One petition included two Catholic cardinals and a dozen bishops, Evangelical broadcasters, Eastern Orthodox bishops, Muslims, Tibetan Buddhists, Baha’is, Orthodox and liberal rabbis, Scientologists and Protestant clergy of a various and sundry races and traditions. One Times article noted that these were signatures that “rarely appear on the same page.”

But there’s the rub. This was already old news.

Many of these religious leaders had already been working for a year or more on what became the International Religious Freedom Act of 1998, landmark legislation that made religious freedom a “core objective” in all U.S. foreign policy, noted political scientist Allen Hertzke of the University of Oklahoma, speaking at a conference called “The Politics of Faith — Religion in America.”

This bill, he said, was the opening act in “broader, faith-based quest” to weave moral content into the fabric of American policies around the world, while liberating religious liberty from its status as the “forgotten stepchild of human rights.”

President Bill Clinton signed the International Religious Freedom Act on Oct. 27, 1998, and in the decade that followed this same interfaith coalition backed the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000, the Sudan Peace Act of 2002 and the North Korean Human Rights Act of 2004.

This coalition was “made up of groups that usually fought like cats and dogs on other issues, but would join together to work for religious freedom,” said Hertzke, speaking at the University of California, Berkeley, long known as Ground Zero human rights activism.

These leaders would work on religious-liberty issues over morning coffee and bagels, before returning to their offices where they usually found themselves in total opposition to one another on abortion, gay rights, public education and a host of other church-state issues. Nevertheless, their coordinated labors on foreign-policy projects “produced trust and relationships that had never existed before,” he said.

The question is whether this coalition’s ties that bind can survive tensions created by the current White House race and renewed conflicts over religious and cultural issues in America.

“The kinds of energies generated in these kinds of social movements are hard to sustain,” said Hertzke, after the conference. “There was always the concern that fighting over the familiar social issues would siphon away some of the energy that held this remarkable coalition together for a decade. …

“The fear is that if people feel really threatened on the issues here at home that matter to them the most — like abortion — then they will not be able to invest time and resources in these human-rights issues around the world.”

One reason this interfaith coalition never received much credit for its successes, he said, is that journalists usually focused on the efforts of conservative Christians to oppose the rising global tide of persecution of other Christians. This media preoccupation with the “Christian Right” often warped news coverage of broad, interfaith projects to protect the rights of all religious minorities.

In many cases, the results were inaccurate, biased and patronizing.

“Thus, abusive treatment of Christians abroad was labeled ‘persecution’ — in quotation marks.” Expressing similar grammatical doubts, a “grassroots group was described as gathering to pray for ‘what it calls’ Christian martyrs,” noted Hertzke, in his chapter in “Blind Spot: When Journalists Don’t Get Religon,” a new book produced by my colleagues at the Oxford Centre for Religion and Public Life.

In one New York Times article, he noted, Christian activists seeking the release of prisoners were described as writing letters to countries “whose names they cannot pronounce.” Another article described efforts to end the civil war in Sudan as a “pet cause of many religious conservatives.”

This was a strange way to describe a movement that, at its best, combined the social-networking skills of evangelical megachurches with the pro-justice chutzpah of Jewish groups, the global reach of Catholic holy orders and the charisma of Buddhist activists in Hollywood.

“What we found out was that human rights are part of one package,” said Hertzke. “If you pull out the pin of religious freedom, it’s hard to support freedom of speech, freedom of association and other crucial human rights. … Religious freedom is a rich and strategic human right.”

   Send article as PDF to

The controversial pamphlets contained comments such as, “Throughout history individuals have tried many ways to gain or earn eternal life, but every attempt has been unsuccessful.” There were Bible verses, such as, “Not by works of righteousness, which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us. Titus 3:5a.”

What happened next has reopened a painful debate about so-called “no go zones,” areas that may as well be off limits to British citizens who do not heed Islamic laws.

According to a statement by the Rev. Arthur Cunningham, the “police community support officer” told him “you’re not allowed to preach … here. This is a Muslim area. He said, ‘You know, you guys are committing a hate crime here with what you’re doing. I’m going to have to call you in and take you in.’ Then he took his radio and he said something like, ‘There’s a hate crime in progress here. I need assistance.’ “

This occurred three months ago, but legal actions by Cunningham and the Rev. Joseph Abraham have created a wave of new coverage. Both men carry American passports, although Abraham was born a Muslim in Egypt and then converted to Christianity.

While declining to discuss details, West Midlands Police officials have released statements saying their investigation found that the officer acted “with the best of intentions” and that “the PCSO has been offered guidance about what constitutes a hate crime and advice on communication style.”

Another statement: “We would like to assure all communities that there are not any ‘no go’ areas in the West Midlands Police area and we will defend the rights of the individual to freedom of expression and religious faiths.”

The “no go zone” debate began in earnest when Anglican Bishop Michael Nazir-Ali of Rochester, who was raised in Pakistan in a family with Christian and Muslim roots, expressed fears that England is splintering into segregated communities of citizens living “parallel lives.”

“It is critically important to all that the freedom to discuss freely and perhaps to have our views changed, whether in politics, religion or science, be encouraged and not diminished,” wrote Nazir-Ali, in a newspaper essay that led to death threats against him.

Christianity and Islam are both evangelistic faiths, which creates sparks when their traditional, growing forms collide. However, Christian evangelism is banned in many Muslim lands and some Christian converts have faced death sentences as apostates.

In the Alum Rock case, the missionaries freely admit they were seeking converts. Abraham and Cunningham insist that they were told they would be physically attacked if they dared to return.

“The actions and words used by the officers were intimidating and were calculated to warn and-or frighten our clients and to have the effect of deterring our clients from lawfully expressing their opinions and manifesting their beliefs and to have a chilling effect on the exercise by them of their right to manifest their beliefs,” according to a document prepared for police by activists at the Christian Institute. “Our clients were left with the understanding that they could not express their religious beliefs in Alum Rock Road without committing a hate crime.”

Meanwhile, the Daily Mail has reported that the officer involved in this incident is active in the local branch of the National Association of Muslim Police. The West Midlands police force also made recent headlines when it accused a BBC Dispatches program — entitled “Undercover Mosques” — of distorting Muslim statements about terrorism.

All of this has led to heightened tensions about how to balance Muslim concerns with British laws.

“Freedom is not, of course, absolute. It is only possible in the context of the Common Good, where the freedom of each has to be exercised with respect for the freedom of all,” according to a new essay by Nazir-Ali, in Standpoint magazine.

“Freedom of belief, of expression, and the freedom to change one’s belief are, however, vitally important for a free society, and the onus must be on those who wish to restrict these in any way to show why this is necessary. Nor can we say that such freedoms apply in some parts of the country and of the world and not in others.”

   Send article as PDF to

Thus, the pope traditionally baptizes several new Catholics during this rite in St. Peter’s Basilica. This year, one of the converts was Magdi Allam, a high-profile journalist and, perhaps, Italy’s most famous “moderate” Muslim.

This caused a firestorm. One Muslim scholar active in interfaith talks condemned the “Vatican’s deliberate and provocative act of baptizing Allam … in such a spectacular way.” Aref Ali Nayed, director of the Royal Islamic Strategic Studies Center in Jordan, wrote: “It is sad that the intimate and personal act of a religious conversion is made into a triumphalist tool for scoring points.”

This dramatic scene caught Vatican watchers by surprise.

When experts compare Pope Benedict XVI with his predecessor, one common observation is that Pope John Paul II was, because of his background as an actor, the master of grand gestures that soared above the usual dense papal prose. Meanwhile, the current pope — a former professor who has written shelves of theological works — has a reputation for being rather dry.

“If John Paul weren?t a pope, he would have been a movie star,” said John L. Allen, Jr., the National Catholic Reporter’s veteran Vatican correspondent and author of two books on the current pope. “If Benedict weren?t a pope, he would have been a university professor.”

Nevertheless, it would “be a mistake to believe that Benedict is simply incapable of talking in pictures when he has a point he wants to make or that kind of flair for the just right dramatic gesture,” said Allen, speaking at the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life.

The question, of course, is whether Benedict will make any dramatic gestures during his upcoming visit to the Washington, D.C., and New York City. While politicos will insist on sifting his texts for any sound bites that might affect the White House race, Allen and another Vatican expert said it would be wiser to focus on Benedict’s April 18 speech at the United Nations.

This is, after all, the official reason that he is coming to America. And, after that symbolic Easter baptism, the pope may choose to underline a passage in the UN’s own Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

“Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion,” states Article 18. “This right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private. …”

Benedict knows that the UN is, throughout 2008, celebrating the 60th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, said George Weigel of the Ethics and Public Policy Center, who is best known for writing “Witness to Hope,” a 992-page biography of John Paul II. For the pope and Vatican diplomats, this document represents “a kind of moral constitution for the world,” built on a “common moral consensus” that is under attack.

Any defense of human rights, stressed Weigel, requires the use of a “word that Benedict XVI has brought into the Vatican’s inter-religious dialogue in a powerful way — reciprocity. If there is a great mosque in Rome welcomed by the leadership of the Catholic Church, why not a church in Saudi Arabia? If we recognize the freedom of others to change their religious location as conscience dictates, that needs to be recognized by dialogue partners as well.”

Or to cite another example, a Christian who converts to Islam in Italy doesn’t need to hire armed bodyguards. But this isn’t true for Muslims who choose to convert to another faith while living in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Egypt and other parts of the world — even in some corners of Europe.

The key, said Allen, is that Benedict XVI isn’t trying — here’s a sound bite — to “launch a new crusade.” Instead, the pope wants to encourage more Muslims to defend religious liberty, while continuing to reject any brand of secularism that denies the existence of universal, eternal, truths.

“In that struggle,” said Allen, “Benedict believes that a more moderate, reformed form of Islam ought to be Christianity?s natural ally.” In the pope’s worldview, the “serious religious believers in the world ought to be the ones who hold the line against the dictatorship of relativism.”

   Send article as PDF to

Human-rights activists around the world cheered when — despite efforts by the post-Taliban parliament — he was allowed to seek asylum in Italy. Other converts have been less fortunate, facing imprisonment, abuse, torture and death at the hands of state officials or vigilantes in Afghanistan, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Pakistan, Turkey, Nigeria, Indonesia and elsewhere.

While Rahman’s plight drew waves of prayers, few Western believers noticed a related case last year that was just as important, according to Paul Marshall, of Freedom House’s Center for Religious Freedom.

Journalist Ali Mohaqeq Nasab was jailed for his work with Women’s Rights magazine in Kabul. Among his many sins, the liberal Shiite cleric had argued that Muslim apostates should not face execution. Thus, radicals demanded that he face the gallows himself. He repented.

“If it is blasphemous to discuss charges of blasphemy, then you have in effect a totalitarian system,” said Marshall, one of my colleagues at the Oxford Centre for Religion and Public Life. We both took part in a seminar last week for journalists from around the world, focusing on blasphemy and freedom of the press.

“Blasphemy charges mean that you cannot discuss the blasphemy charges. Hence, seeking to remove, minimize or otherwise immobilize legal bans on blasphemy, apostasy, insulting Islam and insulting public religious sentiments is an indispensable first step in creating the necessary political space for debate that could lead to other reforms. Unless you can get this out of the way, you can’t discuss other issues.”

It’s crucial, said Marshall, to realize that Islamists are using laws against apostasy and blasphemy to threaten liberal Muslims just as often, or more often, than against actual converts. When Osama bin Laden issues pronouncements against blasphemy, he reserves his strongest words for Muslims who want to compromise with the West.

There is no law higher for Muslims than Sharia law and no courts higher than those that enforce it. One notorious law in Pakistan says: “Whoever, by words either spoken or written, or by visible representation, or by imputation, innuendo or insinuation, directly or indirectly, defiles the sacred name of the Holy Prophet Mohammad (peace be upon him) shall be punished by death.”

The ultimate insult is for a Muslim to abandon the faith. So it matters little that the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights states: “Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief. …”

In recent years, powerful Muslims in Iran, Afghanistan and elsewhere have urged their Sharia courts to restore and enforce traditional penalties for crimes such as apostasy and “blasphemy against the prophet,” said Anglican Bishop Michael Nazir-Ali of Rochester, who grew up in a primarily Shiite family in Pakistan.

The bottom line is that penalties other than death are viewed as repugnant to Islam. Judges have little room to maneuver and the whole world is watching.

“The question, of course, is whether in a world such as ours — which is increasingly interconnected — religions have to be accountable not only to themselves and their followers, but to others,” said the bishop. “Questions of personal liberty, of life, cannot be left just to circles of believers.”

Nevertheless, it may become harder for moderate Muslims and their allies to avoid these questions, even in the safety of the West. Earlier this year, an organization called “Supporters of God’s Messenger” sent out an email threatening to kill 30 or more “atheists,” “polytheists” and Muslims who cooperate with “worshippers of the cross” and other believers.

Marshall noted that the message called people by name, including Muslims in America, and included information about their home addresses, their children’s schools and times when their wives were alone at home.

“Appeasement of such groups will not work,” he said. If Western leaders fail to take a stand, “violent Islamists will accept their victory and move on to demand the next part of their agenda — the silencing or death of those who reject or criticize their program, including, especially, Muslims. …

“If even Western democracies cannot provide the political space for Muslims to debate these critical questions concerning the meaning of Islam, then all hope of an Islamic reform movement will be lost.”

   Send article as PDF to