Freedom of Worship vs. Freedom of Religion

[bzmomo7]

My sil told me last night of listening to a radio broadcast that was talking about a "new trend" towards replacing our "Freedom of Religion" with the phrase "Freedom of Worship". I had not heard about that and so I googled it. Sure enough, it is something they have been talking about for some months, but it appears only recently that many Christian groups, Catholics and others are finally taking notice. Here is a secular article dated for February that sums it up pretty well.
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/undergod/2010/02/whats_the_difference_between_freedom_of_religion_and_freedom_of_worship.html

There are other religious sources and such if you google the phrase. I thought that this was rather sneaky of the opposition. They are certainly clever, I'll give them that!

[HappyChristian]

Yes, it is a term that BO is constantly throwing around. And one, if Americans can be convinced that it is what the 1st amendment is saying, will limit us to worship in the church - no soulwinning outside the church. Kinda like in Communist countries now...

Redefining our Consitution has been going on for so many years - from the White House to the court house. And we the people have just let it slide. It's a tragedy and a shame what we've allowed to happen to this country that God gave us!

[John81]

That's the goal LuAnne! They want to confine Christianity to the inside of a church. Anything to silence Christians.

[bzmomo7]

Yes, it is a term that BO is constantly throwing around. And one, if Americans can be convinced that it is what the 1st amendment is saying, will limit us to worship in the church - no soulwinning outside the church. Kinda like in Communist countries now...

Redefining our Consitution has been going on for so many years - from the White House to the court house. And we the people have just let it slide. It's a tragedy and a shame what we've allowed to happen to this country that God gave us!

Yes, that is what I was thinking. My son was reading over my shoulder and I pointed out to him how with that interpretation, you could NOT share your faith without facing possible persecution--like in China. That is quite a change, indeed. I tried to pick a secular article because so often people tend to accuse Christians of blowing things out of proportion and such when it comes from a purely Christian source. Alarm bells ought to be sounding to people. The window of time of being able to share the Christian faith abroad freely, could be quickly coming to a close. Sure, we could still witness at our own risk, but our circle of influence will still be much much smaller, so fewer will hear the Truth.

[HappyChristian]

Yes, that is what I was thinking. My son was reading over my shoulder and I pointed out to him how with that interpretation, you could NOT share your faith without facing possible persecution--like in China. That is quite a change, indeed. I tried to pick a secular article because so often people tend to accuse Christians of blowing things out of proportion and such when it comes from a purely Christian source. Alarm bells ought to be sounding to people. The window of time of being able to share the Christian faith abroad freely, could be quickly coming to a close. Sure, we could still witness at our own risk, but our circle of influence will still be much much smaller, so fewer will hear the Truth.

Yep. And the fact that BO uses that term and is so high profile will lend credence to the idea. After all, he was a "Professor of Constitutional Law." In actuality, he was only an instructor (a couple of pegs down from professor) and he wasn't very liked because of his arrogance. Granted, many may think that has nothing to do with it, but it does. Those who are working to redefine our Constitution are quite arrogant and think they know better than our founders.

[manofconviction]

Subtle changes and slight of words are the earmark of this administration (although this has been going on for quite a while) and in many cases people aren't paying attention in detail to what is transpiring until too late. Thanks for pointing this out, I had heard about this a while back. We need to be informed and involved.

[CPR]

People are blowing this out of proportion because it's OBama saying it. I read something awhile back that I wish I saved and I'll try to find again, but this isn't a new phrase. Among the Presidents who used the phrase "freedom of worship" : Bush, Reagan, Roosevelt and I believe it even goes back further than that.

[bzmomo7]

People are blowing this out of proportion because it's OBama saying it. I read something awhile back that I wish I saved and I'll try to find again, but this isn't a new phrase. Among the Presidents who used the phrase "freedom of worship" : Bush, Reagan, Roosevelt and I believe it even goes back further than that.

Let me guess; you prOBably believe that the newspaper source (link in the OP) is completely biased towards conservatism and anti-OBama, too?

[John81]

Let me guess; you prOBably believe that the newspaper source (link in the OP) is completely biased towards conservatism and anti-OBama, too?

You can count on CPR to take a liberal position and deny what's going on in order to support such.

[CPR]

Let me guess; you prOBably believe that the newspaper source (link in the OP) is completely biased towards conservatism and anti-OBama, too?

No, on the contrary I think it's a reliable source.

You can count on CPR to take a liberal position and deny what's going on in order to support such.

Thanks, but I'm more than capable of explaining my position myself. Not to mention what you said is inaccurate. I'm not "liberal" and I'm not sure what I've denied. On the contrary I'm willing to look at everything that is going on and keep an open mind. Not that it matters, but I didn't vote for OBama. However, I don't automatically try to find fault with everything he says.

What I said is true, but I doubt anyone will actually want to address it. Instead you will attack me as a liberal which is fine, I'm used to it. If you do want to actually discuss my comment or try to verify it for yourself I'm open for discussion.

[JerryNumbers]

Our government will find a way to stop our witnessing, expressing our views outside of church, one way or the other, taking our freedom of speech to express ourself outside of church would be one way to do it. Being as the majority of people are not Christian, that would go over good with them.

The next step would be, Christians can vote, yet you cannot vote using your Christians values, and outlaw Christians holding a political office and bar them from being voted in or appointed to offices of judge.

All of this is coming to those who follow Jesus closely, if Christ doesn't return 1st. It want make much difference with those who follow Jesus from afar.

[John81]

I'm not "liberal" and I'm not sure what I've denied. On the contrary I'm willing to look at everything that is going on and keep an open mind. Not that it matters, but I didn't vote for OBama. However, I don't automatically try to find fault with everything he says.

What I said is true, but I doubt anyone will actually want to address it. Instead you will attack me as a liberal which is fine, I'm used to it. If you do want to actually discuss my comment or try to verify it for yourself I'm open for discussion.

How is it you explain the fact you take the liberal position on virtually every topic and subject that comes up? How do you explain being a member of a church which practices liberalism rather than following the Word of God?

If nothing else, the fear of God should prompt each of us to examine ourselves continually by the Word of God; repenting where necessary and making the necessary changes to walk in the Spirit and not the flesh.

What did Christ say of those who think they are His but will find out they are not when it's too late...or what did Christ say about those who are lukewarm...

Scripture says we are to examine ourselves and make sure of our salvation. One means of doing this is examining our views and actions in light of the Word of God.

If we are accepting, making excuses for, tolerating or yoking ourselves to that which is against the Word of God we need to question ourselves as to why we are doing this and why we are not repenting and OBeying the Word of God.

Don't take what I'm posting as an attack upon you because that's not what it is. What I'm posting applies to all of us; myself most assuredly included. I've been saved nearly 29 years now and over those years I've had to allow the Spirit to correct me many times. Even now I don't take anything for granted but check it all by the Word of God. Over the years I've allowed the Spirit to teach me through the Word and transform me with regards to many things, including baptism, women preachers, homosexuality, love, the Bible, church attendance, friends, etc.

During my first couple years as a Christian I so wish someone would have come along and pointed out my unbiblical views and positions. NOBody did, but thankfully the Lord taught me as I began to get into the Word more and a bit later the Lord brought a wonderful Christian friend into my life and then a little later He guided me to a biblically solid pastor and church home.

Don't allow your emotions or personal beliefs or anything else to stand between you and fully following Christ and OBeying His Word.

[HappyChristian]

Actually, John, CPR is right. And pointing out that other POTUS' have used the same terminology as BO is not being liberl - it is actually being fairminded, which is vital to truth, don't you think?

The Roosevelt that said it was Franklin. He said this: "“the freedom of every person to worship God in his own way”.” I don't know what the speech contained, so he could have been explaining the 1st amendment, and I can't find the speech it was in to know if that was all there was to his statement. FDR wasn't a model POTUS, but not knowing what he meant kind of stifles being able to defend or detract from his partial statement.

Reagan said: "Religious intolerance, particularly in the Soviet Union, continues to deprive millions of the freedom to worship as they choose." That was to the UN in 1988, and was not in reference to our Constitution.

He also said: "Perhaps it’s not too much to hope that true change will come to all countries that now deny or hinder the freedom to worship God. And perhaps we’ll see that change comes through the reemergence of faith, through the irresistible power of a religious renewal. For despite all the attempts to extinguish it, the people’s faith burns with a passionate heat; once allowed to breathe free, that faith will burn so brightly it will light the world." This was at the Vatican. Please note, though, that he isn't referencing our Constitutional rights again. But he is actually explaining, a bit, what the 1st amendment was for: to allow for a religious renewal. (again, though, he was not speaking about America)

And again he said: "I know I’ve said this before, but I believe that God put this land between the two great oceans to be found by special people from every corner of the world who had that extra love for freedom that prompted them to leave their homeland and come to this land to make it a brilliant light beam of freedom to the world. It’s our gift to have visions, and I want to share that of a young boy who wrote to me shortly after I took office. In his letter he said, “I love America because you can join Cub Scouts if you want to. You have a right to worship as you please. If you have the ability, you can try to be anything you want to be. And I also like America because we have about 200 flavors of ice cream.” Well, truth through the eyes of a child: freedom of association, freedom of worship, freedom of hope and opportunity, and the pursuit of happiness — in this case, choosing among 200 flavors of ice cream — that’s America, everyone with his or her vision of the American promise." Please note: his terminology was being referenced as being through the eyes of a child. Not the meaning of the 1st amendment.

There is no record, that I can find, of Dubya using that terminology. Doesn't mean he didn't. I just can't find it.

As to the difference: BO has disdain for our Constitution. He is in the process of redefining it. He has so far been successful in stomping on the 10th amendment, at least, and shows no sign of letting up. I, personally, do not think his wording is a mistake. People who have been around a while can see "trends" and changes being worked into our system of government. And that is what is happening here, IMO.

(and, hey, John - let's not bring up CPR's church in every thread. If you want to discuss her church, do so in a separate thread...okay? thanks)

[John81]

Actually, John, CPR is right. And pointing out that other POTUS' have used the same terminology as BO is not being liberl - it is actually being fairminded, which is vital to truth, don't you think?

The Roosevelt that said it was Franklin. He said this: "“the freedom of every person to worship God in his own way”.” I don't know what the speech contained, so he could have been explaining the 1st amendment, and I can't find the speech it was in to know if that was all there was to his statement. FDR wasn't a model POTUS, but not knowing what he meant kind of stifles being able to defend or detract from his partial statement.

Reagan said: "Religious intolerance, particularly in the Soviet Union, continues to deprive millions of the freedom to worship as they choose." That was to the UN in 1988, and was not in reference to our Constitution.

He also said: "Perhaps it’s not too much to hope that true change will come to all countries that now deny or hinder the freedom to worship God. And perhaps we’ll see that change comes through the reemergence of faith, through the irresistible power of a religious renewal. For despite all the attempts to extinguish it, the people’s faith burns with a passionate heat; once allowed to breathe free, that faith will burn so brightly it will light the world." This was at the Vatican. Please note, though, that he isn't referencing our Constitutional rights again. But he is actually explaining, a bit, what the 1st amendment was for: to allow for a religious renewal. (again, though, he was not speaking about America)

And again he said: "I know I’ve said this before, but I believe that God put this land between the two great oceans to be found by special people from every corner of the world who had that extra love for freedom that prompted them to leave their homeland and come to this land to make it a brilliant light beam of freedom to the world. It’s our gift to have visions, and I want to share that of a young boy who wrote to me shortly after I took office. In his letter he said, “I love America because you can join Cub Scouts if you want to. You have a right to worship as you please. If you have the ability, you can try to be anything you want to be. And I also like America because we have about 200 flavors of ice cream.” Well, truth through the eyes of a child: freedom of association, freedom of worship, freedom of hope and opportunity, and the pursuit of happiness — in this case, choosing among 200 flavors of ice cream — that’s America, everyone with his or her vision of the American promise." Please note: his terminology was being referenced as being through the eyes of a child. Not the meaning of the 1st amendment.

There is no record, that I can find, of Dubya using that terminology. Doesn't mean he didn't. I just can't find it.

As to the difference: BO has disdain for our Constitution. He is in the process of redefining it. He has so far been successful in stomping on the 10th amendment, at least, and shows no sign of letting up. I, personally, do not think his wording is a mistake. People who have been around a while can see "trends" and changes being worked into our system of government. And that is what is happening here, IMO.

(and, hey, John - let's not bring up CPR's church in every thread. If you want to discuss her church, do so in a separate thread...okay? thanks)

That's not the issue which I was addressing. A person professing to be a Christian is in part identified by their church so it's rather difficult to address a liberal Christian who attends a liberal church without mentioning the church. This is the same reason some liberal Christians, when they wish to address something from a biblical Christian will bring up the church they attend, sometimes even their pastor, because they are intertwined.

My questions were not in regard to the church per se, but in regards to why one would attend such an unbiblical, liberal church while proclaiming they are not liberal. Such is a valid question in response to such a statement. If someone were to proclaim they were not liberal but they always vote Democrat wouldn't we ask why?

[HappyChristian]

That's not the issue which I was addressing. A person professing to be a Christian is in part identified by their church so it's rather difficult to address a liberal Christian who attends a liberal church without mentioning the church. This is the same reason some liberal Christians, when they wish to address something from a biblical Christian will bring up the church they attend, sometimes even their pastor, because they are intertwined.

My questions were not in regard to the church per se, but in regards to why one would attend such an unbiblical, liberal church while proclaiming they are not liberal. Such is a valid question in response to such a statement. If someone were to proclaim they were not liberal but they always vote Democrat wouldn't we ask why?

John, this isn't the first thread you've brought her church into. I don't know what you're referencing regarding the issue you were addressing - my post wasn't all about that, it was to show what other POTUS' have said. Be that as it may: no, it is not difficult to address someone without mentioning their church. There was no need to bring her church into the conversation about what POTUS' have said. She was in no way attacking anyone, she was pointing out a fact. But, my friend, your answer had all the earmarks of an attack. You might disagree, and that's fine. But, as I said, let's not keep bringing up her church. Again, feel free to begin a thread to discuss with her the why's and wherefores of her church affiliation. Just don't keep throwing it in her face, so to speak. Okay? Thanks. (her church attendance has NOTHING to do with this thread, IOW)