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.
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.
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."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
The Gipper after meeting with the pope: "Perhaps it’s not too much to hope that true change will come to all countries that now deny or hinder the freedom to worship God. And perhaps we’ll see that change comes through the reemergence of faith, through the irresistible power of a religious renewal. For despite all the attempts to extinguish it, the people’s faith burns with a passionate heat; once allowed to breathe free, that faith will burn so brightly it will light the world."
The Gipper at the 1988 Republican convention. "...Well, truth through the eyes of a child: freedom of association, freedom of worship, freedom of hope and opportunity, and the pursuit of happiness — in this case, choosing among 200 flavors of ice cream — that’s America, everyone with his or her vision of the American promise."
Want more?
The Gipper also said, "As long as there are math tests there will be prayer in public schools." He understood that regardless of the policies or laws enacted by government, real faith can never be extinguished. The concern of the article quoted is not so much about the term "freedom of worship" (which Reagan and others have used interchangeably with freedom of religion); it is concern about the sudden switch to use of this term. Maybe it doesn't mean anything, but the best way to ensure that it doesn't is to point it out in the public arena of ideas.
well, just to clear what Obama said was freedom to worship was one chooses. Now for Hillary, when she used the phrase in January, she was basically talking to the Chinese pretty much directly, slamming them for arresting those who would not practice their religion in a state sponsored way. I think all they are trying to say or do is let all countries know that we believe all people should have the freedom to worship. We are not espousing at least directly freedom of religion for every country. That would be a waste of time.
Realizing every word they say is parsed by someone with an agenda, so be it. If the concern is freedom of religion being maintained, then should a mosque be built 2 blocks from the WTC assuming zoning laws allow it? As I understand it, the building there now is being used as mosque.
Freedom of religion does not equal freedom to build a building for religious worship wherever one wants. Lots of churches have been restricted in where they can build, often after purchasing the property. It is not uncommon for churches to be denied permission to build merely because some municipal counsel doesn't want to lose its tax base. As for the mosque, NYC is the final arbiter on whether or not they can build at any particular location. I could care less (since I don't plan on attending it) as long as it doesn't end up becoming a staging area for some sort of subversive antiAmerican activities.
Freedom of worship wasn't in such danger in the Gipper's time as it is today. Nobody was talking about gay marriage back then, and we didn't have a godless, communist rabble rouser in the White House, either. Therefore, I don't think it's too useful to compare statements of Ronald Reagan to those of Hillary Clinton, looking for some sort of similarity.
Oh, I don't think Reagan was a big church goer either. Don't worry about communists, Brian, Beck will expose all in due time and the truth will set us all free. LOL. Cya at the 8/28 rally.
Post a Comment