Concept, Religion and Freedom to Worship versus Religious Freedom.

 

Thinking about an upcoming debate which is already SOLD OUT

Wed 11/17-- 7:00 P.M.--"Is Religion a Force for Good or Evil?" Debate between Michael Shermer (of the Skeptics Society) and Dinesh D'Souza at Grand Canyon University, 3300 W. Camelback, on Wednesday, November 17th at 7:00 p.m. Tickets are free, but you must get them online or by phone.  Go to:  http://www.gcu.edu/debate/rsvp.php to order and print your tickets. Public Event. Susan Sackett

while also pondering the nuances of yesterdays ThIMK discussion topic distinguishing religion being a concept versus religion being an idea, a theological application (resulting in a particular specific religion and set of beliefs which a group of people share and practice in common), I now write this post to help clarify in my mind and perhaps those of the readers' the difference between the concepts religious freedom and freedom to worship. First some prerequisite reading http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/usnews/constitution/4074-obama-retreats-from-qreligious-freedomq-to-qfreedom-of-worshipq is useful to include here before I attempt to conclude with my thoughts about the subject.

---

The wisdom of the Founding Fathers of the American Republic was such that the preservation of religious liberty was enunciated in the first clause of the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." The application of those 16 words has often been a matter of debate, but the preservation of freedom of religion has been understood as numbered among the fundamental liberties of free people living under the U.S. Constitution.

Now, however, a shift in terminology by President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton is being interpreted by some observers as heralding a threat to this constitutionally guaranteed right.

Earlier this year, Ashley Samelson, international programs director for the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, wrote for First Things that the Obama administration was abandoning the traditional wording of "religious freedom" to the far narrower terminology of "freedom of worship." As Samelson wrote her February 22 First Things article:

"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.

The shift in terminology, though subtle, is very significant, because it can justifiably be interpreted to imply that religious freedom is restricted to the rites conducted in places of worship if only "freedom of worship" is being upheld. "Religious freedom" is a much broader concept, extending to the expression of one's beliefs in many areas of life. Again, in the words of Samelson:

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.

Those who would limit religious practice to the cathedral and the home are the very same people who would strip the public square of any religious presence. They are working to tear down roadside memorial crosses built to commemorate fallen state troopers in Utah, to strip "Under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance, and they recently stopped a protester from entering an art gallery because she wore a pro-life pin

---

Religious Freedom would include the right to voice and express dissent. It means freedom to criticize without reprisal any other specific religion's omissions, faults and threats publicly and openly, but religious freedom would also mean one must not harass another with their proselytizing, promoting their own beliefs, nor shall anyone force any religion upon another. One should be free to choose their religion and beliefs including denying same. Religious freedom is freedom from suppression, oppression, and impression however subtle it may occur.

Freedom to Worship is the right to choose to worship or not as one chooses.  No one should be forced to worship according to another's schedule, place, or group of people.  They may choose their manner of worship and its frequency.