"Freedom of worship" has recently replaced the phrase "freedom of religion" in public pronouncements from the Obama administration. Experts are concerned that th= new rhetoric may signal a policy change.

"Freedom of worship" first appeared=in President Obama's November remarks at the memorial service for the victims of the=Fort Hood shooting. Days later, he referred to worship rather than religion in speeches in Japan and China.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton echoed the=shift in language. In a December speech at Georgetown University, she used "fre=dom of worship" three times but "freedom of religion" not at all= While addressing senators in January, she referred to "freedom of worship" four times and "freedom of religion" once when quot=ng an earlier Obama speech.

The U.S. Commission on International Religiou= Freedom noted the shift in its 2010 annual report. "This change i= phraseology could well be viewed by human rights defenders and officials in other countries a= having concrete policy implications," the report said.

Freedom of worship means the right to pray wi=hin the confines of a place of worship or to privately believe, said Nina Shea, director of the Center for Religious Freedom and member of the commission. "It excludes the right to raise your children in your faith; the right=to have religious literature; the right to meet with co-religionists; the righ= to raise funds; the right to appoint or elect your religious leaders, and to c=rry out charitable activities, to evangelize, [and] to have religious education=or seminary training."

The State Department does acknowledge that wo=ship is just one component of religion, said spokesperson Andy Laine. "However, the=terms 'freedom of religion' and 'freedom of worship' have often b=en used interchangeably through U.S. history, and policymakers in this administrati=n will sometimes do likewise."

While Obama's administration may simply b= using different words to say the same thing, the timing of the change is worrisome, said Th=mas Farr, religion professor at Georgetown University. Obama just recently annou=ced an ambassador for international religious freedom (Suzan Johnson Cook), but=the position has been demoted within the State Department.

"It puts what otherwise might have been =assed off as a rhetorical shift under the spotlight a little more," Farr said.

The softened message is probably meant for th= Muslim world, said Carl Esbeck, professor of law at the University of Missouri. Ob=ma, seeking to repair relations fractured by 9/11, is telling Islamic countries that America is not interfering with their internal matters, he said.

As with all diplomatic decisions, the move is=a gain and a loss, Esbeck said. Other countries may interpret the change as a sign that America is backing down from championing a robust, expansive view of religi=us freedom, which if true would be a loss, he said.

But the State Department has traditionally ig=ored religion's impact on foreign affairs, he said. "The Obama administ=ation seems, at least in part, to get that a large part of successful foreign relations is taking religion into account."

If Obama is telling the State Department to b= religiously sensitive, that's a gain, Esbeck said.

Not everyone agrees.

"If [Obama is changing language to signa= sensitivity], it is terribly shortsighted and self-defeating," Farr sa=d. "It will not work, and it will simply make the situation more difficul= ? to engage."

Shea said the danger is greater than a mere backfiring. "I'm very fearful that by building bridges, we're actually ste=ping away from this fundamental principle of religious freedom. ? It is so critical f=r Western, especially American, leaders to articulate strong defense for reli=ious freedom and explain what that means and how it undergirds our entire civilization."