Topic: Freedom of Religion vs. Freedom of Worship

[Phidippides]

Didn't know there was a difference?  Here's an interesting short video from Chuck Colson which talks about it:

[scout1067]

There is a huge difference.  Freedom of Religion lets you be who you want, Freedom of Worship just says you can go to whichever church you want and worship there.  A person's religion defines their whole being not just where they go to church.  Example, I am not just Catholic on Sunday, I am a Catholic all week 24/7, 365 days a year.

[Wally]

There is a huge difference.  Freedom of Religion lets you be who you want, Freedom of Worship just says you can go to whichever church you want and worship there.  A person's religion defines their whole being not just where they go to church.  Example, I am not just Catholic on Sunday, I am a Catholic all week 24/7, 365 days a year.

Hopefully this will not cause a flap but the bolded phrase, in my mind, is why we also (de facto) have "freedom from religion", if that is who we want to be.

[skiguy]

I was with Colson until about 1:24.  I don't think there is a difference, because the freedom of religion he speaks of (debating in the public square) is a form of worship.  If you are preaching or debating or giving God glory in any way using the Word of God, then you are worshipping God.
To me freedom of religion and freedom to worship are one and the same.

[Wally]

Rightly so... does, however, require the tolerance of those less devout. Often, sadly, those preaching tolerance aren't very....

[Phidippides]

I was with Colson until about 1:24.  I don't think there is a difference, because the freedom of religion he speaks of (debating in the public square) is a form of worship.

Ski, I think the concern is that others will not see it the same as you do.  I would not be surprised if a court ruled that proselytizing was not a form of worship and therefore not protected (assuming that "freedom of religion" goes to the wayside).  I believe that at least some Jews want Christians to cease from trying to convert them, and I could see liberal judges trying to curtail Christian expansion by effectively upholding bans on such kinds of religious activities. 

[Donald Baker]

I was with Colson until about 1:24.  I don't think there is a difference, because the freedom of religion he speaks of (debating in the public square) is a form of worship.

Ski, I think the concern is that others will not see it the same as you do.  I would not be surprised if a court ruled that proselytizing was not a form of worship and therefore not protected (assuming that "freedom of religion" goes to the wayside).  I believe that at least some Jews want Christians to cease from trying to convert them, and I could see liberal judges trying to curtail Christian expansion by effectively upholding bans on such kinds of religious activities.

Proselytizing is not worship.  If it is unwanted, it becomes harassment.  Now if a preacher or someone uses a public place designated for free speech in the vein of proselytizing, then he should be protected.  He can't go outside that zone and pursue folks, but people are free to listen or move on if they choose to.

[skiguy]

I would not be surprised if a court ruled that proselytizing was not a form of worship and therefore not protected (assuming that "freedom of religion" goes to the wayside).

I do noy see in any possible way how a ruling like that could be considered Constitutional

[skiguy]

Don, I'm not saying go and convert, that would be harrassment,  but everyone should have the freeedom to say what they want wherever they want. Just preach the Word of God and the Spirit of God will move whom He sees fit.  It shouldn't be forced, and preaching is not forcing. It may come across to some as offensive or "forcing", but it is not.

[Phidippides]

I would not be surprised if a court ruled that proselytizing was not a form of worship and therefore not protected (assuming that "freedom of religion" goes to the wayside).

I do noy see in any possible way how a ruling like that could be considered Constitutional

Well, U.S. courts sometimes use judicial opinions or trends in foreign nations as the basis for American legal trends.  Say that the U.N. adopts the "freedom of worship" interpretation for the First Amendment.  Could the U.S. Supreme Court follow suit in this kind of interpretation, based on international "winds of change"?  It's possible.