Does Hillary Clinton support and respect the First Amendment as it pertains to religious freedom?

Though her supporters would quickly dismiss any notion that she doesn’t as a conspiracy from the Right, her words have left some religious leaders in doubt about her commitment to religious freedoms.

At issue is her use of the phrase “freedom of worship” instead of “freedom of religion.”

“As Americans, we hold fast to the belief that everyone has the right to worship however he or she sees fit,” she wrote in the Deseret News. “I’ve been fighting to defend religious freedom for years.”

The First Amendment guarantees that: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

To protect freedom of worship is different than protecting freedom of religion. Freedom of worship implies that you may go to whatever church you want and worship how you see fit. Freedom of religion encompasses much more than that though.

Freedom of religion means you can practice your religion as you see fit — both in private and in public. It means you can carry your faith outside of the church and into the public square. It means you can teach your children religious values as you see fit. It means you can pray publicly as you see fit. It means you can display religious symbols as you see fit. (It obviously doesn’t mean that you can kill in the name of your religion. There are reasonable limitations.)

The wording here matters tremendously. There is a movement to strip public life of anything religious so that no one is offended. Secular progressives would prefer that religious things be relegated to the church. They would prefer that it never leave the church building.

But the First Amendment guarantees that it can. It guarantees that the government will not prohibit the free exercise of religion. It’s not up to the government to decide what constitutes free exercise.

Clinton would appear to be walking a dangerous line on the issue and you can bet her use of the word “freedom of worship” was deliberate.

But Clinton isn’t alone when it comes to weakening religious liberty.

While most Christians would agree that government shouldn’t interfere in anyone’s religion, some Christians support the surveillance of “certain mosques.” Donald Trump called for as much back in November.

While those of any faith other than Islam might support such a measure, how would they feel if there was a presidential candidate suggesting the same happen at a Baptist church?

That would never happen, you might say. Maybe. But the religious freedom argument some Christians make to denounce Clinton are the same arguments some Muslims rightly make to denounce Trump.

Religious freedom is for non-Christians, too. That doesn’t mean that all faiths are the same or that there are many paths to God, it simply means the government has no business attempting to control any religion.

A government that can limit or control religion is a government that can do just about anything it wants. And that’s a scary thing. Christians, just like people of any faith, should stand up and defend their religious liberty and the freedoms of those who don’t believe as they do.

Sadly, no matter who wins in November, it looks like religious liberty will take a hit.

Luke Horton is publisher of The Daily Leader. Email him at luke.horton@dailyleader.com.