Newspaper article Pittsburgh Post-Gazette (Pittsburgh, PA)

Freedom of 'Worship' or 'Religion'? Again

Newspaper article Pittsburgh Post-Gazette (Pittsburgh, PA)

Freedom of 'Worship' or 'Religion'? Again

Article excerpt

With the sounds of protests echoing across campus, President Barack Obama knew his 2009 commencement address at the University of Notre Dame would have to mention the religious issues that divided his listeners.

"The ultimate irony of faith is that it necessarily admits doubt," he said. "It is beyond our capacity as human beings to know with certainty what God has planned for us or what he asks of us."

With this sweeping statement, Mr. Obama essentially argued that religious faith contains no rational content and, thus, offers no concrete guidance for public actions, noted Thomas Farr, director of the Berkley Center for Religion, Peace and World Affairs at Georgetown University. This would shock America's Founding Fathers or anyone else who has used religious doctrines and arguments in favor of human equality or in opposition to tyranny.

The president's views were even more troubling when combined with remarks weeks earlier at Georgetown by Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, said Mr. Farr, during a conference sponsored by the American Religious Freedom Program of the Ethics and Public Policy Center in Washington, D.C. The daylong event drew a variety of scholars and activists, including Catholics, evangelical Protestants, Jews, Eastern Orthodox Christians and Mormons.

Ms. Clinton's speech contained references to freedom of "worship," but none to freedom of "religion." She also argued that "people must be ... free to worship, associate and to love in the way that they choose."

Thus, the secretary of state raised sexual liberation to the status of religion and other central human rights, said Mr. Farr. This evolving political doctrine is now shaping decisions in some U.S. courts.

"Powerful members of our political class are arguing," he noted, "that there is no rational content of religion; that religious freedom means the right to gather in worship, but not to bring religiously informed moral judgments into political life; that religious freedom must be balanced by the right to love as one chooses, and that to make religious arguments against that purported right is unconstitutional. …

Search by... Author
Show... All Results Primary Sources Peer-reviewed

Oops!

An unknown error has occurred. Please click the button below to reload the page. If the problem persists, please try again in a little while.