Feed on
Posts
Comments

Freedom of worship is NOT the same as freedom of religion. This is not hairsplitting semantics or personal preferences.

It is a matter of life and death in some countries. Thus it is of grave concern that Obama, Clinton and Cameron seemingly prefer using freedom of worship.

Let me explain: Freedom of religion includes the right to have a faith, to manifest it and propagate for it, alone or together with others, also in the public arena. It also gives the right to change beliefs and religious affiliation. This is what democracies would adhere to.

Freedom of worship is a definition practiced in countries influenced by Islam. You may be allowed to be a Christian, but you mustn’t take it into the public arena or share your faith with others. If you are a Muslim you are free to be a Muslim and display it publically but you can’t leave Islam.

Question: What kind of freedom do you prefer? What kind of freedom should we fight for?

The Obama administration shuns freedom of religion and propagates freedom of worship.

PM David Cameron held a speech on February 5th, where he stated: “…I believe a genuinely liberal country does much more; it believes in certain values and actively promotes them.  Freedom of speech, freedom of worship, democracy, the rule of law, equal rights regardless of race, sex or sexuality.”

Please be aware of this slippery slope. Watch out for what phrases politicians are using. It makes a huge difference, like Iran, Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia on the one hand and Norway, New Zeeland and Germany on the other hand.

Take your pick: Freedom of religion or freedom of worship.

One Response to “Freedom of worship, or of religion?”

  1. […] not one which can effectively defend religious liberties. The distinction was neatly summarised by Mats Tunehag, who observed: “Freedom of religion includes the right to have a faith, to manifest it and […]

Leave a Reply