We’ve heard a lot this year about an alleged change in tone in the Obama Administration’s talk about international religious liberty. Back in February, the Becket Fund’s Ashley Samelson had this to say:
“Freedom of worship” first appeared in a high profile speech in Obama’s remarks at the memorial for the victims of the Fort Hood shooting last November, a few months after his Cairo speech. Speaking to the crowd gathered to commemorate the victims, President Obama said, “We’re a nation that guarantees the freedom to worship as one chooses.” Given the religious tension that marked the tragic incident, it was not an insignificant event at which to unveil a new way of referring to our First Freedom.
Shortly after his remarks at Ft. Hood, President Obama left for his trip to Asia, where he repeatedly referred to “freedom of worship,” and not once to “freedom of religion.”
Not long after his return, “freedom of worship” appeared in two prominent speeches delivered by Secretary Clinton. In her address to Georgetown University outlining the Obama Administration’s human rights agenda she used “freedom of worship” three times, “freedom of religion,” not once. About a month later, in an address to Senators on internet freedom at the Newseum, the phrase popped up in her lingo once again.
To anyone who closely follows prominent discussion of religious freedom in the diplomatic and political arena, this linguistic shift is troubling.
The reason is simple. Any person of faith knows that religious exercise is about a lot more than freedom of worship. It’s about the right to dress according to one’s religious dictates, to preach openly, to evangelize, to engage in the public square. Everyone knows that religious Jews keep kosher, religious Quakers don’t go to war, and religious Muslim women wear headscarves—yet “freedom of worship” would protect none of these acts of faith.
Catholic Online’s Randy Sly takes the next step in the argument:
[L]anguage matters when it comes to defining freedoms and limits. A shift from freedom of religion to freedom of worship moves the dialog from the world stage into the physical confines of a church, temple, synagogue or mosque. Such limitations can unleash an unbridled initiative that we have only experienced in a mild way through actions determined to remove of roadside crosses, wearing of religious t-shirts and pro-life pins as well as any initiatives of evangelization. It also could exclude our right to raise our children in our faith, the right to religious education, literature or media, the right to raise funds or organize charitable activities and the right to express religious beliefs in the normal discourse of life.
If these observers are right about the shift and its import (and they’re far from alone), we have something to worry about.
But a closer look at the Obama Administration’s record makes the picture just a bit more complicated. A good place to begin here is at the American Presidency Project’s website, where you can search a wide range of presidential documents for terms like “freedom” and “religion” or “worship.” Here, for example, is President Obama’s address at Cairo University:
The fifth issue that we must address together is religious freedom. Islam has a proud tradition of tolerance. We see it in the history of Andalusia and Cordoba during the Inquisition. I saw it firsthand as a child in Indonesia, where devout Christians worshiped freely in an overwhelmingly Muslim country. That is the spirit we need today. People in every country should be free to choose and live their faith based upon the persuasion of the mind and the heart and the soul. This tolerance is essential for religion to thrive, but it’s being challenged in many different ways.
Among some Muslims, there’s a disturbing tendency to measure one’s own faith by the rejection of somebody else’s faith. The richness of religious diversity must be upheld, whether it is for Maronites in Lebanon or the Copts in Egypt. And if we are being honest, fault lines must be closed among Muslims as well, as the divisions between Sunni and Shi’a have led to tragic violence, particularly in Iraq.
Freedom of religion is central to the ability of peoples to live together. We must always examine the ways in which we protect it. For instance, in the United States, rules on charitable giving have made it harder for Muslims to fulfill their religious obligation. That’s why I’m committed to working with American Muslims to ensure that they can fulfill zakat.
Likewise, it is important for Western countries to avoid impeding Muslim citizens from practicing religion as they see fit, for instance, by dictating what clothes a Muslim woman should wear. We can’t disguise hostility towards any religion behind the pretence of liberalism.
As he prepared to embark upon this trip to the Middle East, President Obama fairly consistently emphasized freedom of religion, here in an interview with the BBC’s Justin Webb:
Well, look, obviously, in the Middle East, across a wide range of types of governments, there are some human rights issues. I don’t think there’s any dispute about that. The message I hope to deliver is that democracy, rule of law, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, those are not simply principles of the West to be hoisted [sic] on these countries, but rather what I believe to be universal principles that they can embrace and affirm as part of their national identity.
And here with NPR’s Michele Norris and Steve Inskeep:
There is a wide range of governments throughout the Muslim world and the non-Muslim world, and the main thing for me to do is to project what our values are, what our ideals are, what we care most deeply about. And that is democracy, rule of law, freedom of speech, freedom of religion.
Now, in every country I deal with, whether it’s China, Russia, ultimately Iran, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, allies as well as non-allies, there are going to be some differences. And what I want to do is just maintain consistency in affirming what those values that I believe in are, understanding that we’re not going to get countries to embrace various of our values simply by lecturing or through military means. We can’t force these approaches. What we can do is stand up for human rights; we can stand up for democracy. But I think it’s a mistake for us to somehow suggest that we’re not going to deal with countries around the world in the absence of their meeting all our criteria for democracy.
After the Cairo speech, President Obama even took his message to the French:
And as I said in the speech, I think that freedom of religious expression is critical. That is part of our liberal tradition both in France and the United States, and that we should not have two standards for freedom of religious expression, one for Muslims and one for non-Muslims.
That doesn’t mean that each country isn’t going to be working through these issues with its own history and its own sensitivities in mind. And I don’t take responsibility for how other countries are going to approach this. I will tell you that in the United States, our basic attitude is, is that we’re not going to tell people what to wear. If, in their exercise of religion, they are impeding somebody else’s rights, that’s something that we would, obviously, be concerned about.
But my general view is, is that the most effective way to integrate people of all faiths is to not try to suppress their customs or traditions, rather to open up opportunities and give them a chance for full participation in the life of their country.
While the President didn’t fully articulate what he meant by freedom of religion, the thrust of his various remarks is clear enough. “Our values” include freedom of religion, but those values are universal, not merely idiosyncratically Western. There may be some variation in how those freedoms are respected from one society to another, but in a healthy society there is toleration—and indeed inclusion—of religious diversity. What’s more, his references especially to Muslim customs or traditions make clear that what he has in mind is not mere worship, but also adherence to religiously-inspired or required practices in the public square.
But less than two months later, he took an apparently different tack, as in these remarks on U.S.-Chinese relations:
Support for human rights and human dignity is ingrained in America. Our Nation is made up of immigrants from every part of the world. We have protected our unity and struggled to perfect our Union by extending basic rights to all our people, and those rights include the freedom to speak your mind, to worship your God, and to choose your leaders. These are not things that we seek to impose; this is who we are. It guides our openness to one another and to the world.
Here he seems to say both that what matters is worship and that it matters above all for us. Understanding this is a key to understanding us; there is nothing here about universal principles. But then, in remarks on the observance of Rosh Hoshanah, President Obama resurrects his earlier universalism:
Let us resist prejudice, intolerance, and indifference in whatever forms they may take. Let us stand up strongly to the scourge of anti-Semitism, which is still prevalent in far too many corners of our world. Let us work to extend the rights and freedoms so many of us enjoy to all the world’s citizens: to speak and worship freely; to live free from violence and oppression; to make of our lives what we will.
To be sure, he is still only speaking about worship, and not about engaging in other religious practices. He continued on this tack in a September, 2009 Address to the U.N., in November, 2009 remarks in Tokyo, and, perhaps most ringingly, just a few days later a Town Hall meeting in Shanghai:
We do not seek to impose any system of government on any other nation, but we also don’t believe that the principles that we stand for are unique to our Nation. These freedoms of expression and worship, of access to information and political participation, we believe are universal rights. They should be available to all people, including ethnic and religious minorities, whether they are in the United States, China, or any nation. Indeed, it is that respect for universal rights that guides America’s openness to other countries, our respect for different cultures, our commitment to international law, and our faith in the future.
Thus far we can see evidence for the President’s change in emphasis from freedom of religion to freedom of worship.
But consider this January, 2010 Proclamation of Religious Freedom Day:
Long before our Nation’s independence, weary settlers sought refuge on our shores to escape religious persecution on other continents. Recognizing their strife and toil, it was the genius of America’s forefathers to protect our freedom of religion, including the freedom to practice none at all. Many faiths are now practiced in our Nation’s houses of worship, and that diversity is built upon a rich tradition of religious tolerance. On this day, we commemorate an early realization of our Nation’s founding ideals: Virginia’s 1786 Statute for Religious Freedom.
The Virginia Statute was more than a law. It was a statement of principle, declaring freedom of religion as the natural right of all humanity—not a privilege for any government to give or take away. Penned by Thomas Jefferson and championed in the Virginia legislature by James Madison, it barred compulsory support of any church and ensured the freedom of all people to profess their faith openly, without fear of persecution. Five years later, the First Amendment of our Bill of Rights followed the Virginia Statute’s model, stating, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . .”.
Our Nation’s enduring commitment to the universal human right of religious freedom extends beyond our borders as we advocate for all who are denied the ability to choose and live their faith. My Administration will continue to oppose growing trends in many parts of the world to restrict religious expression.
Faith can bring us closer to one another, and our freedom to practice our faith and follow our conscience is central to our ability to live in harmony.
It’s pretty hard to ask for anything more than this from any President. There are explicit references to freedom of religion, which includes “liv[ing] [one’s] faith.” And religious freedom is grounded not merely in our particular traditions or in the positive assertions of some international body (although I have to admit that the various United Nations covenants and declarations are much stronger and more explicit than anything President Obama has said). It is, rather, grounded in our natural rights, which belong to us, not as Americans or adherents to some international convention, but as human beings. Long before he was elected to the presidency, the young James Madison got it right in his Memorial and Remonstrance:
[W]e hold it for a fundamental and undeniable truth, “that religion or the duty which we owe to our Creator and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence.” The Religion then of every man must be left to the conviction and conscience of every man; and it is the right of every man to exercise it as these may dictate. This right is in its nature an unalienable right. It is unalienable, because the opinions of men, depending only on the evidence contemplated by their own minds cannot follow the dictates of other men: It is unalienable also, because what is here a right towards men, is a duty towards the Creator. It is the duty of every man to render to the Creator such homage and such only as he believes to be acceptable to him. This duty is precedent, both in order of time and in degree of obligation, to the claims of Civil Society. Before any man can be considerd as a member of Civil Society, he must be considered as a subject of the Governour of the Universe: And if a member of Civil Society, do it with a saving of his allegiance to the Universal Sovereign. We maintain therefore that in matters of Religion, no man’s right is abridged by the institution of Civil Society and that Religion is wholly exempt from its cognizance.
I don’t expect such eloquence or profundity from President Obama (and not just because he was educated at Columbia University in the 1980s, as opposed to Princeton University in the 1770s, although I suspect that that does matter).
But I do and we can expect him to be consistent and vigorous in his explanation and defense of religious freedom and its ground. He should be held accountable for his inconsistencies and for the apparent soft-pedaling of the robust understanding of religious freedom that he has on occasion affirmed. This matters, not only for the witness he bears to the world, but also for what he is willing to go to the mat for at home.