Freedom of Religion vs Freedom of Worship
23. Jul, 2010 
4 Comments
The other night, a good friend of mine pointed out what he viewed as a an intentional change of vocabulary by the current administration, substituting the words “freedom of worship” in place of “freedom of religion.” The implication was that this was an effort to narrow the definition and application of the word religion to only that private exercise of devotion between a person and their God and thereby minimize the role of religion as it relates to society. I filed that away and then today and article showed up on Crosswalk entitled “Freedom of Religion is More Than Freedom to Worship” by Tony Bean. Mr. Bean (I can not help laughing when I say that!) is a talk show host (who isn’t?) and the Vice-President for Student Services and the Director of the Christian Worldview Center at North Greenville College in Tigerville, SC. He succinctly expresses the problem with the semantical change:
“Is it really a big deal that the President and members of his administration have migrated from freedom of religion to freedom of worship? Yes, it really is a big deal because, as stated at the beginning of this article, words mean things. The freedom to worship is an exclusive term that relates only to the way people express their relationship with God inside the walls of the church. Freedom of religion carries the idea of religious expression beyond the walls of the church into the public arena.”
And the consequences of this change of meaning?
By shifting from freedom of religion to freedom of worship, the administration would be laying the groundwork for censuring religious thought and expression in the public square while sanctioning worship as long as that look remains tucked away from public view within the confines of the church.
I have to admit that I’m a bit of a skeptic here. I know the tendency of both the left and the right to look for ways to twist each others words and ascribe motives to each other that may or may not exist. I did a bit of research by googling the words “freedom to worship” along with the names of Republican leaders:
Today, while religion is suppressed in perhaps one third of the world, we Americans are free to worship the Almighty as we choose.” – Reagan
“I love America because you can join Cub Scouts if you want to. You have a right to worship as you please. If you have the ability, you can try to be anything you want to be. And I also like America because we have about 200 flavors of ice cream.” Well, truth through the eyes of a child: freedom of association, freedom of worship, freedom of hope and opportunity, and the pursuit of happiness — in this case, choosing among 200 flavors of ice cream — that’s America, everyone with his or her vision of the American promise.” – Reagan at the ’88 GOP convention
In George H.W. Bush’s first state of the Union address he declared:
“And around the globe, we must continue to be freedom’s best friend. And we must stand firm for self-determination and democracy in Central America, including in Nicaragua. It is my strongly held conviction that when people are given the chance they inevitably will choose a free press, freedom of worship, and certifiably free and fair elections.”
Dwight Eisenhower said:
“Kinship among nations is not determined in such measurements as proximity of size and age. Rather we should turn to those inner things — call them what you will — I mean those intangibles that are the real treasures free men possess. To preserve his freedom of worship, his equality before law, his liberty to speak and act as he sees fit, subject only to provisions that he trespass not upon similar rights of others — a Londoner will fight. So will a citizen of Abilene.”
Abraham Lincoln used the words interchangeably as did Thomas Jefferson:
“Among the most inestimable of our blessings, also, is that… of liberty to worship our Creator in the way we think most agreeable to His will; a liberty deemed in other countries incompatible with good government and yet proved by our experience to be its best support.” –Thomas Jefferson: Reply to John Thomas et al., 1807. ME 16:291 (These words were also quoted in a speech by George Bush)
“The constitutional freedom of religion [is] the most inalienable and sacred of all human rights.” –Thomas Jefferson: Virginia Board of Visitors Minutes, 1819. ME 19:416
I think the jury is still out on whether this is a calculated move by the current administration. But, for a moment, let’s consider the possibility that Mr. Bean (heh heh) is right. What if his thought that “the government can grant me the freedom to worship but without freedom of religion that same government can prohibit me from sharing my faith with my neighbor.” became the actual experience of Americans?
Consider the following:
“So they called them and charged them not to speak or teach at all in the name of Jesus. But Peter and John answered them, ‘Whether it is right in the sight of God to listen to you rather than to God, you must judge, for we cannot but speak of what we have seen and heard.’ ” (Acts 4:18-20 ESV)
“ ‘We strictly charged you not to teach in this name, yet here you have filled Jerusalem with your teaching, and you intend to bring this man’s blood upon us.’ But Peter and the apostles answered, ‘We must obey God rather than men.’ “ (Acts 5:28-29 ESV)
“…and when they had called in the apostles, they beat them and charged them not to speak in the name of Jesus, and let them go. Then they left the presence of the council, rejoicing that they were counted worthy to suffer dishonor for the name. And every day, in the temple and from house to house, they did not cease teaching and preaching Jesus as the Christ.”
(Acts 5:40-42 ESV)
There’s a good reason why Tertullian noted that, “the blood of the martyrs is the seed of the Church.” If our freedom of religion was curtailed to outlaw proselytizing, would the real church stand up? I think it would. Glen Beck may be right or wrong (he strikes me as a bit of a demagogue) but the church being prophetic and powerful in the day of persecution? That’s Bible baby.
In the meantime, check out ways you can help and pray for those denied the freedom of religion that we hold dear:
Jeff,
Thank you for the thought provoking article. Even though I think the use of the words was total unintentional on the part of the elected and historical leaders of our government. The semantics does play a large part.
There are several aspects that I would like to bring up. With due appologies to several demagogs, Glen Beck, Charles Manson, and "Rev" Jim Jones (of Guyana). Freedom of religion would grant to some the right to practices I find reprehensable. Rastafarianism and devil worship are two that I find objectionable. I am not saying that people should be restricted in their worship but these and many other "religions" follow practices that are not reasonable and acceptable. I would not want to grant them the rights to preform acts in the name of religion that they do. Freedoms are inclusive and not restrictive.
Ben,
Well put. Wouldn't you agree that all of our rights are contingent upon law being upheld? It's the old "you can't yell 'Fire!'" in a crowded theater under the guise of freedom of speech. Religions that use illegal substances or perpetuate violence or sexual abuse against others do not enjoy the freedom to "worship" as they please nor should they. On the other hand – as was stated in the blog – what if witnessing to others becomes illegal? In Michigan, Christians handing out tracts (quietly) to Muslims leaving a festival were arrested and then informed they were not allowed to be within 300 yards of the site. Slippery slope!
I think there is a difference between the interchangeable use of the two phrases by others and the intentional use of them side by side, indicating a change in the phrase to be used. I am concerned, yes.
Of course, the Church goes through persecution and stands strong for the truth, no matter the consequences. However, where there is the ability to speak and vote to stem such things, we should do so as well. Fortunately, the USA is not under the Roman government of the Early Church or many oppressive government systems existing today.
BTW, I went to your hyperlink on "demagogue" and saw that it can be a positive thing (see 2nd definition) :)
Blessings!
Candidate Barack Obama, parroting his friend Deval Patrick, spoke of the power of words to carry ideas. After his primary opponent, Hillary Clinton, claimed that all he had to offer was words, Obama quoted the Declaration of Independence. "We holds these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal …" He paused and cocked his head to one side. "Just words. These are just words," he said, clearly and sarcastically mocking his accuser.
Just words.
There was once a time when to be a "discriminating" person meant you were a person of good judgment, of fine taste. Today, to discriminate implies racial bias. Right out of the gate following the Roe v. Wade decision, pro-abortionists took the so-called "high ground" on the field of battle with the label "pro-choice." That label carried the day for three decades. The tide has now begun to turn, but consider the power of the "pro-choice" idea, and how many millions of unborn have been slaughtered under that banner.
Do I think the subtle shift from "freedom of religion" to "freedom of worship" is intentional? Yes, I do. Cass Sunstein, the current Administrator (Czar) of the federal Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, penned a book titled "Nudge." He writes of the role of governments and businesses to practice "libertarian paternalism" or the practice of "nudging the citizenry" in the right direction.
Sunstein also speaks of "choice architecture" which is governments and business framing the choices for everyday people to help guide them toward a desired goal. It is a subtle form of manipulation.
How many people think the phrase "separation of church and state" is found in the Constitution? It isn't.
Joseph Goebells, Hitler's Minister of Propaganda, is credited with coining the idea of “If you repeat a lie often enough, it becomes the truth.” Changing language eventually changes culture. I am a skeptic, too. I am skeptical of everything our national government does. Notice I used the word national and not the word federal? Hmmm …