In 1796, President John Adams concluded a treaty with Tripoli, stating: “the Government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion . . .”

A few months ago, I told you how the Obama administration has started to use the phrase “freedom of worship” instead of “freedom of religion.”

When secretary of state Clinton, in a speech at Georgetown University, said that “freedom of worship” was a priority, it was not the first time that phrase had been used by an administration official: the president himself had used it several times.

What’s at stake here is more than rhetoric: “freedom of worship” and “freedom of religion” are not interchangeable, no matter what the administration or its defenders maintain.

… “Freedom of worship” does not necessarily include the rights to “raise your own children in your faith . . . elect your religious leaders” or evangelize. It provides no guarantee that you will be able to have “religious education or seminary training…”

Almost as important as the rhetorical shift is the question of why the shift is happening. One very likely answer lies in our relationship to the Muslim world, where a vital principle is being sacrificed on the altar of not giving offense. Is it coincidence that the President last referred to “freedom of religion” in his famous, but coolly received, Cairo speech to the Islamic world?

Missouri law professor Carl Esbeck told Christianity Today that what he calls the “softened message” of freedom of worship was “probably meant for the Muslim world.”

Read More: http://www.christianpost.com/article/20100825/harmonious-folly/index.html