Are We Really Losing Our Freedom of Religion?

As follows the current trend of “political ping-pong,” as I like to call it- our politicians and governmental bodies condemning each other’s ideologies and bouncing the blame from one side of the political arena to the next- I look to an article titled, "Obama Moves Away From 'Freedom of Religion' Toward 'Freedom of Worship'," that offers commentary on our President by using the rhetoric that so prominently pollutes the political dialogue in this country. This article, written by Randy Sly, discusses a change in the President’s (and Secretary Clinton’s) language that brings concern to the right and some within the religious community. As Sly states, “the change in language [is] 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.” He continues to discuss how this is a move to limit and restrict the freedoms that come with “freedom of religion” that won’t be protected with “freedom of worship”. He argues that, “any person of faith knows that religious exercise is about a lot more than freedom of worship” and with this language, none of these acts (Such as religious Muslim women wearing headscarves or religious Quakers not being able to go to war) would be protected.

Although, Sly disagrees with the president’s language, it is expressed in a manner that doesn’t demonize him outright but instead looks at the issue for what it is- a shift in language, that (as I see it) otherwise may have no effect on our government. In fact, I find this linguistic shift so small that many won’t even pick-up on it or find it to be of acute significance. In essence, his approach is far more delicate than many of the heavy-handed commentaries, I’ve encountered thus far. I do agree that if brought to popularity, this shift could perhaps have an effect on how we Americans look at and think about religion in this nation, but I don’t believe it was intended to take away from our personal religious right in any way.

I believe this article forms an opinion out of rhetoric that appeals to those that are right-leaning. Using what many political analysts refer to as “(political) scare tactics,” Sly aims to persuade those of the importance of this minute linguistic shift by claiming that Obama’s shift in language is an attack on our religious freedom, as we know it. The way he fell short in bringing me to believe in this reasoning is that he relies too heavily on the “fright capacity” of the reader. By this I mean that the person reading has to have the potential and capacity to be frightened by there being such a small shift in language. I, being a religious young man, have confidence that this is not an attack on my religious freedom, and instead displays a hyper-sensitivity that is ever-popular in the political realm today.