The first amendment to The United States Constitution says “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”. Careful observers have noted a worrying trend – an exercise in verbal gymnastics by the current administration – that may be seeking to dilute the force of the Constitution’s clear statement of religious freedom. The first occurrence of this verbal sleight of hand seems to have occurred when President Obama said, in his Remarks by the President at Memorial Service at Fort Hood on November 10, 2009, “We’re a nation that guarantees the freedom to worship as one chooses.  And instead of claiming God for our side, we remember Lincoln’s words, and always pray to be on the side of God.” Admirable words, but for that one semantic switch from “religion” to “worship”. The word shift was rapidly picked up on by Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton. In “Remarks on the Human Rights Agenda for the 21st Century” delivered at Georgetown University on December 14, 2009, she said “To fulfill their potential, people must be free to choose laws and leaders; to share and access information, to speak, criticize, and debate. They must be free to worship, associate, and to love in the way that they choose.”

It might be argued that this is just nit-picking. If it were clear that the administration intended, in using the word “worship”, to include all aspects of the practice of religion, I would agree. The facts, however, don’t support that view. Consider, for instance, Secretary of State Clinton’s endorsement of Dr. Suzan Johnson Cook to be Ambassador-at-Large for International Religious Freedom. She said, “I look forward to working with Dr. Johnson Cook, if she is confirmed, to bring greater focus to international efforts to ensure that people everywhere enjoy the global standards of religious freedom enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.”What are those global standards? Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights says “Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.” Plainly “freedom of religion’ is much more than “freedom of worship” … by an international standard accepted by the Obama administration.

Again, it might be argued that this is just more hysteria from the religious right. But Knox Thames, the director of the Congress-controlled U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom — tasked with monitoring religious freedom abroad—said, at a February 3, 2010 public staff briefing about the future of U.S. religious freedom policy sponsored by the House Foreign Affairs Committee Subcommittee on International Operations, Human Rights and Oversight, “I have noticed a change in terminology by President Obama and Secretary Clinton over the past months. Starting during the President’s trip to Asia, he referred to ‘freedom of worship’ on several occasions, but never once mentioned ‘freedom of religion.’ This trend has continued with Secretary Clinton. In her speech at Georgetown University and her more recent Internet freedom speech, both times she only referred to ‘freedom of worship.'”. It’s not only the religious conservatives who have noticed the potential semantic erosion of constitutional freedom.

This is not just about words. But words ARE important. (If you aren’t sure why words matter, then consider yourself sentenced to a remedial reading of George Orwell’s “1984”). Consider that sentence from Secretary Clinton, “They must be free to worship, associate, and to love in the way that they choose” – note how the freedoms of worship and loving are equated. Consider, are these “freedoms” equivalent … are they based on similar immutable truths? Beware those verbal gymnastics!