Have you noticed this?
The media, even our illustrious president, have taken to
referring to our first amendment rights as “freedom of worship.”
Now contrasting that term to “freedom of religion” may not
appear to be that different.
You may even think I am getting caught up in
semantics (and I am always up for some antics), but I think that this is a major
change that people of Chrsitian faith should be concerned about.
Recently, Colorado proposed a religious freedom amendment to
the state constitution that prohibited the government from "burden[ing] a
person's or religious organization's freedom of religion" unless it shows
a compelling interest – which offers the highest level of protection. In
comparison, the U.S. Constitution prohibits Congress from "prohibiting the
free exercise" of religion.
Compare that to the proposed language submitted by a liberal
group which begins: "The free exercise and enjoyment of religious
profession and worship, without discrimination, shall forever hereafter be
guaranteed."
Sounds okay, doesn't it?
Did you notice that freedom of religion quickly became
religious worship?
I wonder why?
Wait! There’s more…
In assessing whether government has burdened freedom of
religion, a person's or a religious organization's right to act in a manner
motivated by a sincerely held religious belief is the ability to engage in
religious practices in the privacy of a person's home or in the privacy of a
religious organization's established place of worship.
And there is the agenda.
A person's free exercise of religion is only guaranteed at
home or at church.
Freedom of religion encompasses many beliefs and actions,
obviously including worship. But this rhetorical shift of limiting freedom of
religion to only worship embodies a dangerous ideology that is shared by the
current administration.
The former Soviet Union – that bastion of individual liberty and a self described atheistic country
– allowed "freedom of worship" but not "freedom of
religion."
Not only have President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary
Clinton recently repeatedly used the same "freedom of worship"
rhetoric, but this administration has engaged in several other hostile actions
that also show a disdain for the freedom of religion, most notably when requiring
religious organizations to provide services that they object to on grounds of
faith (abortions, abortion-inducing drugs and contraceptives) free of charge.
Now I was recently accused of "worshiping at the feet of our founding fathers," but I do admit that I believe they were pretty smart guys who had the right idea with government-keep it small, keep it simple, or as Reagan said, keep it off our backs.
Religious freedom as intended by the founding fathers allows
us the freedom to practice our religion in the public square, not confined to
home or church.
Even if you are not religious, I would caution you to avoid
this shift in rhetoric, these prepared remarks by those who are very careful
with their choice of words.
We all need to stand up for freedom of religion to ensure
that it is not whittled down to a nugget only tolerated in our own homes and
churches (until they come knocking at those doors, too).
And after that right is taken from us, what will be next?
To those of you who are quick to accuse people who value personal liberty of "worshipping our founding fathers," I would caution you to not be so quick to cede power to the federal government in areas that used to be the responsibility of individuals and private charitable organizations, simply because you are "too busy getting ahead."
The smartest thing about our founding fathers?
They KNEW that power corrupts.
These "rich white guys" SHED BLOOD (and kicked the butt of the incumbent world power) in order that you would have these rights.
Do not be so quick to give those rights away.
Because at the end of the day, after all of the slurs and insults I have taken when discussing this issue, the truth still stands that there is not ONE success story we can point to where the government takes something on.
Education-billions spent, basic test scores down
Social Security-bankrupt, and the money that the current working population has contributed was squandered
Look at every area the federal government has taken on and name ONE they have done well.
THAT is what I object to.
In addition to supporting the Constitution, I support a very logical position-do not throw good money after bad.
