Politicians use their words strategically and intentionally (at least when they think the mic is on). And that’s got a lot of people worried about a recent trend in the language being used by the Obama Administration regarding our freedom of religion.
It seems that Obama and co. would much rather refer to your Constitutional right to freedom of religion as simply your right to “worship.”
“Freedom of worship” first appeared in President Obama’s November remarks at the memorial service for the victims of the Fort Hood shooting. Days later, he referred to worship rather than religion in speeches in Japan and China.
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton echoed the shift in language. In a December speech at Georgetown University, she used “freedom of worship” three times but “freedom of religion” not at all. While addressing senators in January, she referred to “freedom of worship” four times and “freedom of religion” once when quoting an earlier Obama speech. [source]
Although it may seem reasonable to think otherwise, the choice of words is no semantic coincidence. And it is no insignificance.
It represents an organized campaign to redefine and muddle our religious freedoms as popularly understood in the cultural narrative. And it reflects the Administration’s disdain and lack of respect for religion.
Our freedom of religion is not just a freedom to worship - but the freedom to practice.
See, practicing a religion is not just something we do in a worship service on Sunday. It’s not a string of trivial ceremonies we do out of respect for our culture or family tradition. It’s not something that is (reasonably) done half-way. It’s something that permeates every aspect of our lives. It effects how we run our businesses, hospitals, charities and organizations. It effects what we will and will not do in our employment. It effects our local communities, civil laws and political positions. It effects what we say, what we buy, what kinds of behavior are acceptable and healthy, how our children are educated and how we engage in the public debate to control all of these things. It effects everything.
The idea that we can separate the role our religion plays in all of these things is ignorant nonsense. Yet, that is precisely what Obama and his ilk expect you to do.
Many people at this point will disagree with me and insist on a “separation of Church and State.” First, these people have a fundamental misunderstanding of what is meant by the “separation of Church and State.” Second, every communal or collective aspect of society involves competing interests. My interests (religiously motivated or not) are just as valid as anybody else’s. It’s illogical absurdity that a point of view backed up by thousands of years of reasoned wisdom is confined to private “worship” and unwelcome at the public table, but the drivel of a malformed conscience fueled by self-absorption and a sensationalist media is just one of the many wonderfully diverse inputs.
Anyway, Chuck Colson sums up the latest hooey in a new video:
Comments
Post a Comment
Right again, and absolutely, but you always are. If our religion does not inform every decision and action, it is merely culure, like choice of food or music.
I never trusted J.F. Kennedy, after he declared that his Cathoilc faith would never impinge on his actions as President.
Sorry about typos “culure” (culture) and “Cathoilc” (Catholic). Old computer, sticky keyboard.
So, so true. Genuine faith impacts every aspect of the believer’s life and cannot and will not be relegated to a building on a Sunday morning.
The great deception that Obama and his ilk cannot grasp is that atheism is a belief system in its own right. It effects how its adherents run their businesses, hospitals, charities and organizations. It effects what they will and will not do in their employment. It has its own rituals and object of worship (the self). Many of its adherents worship at the altar of Mammon. And so the language of Obama and Clinton, and those they serve, will always be carefully worded to alienate and marginalise those of Christian faith whilst wholly ignoring the “freedom of worship” enjoyed by atheists. Ultimately, we all worship someone or something.
‘Worship’ is used by Obama, probably not to undermine religious “practice” but instead emphasize that ‘freedom of worship’ is a civil liberty for the individual citezen to partake in, or not.
‘Freedom of religion’ would imply that religion’s have freedom to act collectively, as in: lobbying the government; campaigning in the media, etc. Which indubitably they do, but if a statesperson used language which could be interpretted as defending such actions it would contradict secularity.
The change in language is about the state protecting the right of the individual, not collective organisations. Your founding fathers were religious but they were also secularists because when the state is involved in organising ‘religious practice’ it’s called theocracy - like Iran - it’s undemocratic, and it’s regressive.
Great blog, sir Matthew.
One thing: If you are a Catholic who truly practices the one true Faith - which you do or at least try to - then your “interests” are not “just as valid as anybody else’s”; they are MORE valid since they are the interests of God and His Church.
Also, our defense of practicing the one true religion is not rooted in a temporal right given to us by the State - so-called “religious liberty”. The freedom to be Catholic is a right given to us by God to fulfill our duty to the Almighty. It is the duty of the State to protect the interests of the Catholic Church and Her members regardless if it is the State’s religion or not. Regardless of any temporal law, no one has the RIGHT to practice a false religion, as it is rightfully stated: “Error has no rights.” However, we at times practice religious TOLERANCE for the common good and as a means to evangelize the lost, but we would [or should] not ever consider it a right but a merciful concession.
“We must repeat with the utmost energy in these times of social and intellectual anarchy when everyone takes it upon himself to teach as a teacher and lawmaker: the City cannot be built otherwise than as God has built it; society cannot be setup unless the Church lays the foundation and supervises the work; no, civilization is not something yet to be found, nor is the New City to be built on hazy notions; it has been in existence and still is: it is Christian civilization, it is the Catholic City. It has only to be set up and restored continually against the unremitting attacks of insane dreamers, rebels, and miscreants. OMNIA INSTAURARE IN CHRISTO. (To restore all things in Christ.) Indeed, the true friends of the people are neither revolutionaries, nor innovators, they are traditionalists.” – Pope St. Pius X
T
Excellent points, Kevin! Thanks for sharing! And actually when I read the post back earlier today, I was wishing I had put a caveat on the “just as valid” part - as you picked up on. Strictly democratically speaking, each point of view is just as valid, but, as you noted, a position based in truth is ultimately and always more valid than one based in error.
All the people who voted for this administration are now reaping the fruits of what have been sown. Unfortunaely they went into the voting booth blindly…and the rest of us are now paying the piper??
Lord have Mercy, Lord have Mercy, Lord have Mercy.
Kevin and Matthew,
Be careful in your dismissal of the “just as valid” language.
As laid out by Vatican II, the Catholic Church exists entirely within the Will of God; however, other faiths or religions may also exist within the Will of God.
Keep in mind that ecumenism goes two ways. As Catholics, we hope to evangelize various brothers and sisters who may be practicing other faiths. We must also remember, though, that these other faiths may have something to offer us - even from a Truth-based perspective, we may not be the only VALID show in town. There is much that we Catholics can learn from other people and the way that they talk to God and listen to His voice.
Also, I forgot to commend you, Matt, on an acute analysis of rhetoric. Awesome insight.
Dear d.h.
It’s just not possible that religions opposed to Christianity, which deny His Divinity can have anything to offer, by way of belief, to Christians. We may admire some of their practices e.g. fasting, but any belief contrary to the Gospel is just plain mistaken
Christopher,
I agree that there are some issues which are black-and-white to a practicing Catholic. But, as a Catholic, I’ve learned a lot about prayer from non-Catholics and non-Christians. I’ve learned about God’s yearning for us. I’ve learned that this God of nations, God of history, God of my Church walks and talks with *me* every day. (This is a concept that I’ve been taught since childhood, but only recently have begun to appreciate.)
The tenets of our Faith define our Faith.
But some of the practices of our Faith (prayer, service, etc.), which help breathe life into our beliefs can very much be strengthened by other people of other beliefs.
Sorry for the long-windedness, but that is kind of what I was getting at when talking about the “validity” of other Faiths. As a Catholic (and a childish, fledgling one at that), I am increasingly trying to appreciate the black-and-white truths of my Faith (and the validity of those truths), but I also have to give a tip-of-the-hat to other denominations/faiths/etc. when it comes to certain practices and works.
God bless!
Wow! Matthew Warner I think this is the best post I’ve read from you yet.
...And as Fr. Mitch Pacwa loves to say, “‘Separation of Church and State’ was in the Soviet Constitution not in the U.S.”
April 2009 in Ankara, Obama said that “freedom of religion and expression lead to a strong and vibrant civil society that only strengthens the state.”
Oh my, scary stuff.
In this hypothetical United Catholic States of America, where our laws are conformed to Roman Catholic teachings, will other Christians and those who are not Christians of any kind be nonpersons, or just second- or third-class citizens?
Nobody’s saying that, BAW. That’s “straw man”.
May I offer this?
http://mediamatters.org/blog/201007190032
Brian - thanks for the article. I think that’s a pretty good stretch though. I’m not defending Beck’s position (haven’t heard it), just mine. But the shift in words here has different meaning depending on the time and context. And I think Obama and his administration’s shift in rhetoric was calculated and meaningful in today’s context and in light of his agenda.
It’s one thing to say that the Soviet’s didn’t allow freedom to worship God. It’s another to continually use “freedom to worship” in place of “freedom of religion” when in the context of paraphrasing our country’s founding documents. There also wasn’t much debate back then on whether or not a doctor could lose their job or a hospital could be denied funds for refusing to abort a baby. So perhaps there wasn’t as much of a need for this kind of sensitivity.
The point here is not to say that there is a conspiracy theory against religion. It’s to point out that there is a difference in the words used and, here, a strategy and purpose. And we need to be sensitive to it. And if people have been careless swapping out the two words in the past, maybe it’s time we weren’t so careless. The distinction is becoming more important.
This is the third time I’m typing my comment here. The form keeps “flicking out” on me, and all my text is lost. I’ll keep it really short this time.
I read this article because it reminded me of something that happened to someone I love very much. Our state statutes say that psych patients have the right to “worship” while they are in the psych hospital, even if they’re there involuntarily. When a loved one of mine was in the hospital, she was not allowed to attend Mass in the hospital lobby, even on Easter Sunday. I filed a grievance. The only response I got was a voice mail message from a state official claiming that psych patients have the right to “religious counsel in the ward”.
That’s not what the statutes say, though. The statute says, “worship”. For Catholics, “worship” means Mass.
This article kind of reminded me of that same subtle shift of language.
When I told BAW that she or he was using a “straw man” argument, I mean that nobody on the NCR website here was suggesting that Catholics are better than others. The Media Matters website seems to have some people who DO feel that way. Not sure where those people are coming from, but perhaps they’re not really Catholic OR Christian.
Matthew, I love your comment. Thanks.
God bless.
By the way, I love the Media Matters website. Thanks for that link. I’m very interested in media distortion and scapegoating. I am a community activist on behalf of folks who have psychiatric labels. I’m shocked and disgusted by drug company influence on the media.
Thanks Diana!
Just a word of caution - Media Matters is an EXTREME far left organization. Very biased and funded by people with their own personal agendas very opposed to Catholic teaching.
Diana been there (re: NCR web blink) solution is: write long comments in word or other software then copy clip. At least it works for me.
Ah, yes, thanks, Tom. Good idea. I thought I was in too big a hurry to do it that way. As usual, haste makes waste.
Thanks, Matthew. All I saw was silly name-calling in the comments. Amazing! It’s hard to even tell what they’re trying to say. I enjoy reading well-written articles, even when I don’t agree with them. Left or right can both be pretty bad. Right tends to be pro-life, though, which I love.
I think there’s really no party or political agenda which is completely in accord with Catholic teaching. We have to just go to the Catechism and Scripture and the Magisterium to know for sure.
God bless.
I would like for Christopher Wright to go up on J.F.Kennedy’s speeches that he gave while he was Running for the presidency and after he became president! He stated that He intended to lead the country and that he didn’t see anything that leading the Presidency of the USA that would deem him incapable of becoming President of the USA. He also stated that if he ever saw that there was a situation that would cause a rift between his being a Catholic or being a president that he would give up the Presidency!
How easy politicians can fool us, I would have not notice the difference of worship and religion until I listened M. Warner. Thanks for the speech.
Post a Comment
By submitting this form, you give The National Catholic Register permission to publish this comment. Comments will be published at our discretion, and may be edited for clarity and length. For best formatting, please limit your response to one paragraph and don't hit "enter" to force line breaks.