Every now and then I hear some point that I find mildly interesting, and I file it away in the back of my mind. But when the point comes up twice in one week—then I sit up straight and maybe, if I’ve got the time, write a blog post about it.
In this case the point was the Obama administration’s substitution of “Freedom of Worship” for “Freedom of Religion”. A quick google search showed that I was not the only one aware of the change ; and since the first article out there described the possible implications of the move a lot better than I could, without further ado . . .
http://www.catholic.org/national/national_story.php?id=37390&page=1
It’s worth noting that the story has been picked up not only by Catholic publications like First Things (http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2010/02/why-ldquofreedom-of-worshiprdquo-is-not-enough) and religious ones like Christianity Today (http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2010/july/2.12.html) but also by liberal news outlets like the Washington Post (http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/undergod/2010/02/whats_the_difference_between_freedom_of_religion_and_freedom_of_worship.html).
Given the other headlines in the news today, this topic gains immediacy.
While some sources ruminated on whether the change in phraseology indicated a policy change, others took such an indication for granted. Of course, it indicates a change–and, of course, the change is huge in political/legal consequences: no homeschool, no public expression of faith (not just in language, but *any* expression, even in dress), and certainly, no freedom of conscience. The policy change accomplishes what the politics of secularism has worked for: it drives religion underground.
The FIRST inarguable indication of major policy shift always comes in language. Civil rights legislation followed a change from “colored” and “Negro” to “black”; look at all the language changes that occurred with feminism (too numerous to count); and abortion can become a *right* if we change the language to “pro-*choice*”.
The change of “freedom of religion” to “freedom of worship” is loaded with meaning. It gives legitimacy to suppression.
It does indeed cause one to sit up and take notice, Sophia.
@Dena,
Yes, the language goes first. I’m reminded of one of my professor’s comments on the title “Mary, the Mother of Christ.” “We don’t say that, not because it isn’t true, but because it implies something that the orthodox would never want to imply!” (I.e., that she is not the Mother of God.)
And speaking of language, Sophia–wonder what language some of weird comments we get so often are using. One of those mysteries we’ll never understand, I guess….
😉