mangrumsNet

Many will wonder about this as the difference seems insignificant.  The thing is, it's not.  Worship, albeit a large part of what most consider a "religion", is still just one part.  By making this minute shift in his speeches, Obama is setting up a difference between the more encompassing sharing with others, dressing in particular clothes, participating (or not) in certain rituals, along with worship and the much more focused act of worship alone.  I'm reading too much into this you say?  Do you really think he says anything that isn't calculated?

WASHINGTON, DC (Catholic Online) - The change in language was 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. This shift happened between the President's speech in Cairo where he showcased America's freedom of religion and his appearance in November at a memorial for the victims of Fort Hood, where he specifically used the term "freedom of worship." From that point on, it has become the term of choice for the president and Clinton.

In her article for "First Things" magazine, Ashley Samelson, International Programs Director for the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, stated, "To anyone who closely follows prominent discussion of religious freedom in the diplomatic and political arena, this linguistic shift is troubling: "The reason is simple. Any person of faith knows that religious exercise is about a lot more than freedom of worship. It's about the right to dress according to one's religious dictates, to preach openly, to evangelize, to engage in the public square. Everyone knows that religious Jews keep kosher, religious Quakers don't go to war, and religious Muslim women wear headscarves-yet "freedom of worship" would protect none of these acts of faith."

Read the whole story