23 Feb Obama Reduces the “Freedom of Religion” to the “Freedom of Worship”
So says Ashley Samuelson of the Becket Institute. I’m not sure there has been a policy shift yet, but it is worth watching.
“Freedom of worship” first appeared in a high profile speech in Obama’s remarks at the memorial for the victims of the Fort Hood shooting last November, a few months after his Cairo speech. Speaking to the crowd gathered to commemorate the victims, President Obama said, “We’re a nation that guarantees the freedom to worship as one chooses.” Given the religious tension that marked the tragic incident, it was not an insignificant event at which to unveil a new way of referring to our First Freedom.
Shortly after his remarks at Ft. Hood, President Obama left for his trip to Asia, where he repeatedly referred to “freedom of worship,” and not once to “freedom of religion.”
Not long after his return, “freedom of worship” appeared in two prominent speeches delivered by Secretary Clinton. In her address to Georgetown University outlining the Obama Administration’s human rights agenda she used “freedom of worship” three times, “freedom of religion,” not once. About a month later, in an address to Senators on internet freedom at the Newseum, the phrase popped up in her lingo once again.
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.
I doubt anything profound or consequentail is intended by use of this phrase, and certainly nothing with regard to constitutional interpretation or human rights regarding religious freedom, although I agree it should be abandoned. Sometimes, especially in the Christian tradition but in monotheistic traditions generally, people refer to religious worship as shorthand for religion even if, strictly speaking, its scope is narrower (worship seen as a necessary condition for or central feature of religion). I suspect if Obama and members of his administration are reminded of this they would gladly speak of “freedom of religion.” I myself don’t like the phrase because it doesn’t work very well in traditions like Daoism, Confucianism and Buddhism. In any case, we might be likewise be troubled by Samelson’s (note the spelling) use of the phrase “acts of faith,” as faith does not carry the same meaning for all religious traditions, indeed, the concept is not found in all religious traditions. And where similar terms are found as, say, in Buddhism, their meaning is often rather different from the conception of faith in Christianity, including its comparative centrality in the latter tradition, particularly in its Protestant form (Catholics according more attention to reason vis-a-vis faith). In short, to use the concept of… Read more »
typo: “consequential”
Response… “Freedom of worship” might actually be broader than “freedom of religion,” since “religion” at times is defined more narrowly than some would like.
Anyway, I agree with Mr. O’Donnell, also adding that “worship” to me would include at least some of the matters listed. It is my understanding, e.g., that many consider “worship” not specific acts like going to mass, but living a religious life. Thus, keeping kosher is a type of “worship.”
Once upon a time, lawyers were trained in rhetoric, which instills skills in argument and oratory, and a heightened awareness of the mechanisms and nuances of language. Ms. Samelson is perhaps not a lawyer; if not, she should be forgiven for failing to register that the warm and fuzzy term “worship” might simply have been intended as a figure of speech, a synecdoche, for cold, institutional “religion.”
Are we to regard references in Obama Administration press releases to “the White House” as insidious efforts to shift responsibility from the elected person who occupies the building to the building itself?
Are we to regard references in Obama Administration press releases to “the White House” as insidious efforts to shift responsibility from the elected person who occupies the building to the building itself?
Of course we are. Although I wouldn’t say it’s “insidious.” More like “commonplace.”
Freedom of worship” might actually be broader than “freedom of religion,” since “religion” at times is defined more narrowly than some would like.
Worship is only a single aspect of religion. Considering this, how could “worship” be a broader term when it is a subset of all possible religious activities?
But yes this is more likely because the current crop of Democrat speechwriters think freedom of worship has a nice ring to it.
Maybe they are saying “freedom of worship” because it seems to them to be less restrictive than “freedom of religion,” which assumes structure, restraint, authority, obedience, and all those nasty things Boomers don’t like. It is also more “inclusive” since it picks up the people who think of themselves as “spiritual” rather than “religious.” Note, also, Norman Rockwell’s usage, “Freedom to Worship.”
Yeah, I view it more of a rhetorical device than any shift in policy or outlook (and I speak as someone who doesn’t support the President’s policies, generally).