The left thinks they’re cute and clever, and Oklahoma’s senator Lankford (OK) nailed Jeh Johnson, pointing out the significant difference between the definitions of “religion” and “worship.”
Worship is usually meant to convey an activity that happens within the 4 walls of a religious institution.
See, the subtlety? The left says you’re free to worship, as long as you’re out of sight inside your place of worship.
Thank God Lankford caught it.
ht/ Sam S
Sorry, but I’ve been hearing the term “freedom of worship” used interchangeably with “freedom of religion” my whole life, with everybody understanding that they were referring to the same thing, and nobody getting upset about it. This sounds like some nitpicker’s Tempest in a Teapot to me.
20 years ago, I would have agreed with you Vietvet. But now? It is most definitely a distinction with a difference.
@R.K. – I looked up the definition of “worship” on dictionary.com.
The primary definition of it as a noun is: ” 1. reverent honor and homage paid to God or a sacred personage, or to any object regarded as sacred.” and (as a verb): “to render religious reverence and homage to. ” Note that there is no structural requirement for rendering worship. This is what the term “worship” means, not necessarily a formal worship service, and I still think somebody’s being a nitpicker here for political gain. Seems like something a prog would do, not a Republican.
If there’s no difference in meaning, why change from religion to worship?
@factslady: Who said it was changed? They probably used “worship” thinking of it as a synonym for “religion”, not realizing that anyone would get all bent out of shape about semantics. I’m sure, in retrospect, they regret their choice of terms. Anyway, I guess I’m not enough of a conspiracy theorist to automatically assume there was some nefarious intent behind it.
Not yet, anyway.