from a dictator's peace international generosity, or return of true independence, or world disarmament, or freedom of expression, or freedom of religion-- or even good business."]

"The freedom of worship usually involves the rights of individuals to commune or not commune with their Creator. And that's one channel of communication that does not rely on technology. But the freedom of worship also speaks to the universal right to come together with those who share your values and vision for humanity. In our history, those gatherings often took place in churches, synagogues, mosques and temples. Today, they may also take place on line.

"But connection technologies like the internet and social networking sites should enhance individuals' ability to worship as they see fit, come together with people of their own faith, and learn more about the beliefs of others. We must work to advance the freedom of worship online just as we do in other areas of life."

-----

Randy Sly is the Associate Editor of Catholic Online and the CEO/Associate Publisher for the Northern Virginia Local Edition of Catholic Online (http://virginia.catholic.org). He is a former Archbishop of the Charismatic Episcopal Church who laid aside that ministry to enter into the full communion of the Catholic Church.
- - -

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

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