Freedom of religion or freedom to worship?

  It is not very often that I find myself in agreement with the Catholic church– and I say that having been raised Catholic and attending Catholic school for eight years, I find it deplorable and unforgivable what the Catholic church allowed to happen (and with their inaction on the matter in a way condoned) to young children, I have absolutely no use for the Catholic church whatsoever– and when I started reading this article I was not sure that I agreed with the Catholic church on this either– but as I continued to read the article I realized that this article does raise an interesting point.

  It seems as if somewhere along the way Barack Obama started talking about America’s freedom to worship instead of America’s freedom of religion. When I first started reading the article I wasn’t convinced there was much of a difference other than semantics, but there is a major difference.

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

   Because most people worship in a church, synagogue, mosque, etc, this change of terms  may actually limit that person to worship in their chosen house of worship, whereas the freedom of religion has a more broad interpretation– as can be seen in the above quote. A freedom to worship might not allow a person to display religious symbols in a public location, even if that location is their own yard– whereas the freedom of religion would allow me to publically display my faith anywhere I thought fit to do so.

   We have seen this happening over the years at Christmas and one has to wonder if this semantics game that the Obama regime is playing is actually designed to limit the freedom of religion even further by rebranding it a freedom to worship, thereby restricting it to those holy buildings in which others who do not have the same beliefs will not be “tormented”with the prospect of actually seeing someone worshipping God.

  A professor at the University of Missouri– Carl Esbeck– has defended the regime’s “softened message” when he stated:

The softened message is probably meant for the Muslim world, said. Obama, seeking to repair relations fractured by 9/11, is telling Islamic countries that America is not interfering with their internal matters.

  If this is the case there seems to be a double standard at play here. In order to avoid interfering in Muslims’ “internal matters” the Obama regime is interfering in the “internal matters” of other religions.

  The constitution is very clear on this issue. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. It is that second part of the first amendment– prohibiting the free exercise thereof– that many on the left have conveniently forgotten exists.

  While public displays of religion are being systematically deemed unconstitutional, these courts seem to be neglecting the clause which guarantees the free exercise of religion; certainly I should be allowed to pray openly in public if I saw fit to do so– for the court to say otherwise would be restricting my right to the free exercise of my religion. Yet that is exactly what has been happening in this country for years.

   But by changing the argument from the “freedom of religion” to the “freedom to worship” Barack Obama may be taking the next step in the ongoing effort to shut down all religious activities that take place outside of a house of worship. This is clearly at odds with the constitution.

  While this little change in terms seems innocent on the surface, when you look deeper into what is behind it you can easily come to the conclusion that this is not as innocent as it seems. Barack Obama has actually changed the accepted description of one of the most fundamental rights guaranteed in the constitution and we can rest assured that there is an ulterior motive behind it.