Obama Moves away from 'Freedom of Religion'

[Smoke]

Good God! The plot thickens! The Virginian, way back in 1956, when making up a fake quote from Patrick Henry to try to prove that the US was founded as a Christian country, used the insidious phrase!

“It cannot be emphasized too clearly and too often that this nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religion, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason, peoples of other faiths have been afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here."​

 

[idea]

here's another article on it:
Serious threat to religious freedom?

I doubt anyone has anything to worry about. This change is probably meaningless or insignificant. Style more than substance.

Mark Twain: “A historian who would convey the truth must lie. Often he must enlarge the truth by diameters, otherwise his reader would not be able to see it.”

“The safest road to Hell is the gradual one - the gentle slope, soft underfoot, without sudden turnings, without milestones, without signposts”
– C. S. Lewis

some of us grow suspicious of soft, gentle slopes

 

[Duck]

Like getting married even if the Mormon Church doesn't approve?

But, Smoke, despite having VIDEO and Press releases, and letters and statements, and demands from the Mormon leadership that congregants work to strip people of their civil rights, that NEVER happened, or at least the Mormon church isn't homophobic or anti-gay. C'mon man, you can't expect a group of people calling themselves followers of christ to be HONEST about anything (well at all) involving the gay, now can you?

 

[idea]

Really!! Care to explain how you arrived at these rather odd notions, because I saw nothing in the article that even hinted at them?

I was just quoting out of the article

Serious threat to religious freedom?

Reporter Sarah Eekhoff Zylstra also interviewed Nina Shea, director of the Center for Religious Freedom and a member of the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom. She sees something much more troubling about the “freedom of worship” language…

Freedom of worship means the right to pray within the confines of a place of worship or to privately believe, said Nina Shea, director of the Center for Religious Freedom and member of the commission. “It excludes the right to raise your children in your faith; the right to have religious literature; the right to meet with co-religionists; the right to raise funds; the right to appoint or elect your religious leaders, and to carry out charitable activities, to evangelize, [and] to have religious education or seminary training.”
It’s a small thing, really—the shift of a word, the coining of a new phrase. But the consequences are going to be bad, and the signal it sends of American retreat on human rights comes at a terrible moment.

Think of it this way: If you have “freedom of religion,” you can bring up your children in your faith, hold public processions, and print books. If you have only “freedom of worship” you can pray quietly in your home, as long as it remains out of public sight.
“Freedom of religion” means you can stand on a street corner and proselytize everything from Catholicism to Mormonism to the cult of the sun god Ra. “Freedom of worship” means you can be executed for public conversion away from Islam. Worship is part of religion, but it is one of the least public parts—and thus one of the least involved in actual freedom.

Anyone from China, Iran, or the USSR here? If there is, please enlighten us Americans - do you have "freedom of worship"?

http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/irf/2006/71338.htm
"The constitution provides for freedom of religious belief and the freedom not to believe; however, the Government seeks to restrict religious practice to government-sanctioned organizations and registered places of worship and to control the growth and scope of activities of religious groups. The Government tries to control and regulate religion to prevent the rise of groups that could constitute sources of authority outside of the control of the Government and the Chinese Communist Party ..."

China has freedom to worship!

http://www.religioustolerance.org/rt_china.htm
...The government appears to fear any national group that is capable of organizing its followers into direct action....
The government has historical reasons for their fear. China has had a history of religious and spiritual uprisings that had catastrophic effects on the country. "In the late 1770s, the White Lotus rebellion against the Qing dynasty was led by Wang Lun, a master of martial arts and herbal medicine." ... (oh the horror! martial arts herbologists take over the country!!!!)
...the U.S. State Department said that in the past year China had intensified its repression against the Falun Gong, Tibetan Buddhists, Muslim Uighurs, and underground Protestants and Catholics. Some Chinese religious believers, the report said, face "harassment, extortion, prolonged detention, physical abuse, and incarceration in prison or in ‘re-education through labor’ camps." ...

 

[idea]

But, Smoke, despite having VIDEO and Press releases, and letters and statements, and demands from the Mormon leadership that congregants work to strip people of their civil rights, that NEVER happened, or at least the Mormon church isn't homophobic or anti-gay. C'mon man, you can't expect a group of people calling themselves followers of christ to be HONEST about anything (well at all) involving the gay, now can you?

If I recall, it wasn't just the Mormons - it was the majority of the people of that state . Mormons make up less than 1% of the population, I really don't think we have that much power...

 

[Smoke]

some of us grow suspicious of soft, gentle slopes

No kidding. Some of you grow suspicious over nothing at all.

 

[Smoke]

If I recall, it wasn't just the Mormons - it was the majority of the people of that state . Mormons make up less than 1% of the population, I really don't think we have that much power...

Either way, your Church has made it clear that it's opposed to religious freedom. It seems rather hypocritical to be making things up about a supposed threat to religious freedom from Obama, when your Church gets out there in the street and actively works against religious freedom.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

I'm not sure of this:

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.

How does changing the language from religion to worship lose protection for these in public, when they are a part of everyday worship? This suggests that Ashley Samelson, International Programs Director for the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, sees worship as being something done only in a holy building, a woefully limited view of spirituality.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I don't like it... that is not to say I'm going to leap to the conclusion that Obama wants to limit religious freedom... but we do need to be watchful of encroachment on our Constitutionally protected right to freedom of religion, and shifting the terminology could lead to such.

I somewhat agree, but if anything, I worry about this from the other side.

I equate "freedom of religion" with freedom of belief, roughly. This could logically extend to all people, regardless of belief, including theists and atheists. However, with "freedom of worship", it seems to me that in one possible interpretation, the root belief is presumed, and it's only the various forms of expression of that belief that are free.

IOW, I think that "freedom of religion" implies freedom of conscience for non-believers (as well as freedom of worship), but "freedom of worship" alone is a narrower freedom that could potentially exclude non-believers.

 

[Smoke]

How does changing the language from religion to worship lose protection for these in public, when they are a part of everyday worship? This suggests that Ashley Samelson, International Programs Director for the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, sees worship as being something done only in a holy building, a woefully limited view of spirituality.

Strictly speaking, the Constitution doesn't say "freedom of worship" or "freedom of religion." It says "free exercise thereof." If I were sufficiently insane, I might panic and publish all kinds of paranoid theories about what religious people were trying to accomplish by changing the wording to "freedom of religion."

Unfortunately, when it comes to insanity, nobody can really compete with religious conservatives.

 

[Magic Man]

I somewhat agree, but if anything, I worry about this from the other side.

I equate "freedom of religion" with freedom of belief, roughly. This could logically extend to all people, regardless of belief, including theists and atheists. However, with "freedom of worship", it seems to me that in one possible interpretation, the root belief is presumed, and it's only the various forms of expression of that belief that are free.

IOW, I think that "freedom of religion" implies freedom of conscience for non-believers (as well as freedom of worship), but "freedom of worship" alone is a narrower freedom that could potentially exclude non-believers.

Exactly my thoughts. It sounds to me like "You can worship any god you want", which is something I've heard from more than a few people and it gets on my nerves. "Freedom of religion" is the most acceptable and best term.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

"Freedom of religion" is the most acceptable and best term.

Personally, I prefer "freedom of belief" or "freedom of conscience".

 

[Magic Man]

Personally, I prefer "freedom of belief" or "freedom of conscience".

Actually, on second thought, you're probably right, although I think when we're talking about religious belief, maybe it should be specified.

 

[Badran]

I have a question. Regardless of the accuracy of the article and wether or not Obama is really doing this, i want to ask something about the concept itself. If a change in the name of it like that happened, isn't that kind of fishy?

I mean why the change in the first place. Freedom of religion is wider and covers more than freedom of worship.

 

[Comicaze247]

I think it's a more accurate change (I think "freedom of spiritual belief" is more accurate), as there are many people who have certain sets of beliefs and practices that don't fall into any established, organized, and officially recognized religions. Religions are organized, standardized, and often bureaucratic. Beliefs, however, are fluid, and very personal, and always differ person to person, even among those of the same church. The differing beliefs may not be obvious at first, but once you look in deeper (and people stop lying to themselves about what they truly believe), there are differences.

For example, I take my beliefs from many different sources. I have yet to hear of an established belief system that I completely agree with, so I have no choice other than to draw from many different sources to construct my beliefs. Therefore, I have no actual "religion," but I have a set of beliefs. I don't necessarily worship anything either, as I don't really pray or anything like that.

There are also those who have no religion at all, so saying "freedom of religion" would be inaccurate in the first place. Everyone, however, has beliefs, whether related to religion or not.

 

[Joe_Stocks]

Hi Sunstone,

This probably says more about Catholic Online than it does about Obama.

So, you think this switch in words was just an accident?

 

[Comicaze247]

Hi Sunstone,



So, you think this switch in words was just an accident?

More that they're making mountains out of molehills.

 

[Rainbow Mage]

“The safest road to Hell is the gradual one - the gentle slope, soft underfoot, without sudden turnings, without milestones, without signposts”
– C. S. Lewis

some of us grow suspicious of soft, gentle slopes

Funny you would quote Lewis, a man who was an extremely heterodox Christian at best. He believed in universalism, salvation by works, and some Gnostic beliefs. I suppose fundamentalists don't mind though, as long as they can use Lewis to their own benefit like they misuse the Bible. Oh did I also mention Lewis believed Christianity suceeded Paganism, not Judaism?

 

[Thanda]

It is very hard, isn't it, this thing of freedom? Obviously freedom is important: "All intelligence is independant in that sphere in which God has placed it; otherwise there is no existence." - Joseph Smith Jr. But at the same time can we allow a religion that commands its adherents to kill other people? Ofcourse not! There must be a middle ground based upon what would work out best for Society as a whole. The greater good of Society is always the most important factor.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Good grief...
The article mentions Obama and Clinton using "Freedom of Worship" in a couple of speeches.
From this people get "they are taking away our rights!!"?

Lets look at the text of the First Amendment...
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...

"No law respecting an establishment of religion", or "freedom of religion".
"Or prohibiting the free exercise thereof", or "freedom of worship".

This is a non-issue.