Obama Retreats From "Religious Freedom" to "Freedom of Worship"
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 12

Thread: Obama Retreats From "Religious Freedom" to "Freedom of Worship"

  1. #1

    Exclamation Obama Retreats From "Religious Freedom" to "Freedom of Worship"

    Obama Retreats From "Religious Freedom" to "Freedom of Worship"

    Obama Retreats From "Religious Freedom" to "Freedom of Worship" | Print | E-mail
    Written by James Heiser
    Monday, 19 July 2010 16:50

    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.

    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.

    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.

    The change of terminology is beginning to draw attention from members of the religious press. As Randy Sly observed in an article for Catholic Online:

    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.

    Such concerns are not limited to conservative religious circles; as Rev. Chris Duckworth, a pastor of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America serving in Washington, D.C., declared,

    I don't share the Orwellian fears held by Chuck Colson (in a disturbing, anti-homosexual, leaping-to-conclusions video here) and others that this change of terminology reflects a clear intent by a liberal government to quash religious freedom and eradicate religion from the public square. But I do believe that words are important, and that if this change is more than mere semantics, it could have a significant impact in how our government, through both foreign and domestic policy, engages matters related to the personal and corporate religious practices of people worldwide.
    As someone who believes that the practice of religion extends far beyond the act of worship, I'd be concerned if the administration is making a policy change in favor of "freedom of worship" rather than the broader, Constitutional, and much more comprehensive "freedom of religion."

    The potential implications of a change from “religious freedom” to “freedom of worship” may have already begun to play out on the very grounds of the U.S. Supreme Court.

    In May 5, a school teacher of Arizona, Maureen Rigo, traveled with students to the Supreme Court and, according to press reports and a letter of complaint filed with the Court, found that their religious liberties did not extend to prayer on the grounds of the court.

    After arriving at the Oval Plaza, they stood off to the side at the bottom of the steps, bowed their heads, and quietly prayed amongst themselves to God.

    Even though they were not obstructing traffic, not demonstrating, and praying quietly in a conversational tone so as to not attract attention, a court police officer approached the group and told them to stop praying in that public area immediately. The prayer was stopped based on a statute, 40 U.S.C. §6135, which bars parades and processions on Supreme Court grounds.

    The Alliance Defense Fund (ADF), which describes itself as a “legal alliance of Christian attorneys and like-minded organizations defending the right of people to freely live out their faith,” has gotten involved in Rigo’s case, sending a letter to officials of the Supreme Court. The ADF’s July 15 letter observes, in part, that the wording of the cited statute clearly cannot apply to quiet, public prayer:

    Here, the application of 40 U.S.C. §6135 to prevent quiet, conversational-level prayers (like Rigo’s) is unconstitutional because it is unreasonable, overbroad, and viewpoint discriminatory. 40 U.S.C. §6135 reads as follows:

    It is unlawful to parade, stand, or move in processions or assemblages in the Supreme Court Building or grounds, or to display in the Building and grounds a flag, banner, or device designed or adapted to bring into public notice a party, organization, or movement.

    The wording of the statute does not seemingly contemplate quiet prayers like Mrs. Rigo’s. Such prayers are “not designed or adopted to bring” Mrs. Rigo “into public notice.” Indeed, Mrs. Rigo’s prayers were not communicated to anyone outside of God and her very small group. Her prayers were akin to routine conversations conducted by any other small group of persons touring the Supreme Court grounds. Likewise, Mrs. Rigo was not engaged in a parade, procession, or assembly. She was speaking in a conversational level to those around her with her head bowed.

    Subtle changes in legal terminology can mean an enormous change in public policy. A change from “freedom of religion” to “freedom of worship” could mark the transition from a faith which has implications for life in the public square to an expression of beliefs that must be hidden from public view.
    By faith Noah,being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear,prepared an ark to the saving of his house;by the which he condemned the world,and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith Heb.11:7

  2.   
  3. #2
    Subtle changes in legal terminology can mean an enormous change in public policy. A change from “freedom of religion” to “freedom of worship” could mark the transition from a faith which has implications for life in the public square to an expression of beliefs that must be hidden from public view.
    __________________

    This sounds strangely familiar!

    Thank you, so much, for posting this, HK. This change from "freedom of religion" to "freedom of worship" is very subtle, until you view it with crystal clarity. This was yet another reminder that forums like USACarry help us to become aware of such disingenuous actions by our government and keep us vigilant.
    Conservative Wife & Mom -- I'm a Conservative Christian-American with dual citizenship...the Kingdom of God is my 1st home and the U.S.A. is my 2nd.

  4. #3
    Just another example of how Obama has no regard for the Constitution.
    By faith Noah,being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear,prepared an ark to the saving of his house;by the which he condemned the world,and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith Heb.11:7

  5. #4
    This story has been getting a bunch of attention today, Glenn Beck did a segment on it today,
    And another piece in: Obama Retreats From "Religious Freedom" to "Freedom of Worship"

    We have got to remember to vote this fall and start to slow this ......... down.
    Semper Fi

  6. #5
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Creswell, Oregon
    Posts
    3,865
    Incrementally the progressives have been changing the USA for years, looks like they are still on track. One day it will all changed and some of us will be saying "how did that happen".
    "You can get a lot accomplished if you don't care who gets the credit" - Ronald Reagan

  7. #6
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    North Idaho
    Posts
    265
    Quote Originally Posted by fuhr52 View Post
    Incrementally the progressives have been changing the USA for years, looks like they are still on track. One day it will all changed and some of us will be saying "how did that happen".
    +1 Fuhr52...you hit the progressive nail on the head

  8. #7
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Somewhere in Western Pennsylvania
    Posts
    226
    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative Wife & Mom View Post
    Subtle changes in legal terminology can mean an enormous change in public policy. A change from “freedom of religion” to “freedom of worship” could mark the transition from a faith which has implications for life in the public square to an expression of beliefs that must be hidden from public view.
    __________________

    This sounds strangely familiar!

    Thank you, so much, for posting this, HK. This change from "freedom of religion" to "freedom of worship" is very subtle, until you view it with crystal clarity. This was yet another reminder that forums like USACarry help us to become aware of such disingenuous actions by our government and keep us vigilant.
    Sounds alot like Freedom FROM Religion as it is now being taught.
    When Freedom FROM Worship becomes the accepted norm then parents could be taken to court for taking their children to churches. The slippery slope is getting steeper and slipperier.


    PRO-LIFE FROM CONCEPTION TO NATURAL DEATH
    TO HIM THEREFORE WHO KNOWETH TO DO GOOD AND DOETH IT NOT, TO HIM IT IS SIN. HOLY BIBLE]

  9. #8
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    1,429

    Barack Obama, America's WORST disaster ever!

    Quote Originally Posted by HK4U View Post
    Just another example of how Obama has no regard for the Constitution.


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

    All True Christians™ were in shock when Barack Obama got elected. Clearly America did something awful that God punished us for. The last few days I have been talking to a lot of True Christians™ to determine, given that we will have to bear this punishment for a while longer, the True Christian™ perspective on Barack Obama!

    Barack Obama makes subversive policy because he hates America. He hates America because of his training in the Kenyan Secret Service. Barack Obama is waging a war on America and God, and needs to be impeached as an example to the other African agents in our midst.

    He's an uppity Godless commie Muslim Arab terrorist who isn't even an American citizen. Because He loves the USA so much, God made Obama President to punish our great country for its sins, mostly homosexualism. The only thing good about the man is that he kept Hillary Clinton out of the White House. BTW, his name is Barack Hussein Obama. What more is there to say?

    Upon usurping office, he retroactively destroyed both America's economy and its standing in the world, thus undoing all of the good work of George W. Bush . Still, it's God's will that he should be in power (Rom. 13:1-5).

    He has a know friend who is a terrorist (Bill Ayers). Obama has taken over banking, auto, health care and wants to give amnesty to all the Mexicans who invaded our country. WORST of all he lets his wife boss him around, what self respecting man would let his wife tell him what to do, let alone what to eat.

    Barrack carries the Curse of Ham with him into the Presidency. Additionally, with the especially Mooslim name, Hussein, he would also invoke God's wrath for glorificating the vile faith of the 00000.

    Obama took our jobs

    Uppity Kenyan socialist Islamofascist (yes, both socialist and fascist... and nazi and communist) who wants to take our guns, burden us with oppressive taxation, promote abortion, indoctrinate our children, put Christians into FEMA concentration camps, "spread the wealth", give terrorists more legal rights than Real Americans™, appoint radical "czars" to key positions, saddle small businesses with "Obamacare", hmmm... The list goes on.

    I for one think he is the spawn of Osama and Sadam, which makes him the universal joint in the axle of Evil.

    This is a summary of what I have read in this room regarding the President of the United States.
    Not very nice. Mean spirted. Disrespectful. Hateful.
    IMO, something the followers of Jesus should not be doing.

  10. As "Monte Walsh" would say, "You can't know how dangerouse that is"! This is another indication of a Regime instead of an Administration. There was freedom to worship under King George III, but there was no Freedom of Religion.

    Most of America is in a State of Denial, that we are about to be under a Tyrannt King. Course, when it happens, there will be an abundance of believers then. Sort of like Pearl, Sort of like 911! By the way, will probably get canned for this but Jesus doesn't send anybody to Hell, it is your own doing. All you had to do is be born and everybody has the same problem an the same need of that problem to be dealt with by the only one who can deal with it. Nothing unkind or unloving about that, it is just the truth! To hear good news that there is a way to avoid going there is telling truth in Love. Giving me Freedom of Worship and not Freedom of Religion is what is control is all about.

    Boze
    If we lose freedom here, there's no place to escape to, this is the last stand on earth." Ronald Reagan, "The time for Choosing" October 1964

  11. Quote Originally Posted by fuhr52 View Post
    Incrementally the progressives have been changing the USA for years, looks like they are still on track. One day it will all changed and some of us will be saying "how did that happen".
    What do you mean "One Day"??? I look around now and wonder
    You can have peace. Or you can have freedom. Don't ever count on having both at once.
    Robert A. Heinlein

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Supreme court case pending???
    By festus in forum Politics and News
    Replies: 109
    Last Post: 01-25-2010, 08:03 PM
  2. E-mail I received concerning Orly Taitz
    By festus in forum Politics and News
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 01-18-2010, 05:02 PM
  3. Is Obama A Racist?
    By Tea For One in forum Politics and News
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 09-26-2009, 01:51 PM
  4. Wikipedia says Obama born in Kenya
    By festus in forum Politics and News
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 08-05-2009, 12:17 AM
  5. Don’t Believe Obama!
    By festus in forum Politics and News
    Replies: 32
    Last Post: 09-16-2008, 03:18 AM

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Quantcast