- Joined
- May 7, 2010
- Messages
- 5,095
- Reaction score
- 1,544
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
The change in language was barely noticeable to the average citizen but political observers are raising red flags at the use of a new term "freedom of worship" by President Obama and Secretary Clinton as a replacement for the term freedom of religion. This shift happened between the President's speech in Cairo where he showcased America's freedom of religion and his appearance in November at a memorial for the victims of Fort Hood, where he specifically used the term "freedom of worship." From that point on, it has become the term of choice for the president and Clinton.
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."
I'm not seeing a real point to this.
Who ****ing cares? It sounds like one of the more pointless gripes I've seen today.It's a change in rhetoric is all. Freedom of religion has built into it freedom of worship, it's part of religion. But so are other religious type things such as expression which is also covered in freedom of religion. Freedom of worship is a subset of the greater freedom of religion. Though I do not think there is anything Obama can really do about it, even if he uses Freedom of worship over Freedom of religion.
@ Demon of Light -- The way we parse language is incredible. And the credence we give those who go over the top is amazing. She must have been "thought-short" for her article, as I think that author was crazy. The right to worship includes everything she lists.
Who ****ing cares? It sounds like one of the more pointless gripes I've seen today.
Ok, how does this "re-frame the discussion"?That is exactly how you are supposed to see it. Wordsmiths and ad agencies know full well the impact of a subtle change in language. The subtlety of it is exactly what makes it so effective. Most average people will not even notice the change or recognize its significance and most intelligent individuals are not impacted by the change and thus believe it will have no impact.
However, a subtle change in language can completely reframe the discussion.
@ Demon of Light -- The way we parse language is incredible. And the credence we give those who go over the top is amazing. She must have been "thought-short" for her article, as I think that author was crazy. The right to worship includes everything she lists.
Jews do not have a Constitutional right to keep kosher. Muslims do not have a Constitutional right to wear veils and headscarves. Quakers do not have a Constitutional right to draft exemption. .
See also Draper v. Logan County Public Library, No. 1:02CV-13-R (W.D. Ky. Aug. 29, 2003) (public library could not prohibit employee from wearing a necklace with a cross; such unobtrusive displays of religious adherence could not be interpreted by a reasonable observer as government endorsement of religion)
EEOC Informal Discussion Letter
I seem to remember a lawsuit about whether or not Christians had a right to wear a cross. This is all I could find about the decision:
It would be a hard sell to say that Christians can wear a cross, but you can ban Muslim headscarves.
I seem to remember a lawsuit about whether or not Christians had a right to wear a cross. This is all I could find about the decision:
It would be a hard sell to say that Christians can wear a cross, but you can ban Muslim headscarves.
It is a subtle change with far-reaching consequences, but it is also a necessary distinction. There is no "freedom of religion" in US law, only a Constitutional prohibition on the establishment of a State religion and on discrimination under the law based on religion.
Jews do not have a Constitutional right to keep kosher. Muslims do not have a Constitutional right to wear veils and headscarves. Quakers do not have a Constitutional right to draft exemption. We allow those freedoms because we respect the individuals' freedom of conscience, but in the unlikely event that national security or the general welfare requires their suspension, that suspension is legitimately Constitutional. No religion can be allowed to harm society under the protection of "freedom of religion" alone. They must appeal to other Constitutional rights.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?