Free Worship or Free Religion

John R. Houk
© July 2, 2010

Chuck Colson was listening to a Hillary Clinton Secretary of State speech. Hillary used a phrase in that speech that caught Colson’s attention: “Freedom of Worship.”

Colson believes the phrase is Orwellian “Newspeak” by obfuscating the word “Worship”. As Colson points out there is a vast difference between freedom of Worship and Freedom of Religion. The first is to keep your religious beliefs private and the later is to freely practice your faith openly including sharing or espousing the high principles of your faith without worry of retribution.

If one is forced to keep their religious thoughts/beliefs to themselves, one cannot say something affirming morality or disdaining publicly atheism or someone else’s anti-religion opinion. The concept of Freedom of Worship is the European concept of Freedom. This is to say one has Freedom of Speech as long as it does not offend someone. The example of European Freedom is the plight of Geert Wilders who is facing prosecution for hate-speech. His offense was speaking the truth about Islam. European Leftists have thrown people in jail for openly sharing their faith with Muslims or homosexuals. People have been prosecuted in Europe for saying homosexuality is a sin.

This is the path of Freedom of Worship instead if Freedom of Religion. Chuck says it better than I. Chuck has about a four minute he calls the Two Minute Warning in which he articulates this much better than I.

JRH 7/2/10
***************************
Chuck Colson Email Elert
From Manhattan Declaration
Sent: July 2, 2010 9:32:55 AM

This is an urgent alert.


You need to know about what may be one of the gravest, most insidious threats to religious freedom I've seen in my lifetime: What may be an attempt, at the very highest levels of government, to RE-DEFINE the very meaning of religious freedom, from "free exercise" to merely private worship.


If what Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said in a speech at Georgetown University reflects a new direction in government policy, then mark my words, our religious liberties are in peril.

Please, click on the link below to see my "Two Minute Warning" video commentary at the Manhattan Declaration website to see exactly what I'm talking about.


Study carefully the play on words; words matter.


I urge you: Watch this video, share it with friends. Blog about it. Write a letter to the editor of your newspaper - point out what is going on. It's time to expose this outrageous and dangerous assault on religious freedom.


We cannot be asleep at our posts while we still have the freedom to speak out.


Chuck Colson

++++++++++++++++++++++++

From the “Watch this video” link


Two-Minute Warning
Freedom of Worship: an anorexic description of our rights

By Chuck Colson
Published Date: June 30, 2010
Colson Center

Chuck Colson is sounding the alarm: The government—at the highest levels—may be attempting to redefine the very meaning of religious freedom. If what Secretary of State Hilary Clinton said in a recent speech reflects a new direction in government policy, it seems the aim is clear: To kick faith out of the public square, to send Christians into the closet.



+++++++++++++++++++++++++++
'Freedom of Worship' Worries: New religious freedom rhetoric within the Obama administration draws concern.

By Sarah Eekhoff Zylstra
July 02, 2010
Manhattan Declaration
Originally posted: Christianity Today

"Freedom of worship" has recently replaced the phrase "freedom of religion" in public pronouncements from the Obama administration. Experts are concerned that the new rhetoric may signal a policy change.

"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.

The U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom noted the shift in its 2010 annual report. "This change in phraseology could well be viewed by human rights defenders and officials in other countries as having concrete policy implications," the report said.

Freedom of worship means the right to pray within the confines of a place of worship or to privately believe, said Nina Shea, director of the Center for Religious Freedom and member of the commission. "It excludes the right to raise your children in your faith; the right to have religious literature; the right to meet with co-religionists; the right to raise funds; the right to appoint or elect your religious leaders, and to carry out charitable activities, to evangelize, [and] to have religious education or seminary training."

The State Department does acknowledge that worship is just one component of religion, said spokesperson Andy Laine. "However, the terms 'freedom of religion' and 'freedom of worship' have often been used interchangeably through U.S. history, and policymakers in this administration will sometimes do likewise."

While Obama's administration may simply be using different words to say the same thing, the timing of the change is worrisome, said Thomas Farr, religion professor at Georgetown University. Obama just recently announced an ambassador for international religious freedom (Suzan Johnson Cook), but the position has been demoted within the State Department.

"It puts what otherwise might have been passed off as a rhetorical shift under the spotlight a little more," Farr said.

The softened message is probably meant for the Muslim world, said Carl Esbeck, professor of law at the University of Missouri. Obama, seeking to repair relations fractured by 9/11, is telling Islamic countries that America is not interfering with their internal matters, he said.

As with all diplomatic decisions, the move is a gain and a loss, Esbeck said. Other countries may interpret the change as a sign that America is backing down from championing a robust, expansive view of religious freedom, which if true would be a loss, he said.

But the State Department has traditionally ignored religion's impact on foreign affairs, he said. "The Obama administration seems, at least in part, to get that a large part of successful foreign relations is taking religion into account."

If Obama is telling the State Department to be religiously sensitive, that's a gain, Esbeck said.

Not everyone agrees.

"If [Obama is changing language to signal sensitivity], it is terribly shortsighted and self-defeating," Farr said. "It will not work, and it will simply make the situation more difficult … to engage."

Shea said the danger is greater than a mere backfiring. "I'm very fearful that by building bridges, we're actually stepping away from this fundamental principle of religious freedom. … It is so critical for Western, especially American, leaders to articulate strong defense for religious freedom and explain what that means and how it undergirds our entire civilization."
______________________
Free Worship or Free Religion
John R. Houk
© July 2, 2010
___________________
About Manhattan Declaration

___________________
The Chuck Colson For Christian World View About Page
Copyright © 2010 Colson Center. All Rights Reserved.