Obama proceeded to recite the opening lines of the Muslim call to prayer in Arabic, with what Nicholas D. Kristof called a “first-rate accent.” Obama described this chant as “one of the prettiest sounds on Earth at sunset.”

This text, in one English translation, proclaims: “Allah is Supreme! Allah is Supreme! … I testify that there is no god but Allah! … I testify that Muhammad is the messenger of Allah.” These lines are known as the Shahada — from the Arabic verb, “to testify” — and reciting them, in public, with the intent of becoming a Muslim, is a crucial act in entering and then practicing the faith.

This is the kind of biographical detail that keeps complicating matters for journalists who try to make sense of the poll from the Pew Research Center and the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life indicating that 18 percent of Americans think Obama is a Muslim, as opposed to 11 percent in March 2009.

Only 34 percent of those polled said Obama is a Christian and a stunning 43 percent did not know his current religion. Among his strongest supporters, 43 percent of blacks and 46 percent of Democrats said he is a Christian.

These numbers are strange in light of Obama’s public testimonies about his conversion to Christianity, after years of spiritual struggle.

In his memoir, “The Audacity of Hope,” Obama confessed that as a young social activist he realized, “Rich, poor, sinner, saved, you needed to embrace Christ precisely because you had sins to wash away — because you were human. … I was finally able to walk down the aisle of Trinity United Church of Christ one day and be baptized. … Kneeling beneath that cross on the South Side of Chicago, I felt God’s spirit beckoning me. I submitted myself to His will, and dedicated myself to discovering His truth.”

This was an open confession of faith, even if many conservative Christians choose to reject the liberal beliefs he has articulated through the years. During the campaign, the Rev. Franklin Graham asked Obama if Jesus was the only way to heaven. “Jesus is the only way for me,” he responded.

Meanwhile, the Obama team has had difficulty communicating a clear message about his faith history. Campaign aides, at first, said he had never been a Muslim, but later stressed that he had never been “a practicing Muslim.”

Obama’s family history is hard to describe. His father was a Muslim from Kenya who became an atheist. His stepfather was a Muslim who, in Obama’s words, was raised in an era in which Indonesia offered a tolerant approach to Islam that blended with “remnants of Hinduism, Buddhism, and ancient animist traditions.” His mother was raised as a Christian, but adopted her own mix of secularism and spirituality.

While in Indonesia, Obama attended what he has called a “Muslim” public school and also a Catholic school. At both schools, according to educators interviewed by the Los Angeles Times, his faith was listed as “Muslim.” School friends recalled that they often went to the mosque together.

Nevertheless, there is no single, definitive Islamic approach to questions about the role of birth and upbringing in establishing a person’s religious identity.

Franklin Graham was only partially right when he told CNN: “The president’s problem is that he was born a Muslim. His father was a Muslim. The seed of Islam is passed through the father. … His father gave him an Islamic name.” Graham added that Obama has “renounced Islam and he has accepted Jesus Christ. That’s what he says he has done. I cannot say that he hasn’t.”

This view of Islamic tradition is much too simplistic, said Stephen Prothero of Boston University, author of “God is Not One: The Eight Rival Religions that Run the World.” There is more to this debate about faith and identity than DNA, he stressed.

“As a matter of jurisprudence, however, there is a presumption that a child born to a Muslim father is Muslim,” said Prothero, in an email exchange. “This needs to be followed up with ACTION, however. …

“Like Christianity, Islam is a matter of choice, not inheritance.”

   Send article as PDF to

Even Obama’s fiercest admirers admitted that his best work for peace occurred at lecture podiums, where the new president offered more of the soaring, idealistic words that helped him rise to power. Nobel judges, in particular, had to be thinking about his June 4 address at Cairo University, in which he promised an era of improved relations between America and the Muslim world.

It’s crucial, he said, for Americans and Muslims to realize that their cultures “overlap, and share common principles — principles of justice and progress; tolerance and the dignity of all human beings.” Muslims and Americans must, for example, find ways to work together to defend religious liberty.

“People in every country should be free to choose and live their faith based upon the persuasion of the mind, heart and soul,” he said. “This tolerance is essential for religion to thrive. … The richness of religious diversity must be upheld — whether it is for Maronites in Lebanon or the Copts in Egypt. …

“Freedom of religion is central to the ability of peoples to live together.”

The Cairo speech — which included quotes from the Koran, the Bible and the Talmud — was the year’s most important religion story, according to a poll of mainstream reporters who cover religion news. The role of Obama’s liberal Christian faith in the White House race topped the 2008 Religion Newswriters Association poll.

Religious-liberty issues will continue to test the Obama team, as illustrated by the sobering numbers in a new “Global Restrictions on Religion” study released by the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life. It found that citizens in a third of all nations — representing 70 percent of the world’s population — are not able to practice their religion freely, due to government policies or hostile actions taken by individuals or groups.

Among the world’s most populous nations, Egypt, Iran, Indonesia, Pakistan and India had the most intense restrictions on religion, especially limits on the rights of religious minorities.

The nations offering the greatest freedoms on religious practice were the United States, Brazil, Japan, Italy, South Africa and the United Kingdom.

Here’s the rest of the RNA top 10.

(2) Faith groups were at the center of debates over health-care reform, which was the hottest topic in Congress for most of the year. The U.S. Catholic bishops consistently opposed the use of tax dollars to fund abortions, thus clashing with other religious groups that supporting an expanded government role.

(3) The role of radical forms of Islam in terrorism hit the news once again, due to the disturbing history of statements and actions of Maj. Nidal Hasan, the accused gunman in the massacre of 13 people, including a pregnant woman, at Fort Hood.

(4) George Tiller, an outspoken specialist in performing late-term abortions, was shot while ushering at his Evangelical Lutheran Church in America congregation in Wichita. The antigovernment radical charged with the murder, Scott Roeder, had in the past supported the views of writers who argue — see ArmyofGod.com — that violence against abortionists is morally justified.

(5) Mormons in California were attacked by some gay-rights supporters due to their lobbying efforts on behalf of Proposition 8, which outlawed gay marriage. Anti-Mormon protests led to vandalism at some Mormon buildings.

(6) President Obama was granted an honorary degree in law from the University of Notre Dame, despite protests that this violated a U.S. bishops policy urging Catholic institutions not to honor those who openly oppose church teachings on the sanctity of human life.

(7) The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America voted to ordain gay and lesbian pastors who live in faithful, committed, monogamous relationships, leading some congregations to start preparations to form a new denomination.

(8) The national recession forced budget cuts at a wide variety of faith-related groups — houses of worship, publishing houses, relief agencies, colleges and seminaries.

(9) Leaders of the Episcopal Church voted to end a moratorium on installing gay bishops, ignoring a request from the archbishop of Canterbury and many other leaders in the global Anglican Communion. The Diocese of Los Angeles then elected a lesbian as a new assistant bishop.

(10) President Obama’s inauguration rites included a controversial invocation by the Rev. Rick Warren, a controversial benediction by the Rev. Joseph Lowery and, at a celebration beforehand, a prayer by New Hampshire Bishop Gene Robinson, the Episcopal Church’s first openly gay, noncelibate bishop.

   Send article as PDF to

When pollsters ask Americans the Eternal Question they almost always say, “I believe in God.”

Ask young Americans about faith and the response is something like, “I believe in God and stuff.” Finding the doctrinal meaning of “and stuff” is tricky.

“God made us and if you ask him for something I believe he gives it to you. Yeah, he hasn’t let me down yet,” said a 14-year-old Catholic from Pennsylvania, when researchers Christian Smith and Melinda Lundquist Denton asked him why religion matters. “God is a spirit that grants you anything you want, but not anything bad.”

The key is that this God — part Divine Butler, part Cosmic Therapist — watches from a safe distance.

“God’s all around you, all the time,” said conservative Protestant girl, 17, from Florida. “He believes in forgiving people and what-not, and he’s there to guide us, for somebody to talk to and help us through our problems. Of course, he doesn’t talk back.”

If grown-ups roll their eyes at litanies such as these, most teens offer a chilly response that sums up their creeds — “whatever.”

Thus it was significant, in the Josephson Institute’s latest Report Card on the Ethics of American Youth, that 48 percent of the students surveyed in 100 random public and private high schools said they had “never” violated their own “religious beliefs” during 2007. Other parts of this survey made headlines, especially its reports that a third of the students said they stole something from a store during the previous year, while 38 percent committed plagiarism, 64 percent cheated on a test and 83 percent lied to a parent about something important.

Few of these young people are “unbelievers” or, heaven forbid, “secularists,” noted Smith, director of the Center for the Study of Religion and Society at the University of Notre Dame. The overwhelming majority of them — like their parents — would insist that they are practicing Christians, Jews, Muslims or whatever.

“Plenty of religious kids do steal and cheat and whatever,” he said, responding to the Josephson survey. “They have in their heads some image of what ‘religious’ really looks like. For many — not all — young people, the meaning of that word is so vague it can mean almost anything or nothing whatsoever. The bar is set low and their take on religion certainly doesn’t include concepts such as self sacrifice, repentance or self mortification.”

These young people are religious, he stressed. They are simply practicing a new religion, one that Smith and Denton called “Moralistic Therapeutic Deism.” When crunched to its basics, this faith teaches that:

* A God exists who “created and orders the world” and watches over our lives.

* This God wants people to be good, nice and fair to one another, as taught by most major religions.

* The central goal of life is to be happy and to feel good.

* God is rarely involved in daily life, except when needed to solve a problem.

* Good people go to heaven.

This is not a faith that can stand on its own, noted Smith, in a lecture at the Princeton Theological Seminary Institute for Youth Ministry. Instead, it is a “parasitic religion” that creates weakened, less rigid versions of other faiths — such as Christianity, Islam, Judaism and Hinduism. There may even, he noted, be “Nonreligious Moralistic Therapeutic Deists” in modern America.

When describing their beliefs, most young people say it’s important to be kind to one another and to try to live a good life. There are few limitations on behavior, other than loose rules that say it is wrong to hurt other people, especially one’s friends. “Don’t be a jerk” is a common refrain.

Words such as “sanctification,” “Trinity,” “sin,” “holiness” and “Eucharist” have little or no meaning. Most references to “grace” refer to the television show “Will and Grace.” If teens mention being “justified,” this almost always means that they think they have a good reason to do something that others consider questionable.

This faith, Smith explained, blends well with popular culture and media.

“It’s a religion that works at the level of email and texting and long hours talking on your cellphones,” he said. “It’s all about relationships. Your religion has to work with your friends and it has to bring you happiness. That’s what really matters.”

   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

In the most recent clash the nation’s high court waved off an attempt by evangelicals to attack “Jerry Springer — The Opera.”

To no one’s surprise, a coalition of powerful Brits has issued yet another call to kill the blasphemy law. It’s a sign of the times.

“The ancient common law of blasphemous libel purports to protect beliefs rather than people or communities,” said a statement backed by activists ranging from the creator of the BBC comedy “The Office” to the retired Archbishop of Canterbury. “Most religious commentators are of the view that the Almighty does not need the ‘protection’ of such a law. Far from protecting public order … it actually damages social cohesion.”

The conviction behind blasphemy laws is that cultures need some kind of religious order to maintain social cohesion, said Bishop Michael Nazir-Ali of Rochester, a key voice in Britain’s ongoing debates about faith and culture.

Defenders of Britain’s law would insist, he noted, that “it provides some sort of basis to the British constitution, which is, of course, the queen and parliament, under God. So if you protect the queen and protect the parliament, then you also need to protect … the honor of God.”

But the question now is whether Britain can find a common set of values or laws, said Nazir-Ali, in a dialogue with journalists from around the world.

The timing of that 2006 seminar — organized by my Oxford Centre for Religion & Public Life colleagues — was crucial. Blasphemy was in the news because of Danish cartoons mocking the prophet Muhammad. Then there would be more tension when Sudanese officials arrested a teacher for allowing her young class to name its teddy bear “Muhammad.”

Nazir-Ali recently made headlines of his own when he claimed that radical forms of Islam have turned parts of England into “no-go zones” in which it is dangerous for non-Muslims to live, work and minister. The nation, he lamented, is breaking into “self-contained,” segregated communities in which people live “parallel lives.” The bishop and his family are living under police protection after receiving death threats.

“Converts to Christian faith also find it difficult or impossible to live in certain areas,” noted Nazir-Ali, who was raised in Pakistan in a family with Christian and Muslim roots. “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.”

Soon after this controversy, Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams threw more fuel on the multicultural fire by saying that it “seems inevitable” that elements of Muslim Sharia law will be included in the British legal system.

In a complicated lecture, Williams said it might be possible to develop a “scheme in which individuals retain the liberty to choose the jurisdiction under which they will seek to resolve certain carefully specified matters.” Sharia courts might be involved in some “aspects of marital law, the regulation of financial transactions and authorized structures of mediation and conflict resolution.”

News reports about the archbishop’s views created a firestorm. Critics stopped just short of accusing Williams of committing a secular brand of blasphemy, if that is possible in modern Britain.

As the headlines raged on, Nazir-Ali stressed that all of these conflicts point to one reality.

Sooner or later, he said, British leaders will have to decide whether to affirm or deny centuries of English law that is “rooted in the Judeo-Christian tradition.” The various schools of Islamic law that exist today, he stressed, bring with them their own traditions and assumptions and compromise will be next to impossible.

“The Sharia is not a generalized collection of dispositions. It is articulated in highly concrete codes,” he wrote, at his diocesan website. “It would have to be one or the other, or all, of these which would have to be recognized. All of these schools would be in tension with the English legal tradition on questions like monogamy, provisions of divorce, the rights of women, custody of children, laws of inheritance and of evidence.

“This is not to mention the relation of freedom of belief and expression to provisions for blasphemy and apostasy.”

   Send article as PDF to

This created a crisis, since multi-ethnic Malaysia has both civic and Muslim courts. After the birth of the couple’s daughter, the Muslim grandparents urged a Sharia court to give them custody of the baby. They won and Revathi was sent to a rehabilitation center for apostate, wayward Muslims.

“I will make her a Muslim child. That’s why I took her,” said the grandmother. “Her mother has no choice. … She asked me if I can allow her to convert out of Islam. I said, ‘No way, you must remain in the religion. You cannot leave, it’s the law here.’ “

This kind of human drama makes for gripping television news. At one point, the Hindu husband briefly managed to talk to his wife through a metal gate before being confronted by a guard — on camera.

Welcome to Al-Jazeera English, a news channel that few Americans get to see. It is operated by the controversial global network that former U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld called the “mouthpiece of Al-Qaeda.”

Al-Jazeera English has struggled to find a U.S. audience because cable-television executives believe Americans are not ready to see world events — many tied to religion — through a Middle Eastern lens. Also, it’s easy to question the perspective of a network funded by a billion dollars or more from His Highness Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa Al-Thani, emir of Qatar.

But Americans need to hear the kinds of voices featured on a network that reports from the developing world back to the west, said Nigel Parsons, a BBC and Associated Press Television News veteran who is managing director of Al-Jazeera English.

“But it’s not just about telling the rest of the world what is happening from inside the Middle East out. It’s also about telling the rest of the world about America,” he said, at a National Press Club forum in Washington, D.C. “America is often accused of not understanding the outside world, … of being very insular and of not understanding the events that shape its policies.”

However, it’s possible to turn that equation around, because the rest of the world “actually understands very little about the United States,” he said. “We hear about New York, we hear about Hollywood and we hear about things that go on inside the Beltway here in D.C. We don’t hear much about that big bit in the middle.”

The result is a kind of two-sided blind spot.

On one side, said Parsons, are millions of Al-Jazeera viewers around the world who previously had little or no chance to learn about “what makes America tick,” including the diversity of religious and political beliefs found in U.S. churches, synagogues and mosques. On the other side, he is convinced that few Americans have been exposed to the variety of religious and political perspectives found in the many cultures of the Middle East and in the wider Islamic world.

That Al-Jazeera English report on the apostasy charges against Revathi Masoosai, for example, ended with a stark contrast. A “Sisters in Islam” spokeswoman backed the views of legal scholars who insist that Article 11 of Malaysia’s constitution protects freedom of conscience and religion. But a conservative Muslim leader stood his ground, insisting that to “be a Malay is to be a Muslim” and that the nation will collapse if believers are free to convert to another faith.

The report ended with that question unresolved, which is the tense reality in Malaysia and many other parts of the Muslim world.

Parsons said it would be wrong to claim that Al-Jazeera English is promoting the spread of some form of “moderate Islam” — a loaded label the network never uses — because what is “moderate” in one Muslim culture would be called “apostasy” in others.

However, the network has pursued a “reformist agenda” that often clashes with state-controlled networks in the Middle East. Parsons proudly noted that Al-Jazeera has been forced, at one time or another, to leave almost every nation in the region — except Israel.

“We are not going to see major changes in that part of the world overnight,” he said. “Arguments and debate and dialogue are going to have to come first. We cannot afford to have news and information going in one direction and that’s that.”

   Send article as PDF to

It’s Ramadan. Will your devout Muslim parents smile if you serve dinner several hours before sundown?

It’s Good Friday. Will the Catholic college cafeteria serve hamburgers?

It’s Thanksgiving. Can you predict the foods that will be on your mother’s table? Will the German grandmothers bake Christmas cookies at the Lutheran church? Is the tuna casserole served at potluck dinners at rural Minnesota churches truly a sacrament?

When it comes to the rhythms and symbols of faith, it’s easy to see the role that food plays, especially in the intense and emotional final months of the religious calendar.

“Food is all about the stories that define our lives,” said Daniel Sack of the University of Chicago Divinity School, author of the book “Whitebread Protestants: Food and Religion in American Culture.”

“I’m not just talking about religious rituals that involve food. ? For many church people, what happens in the social hall week after week is more important than what happens in the sanctuary. They come for Communion, but also for community.”

Sack said food traditions — with a big “T,” as well as with a small “t” — demonstrate why it’s almost impossible to draw a line showing where religion ends and culture begins. Food is one of the basic building blocks of life and, thus, is one of the “passions” that religious believers have always struggled to keep under control.

Change what people eat and you change their lives. However, there are times when the religious significance of food is obvious and there are times when it is not. While studying this subject, Sack said he began sorting the different kinds of food traditions into four groups.

* Sometimes, the food becomes a holy object in and of itself. One example is when a Buddhist takes a food offering to a temple. In other cases, ordinary food becomes sacred as part of an intricate ritual that is defined by prayers and scripture — such as the bread and wine in a Catholic Mass.

“What is crucial is that this sacramental understanding of food seeps into other parts of life,” said Sack. “And we’re not just talking about Christianity. If you start talking about bread and wine, it’s hard to take that symbolism out of there.”

* Most religious traditions, to varying degrees, claim some right to control the role that food plays in daily life. This is most obvious in faiths such as Judaism, with its “kosher” traditions, and in Islamic laws to establish what is and what is not “halal.” In other faiths, believers fast from eating certain foods at different times of the week or year.

* In many cases, these sacred laws and traditions then begin to shape the festivals and the cuisine of a particular culture or ethnic group. At this point the line between Greek cooking and Greek Orthodox cooking starts to blur. What role does faith play in the menus of Ethiopian, Italian, Lebanese, Indian or Swedish restaurants?

* Food also reflects what people believe about family and community life. It would be strange to see conservative Evangelical leaders serve the same food at a men’s dinner that they serve a luncheon for the women’s group. Foods reflect social roles, too.

Sack said that every community, every family, cannot help but develop informal rituals linked to meals, because meals are such symbolic times of fellowship. And when the times change, so do the meals.

Consider the food served at youth-group meetings. Once, parents organized these meetings and prepared the food, helping to maintain a sense of watch-care and protection from the outside world. Today, most churches hire professional youth pastors who plan multi-media programs and — naturally — send out for pizza.

“When we assimilate at the level of the table, we have truly assimilated to the world around us,” said Sack. “When you take this view of life, those parents are not just sending out for pizza — they are sending a symbolic signal of acceptance of the surrounding youth culture. ?

“You see the same thing happening when people start lining up those fast-food boxes at church potluck dinners. Some megachurches even have food courts, these days. Who has the time to prepare those special dishes that people used to take to church?”

   Send article as PDF to

Consider what happens when the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life asks a basic “salience question” to determine the level of interest in faith-related matters around the world. Participants are asked to answer “yes” or “no” in response to this statement: “Religion is very important to me.”

About six out of 10 in the United States say “yes,” noted political scientist Luis E. Lugo, who has directed the research center since 2004.

“There is not a place in Europe, even in Eastern Europe, that comes close to that kind of level of religious commitment,” he said, during a religion-news seminar in Washington organized by my colleagues at the Oxford Centre for Religion & Public Life. Even Canada, he noted, now “looks like Europe on this question.”

In Great Britain, 33 percent of those polled said religion was “very important” in their lives, compared with 27 percent in Italy, 21 percent in Germany and 11 percent in France. In Poland, the number was 36 percent, with Russia at 14 percent and the Czech Republic at 11 percent.

This rift between the old world and the new has existed for decades. Lugo said that when he discusses these statistics with Europeans they say, “Ah! See, we knew it. The United States is a very strange place. It’s just full of religious zealots.”

But then Lugo clicks to another chart as he describes what he calls the “religious futures market.” The goal is to map the intersection of faith and demographics, including factors such as fertility rates and religious conversion trends in various nations. What happens when Lugo adds statistics from Latin America, Asia and Africa to his “salience question” chart?

The numbers are stark. In Guatemala, 80 percent of those polled said religion was “very important” in their lives. That number was 77 percent in Brazil and 72 percent in Honduras, but only 39 percent in Argentina.

And Asia? The “yes” total was 95 percent in Indonesia, 92 percent in India, 91 percent in the Philippines, but only 12 percent in Japan. And Africa? Senegal checks in at 97 percent, Nigeria is 92 percent and the numbers only declined to 80 percent in Angola.

Lugo said the typical response by Europeans to these numbers could be summed up in one word — “Whoa!” Then there is nervous laughter.

So, when it comes to weighing the role of religion in world affairs, Europeans who worry about America have to ask: “Who looks strange now?”

“The world as a whole is even more religious than the United States,” Lugo added. “So it is not the United States that needs explaining, in many ways, when it comes to religion, it is Europe that needs to be explained. Why this secular continent … surrounded by a sea of religiosity?”

This global reality raises all kinds of questions, such as:

* Why are fertility rates linked to the fervency of religious beliefs? “The most secular parts of the world have the lowest fertility rates,” he noted, “and the most religious have the highest fertility rates.”

* How will Europe respond to high rates of immigration by religious believers, especially Muslims and Christians from Eastern Europe?

* Can the continent of Africa avoid being shaped by conflict between Islam and Christianity — two growing, conversion-oriented faiths on that continent?

* How will the move of more Catholics into what Lugo called “high-octane Pentecostalism” — inside the Church of Rome and in Protestantism — affect Latin America, Central America and, finally, North America?

If researchers focus strictly on Europe and North America, they may conclude that secularism and liberalized forms of faith are on the rise. But if they look at the global numbers, said Lugo, they will see a completely different picture of the future.

“You don’t have to be a genius to conclude that it is going to be more religious and less secular,” he said. “There is not a European country, for instance, that is anywhere close to a replacement birth rate. Not even close. All of their populations are declining. … So on that basis alone, you can predict that the whole religion question is going to become even more important, in terms of global affairs.”

   Send article as PDF to

There was a killer virus on the loose and all you had to do to catch it was answer a call from an infected number. The virus didn’t hurt cellphones, but would — eyewitnesses confirmed this — cause users to drop dead. The Pakistan Telecommunication Authority was forced to issue a denial telling users that it was safe to turn their phones back on.

Then there were messages claiming that Israeli trucks were carrying a million HIV-infected melons to Arab consumers in a new biological-warfare plot. This was not to be confused with other urban legends about a “Western-Zionist conspiracy” to use polio vaccines and other medical means to sterilize the next generation of Muslims.

“The contemporary Muslim fascination for conspiracy theories often limits the capacity for rational discussion of international affairs,” argued Husain Haqqani of Boston University, at a conference in Istanbul entitled “Fact vs. Rumor: Journalism in the 21st Century.” This recent gathering of journalists and scholars was organized by my colleagues at the Oxford Centre for Religion and Public Life.

Haqqani stressed that the “Muslim world’s willingness to believe rumors is not a function of the Islamic religion. Like other Abrahamic faiths, Islam emphasizes truth and righteousness. The Koran says: ‘O ye who believe! Fear Allah, and (always) say a word directed to the Truth.’ And one of the sayings attributed to Prophet Muhammad … specifically forbids rumormongering: ‘It is enough to establish someone as a liar that he spreads what he hears without confirming its veracity.’ “

Nevertheless, these rumors roll on, creating a cycle of fear and bigotry. The result is a climate of confusion and cynicism that prepares millions of people to believe the next round of rumors, often with violent consequences in an age in which ancient prejudices and modern technology merge seamlessly.

The results can be seen in recent WorldPublicOpinion.org surveys in Egypt, Morocco, Pakistan and Indonesia, said Haqqani, who is an active Muslim. As a rule, participants had positive attitudes about globalization, freedom of religion and democracy. Yet roughly three out of four surveyed said that Muslim nations should strictly enforce Sharia, or Islamic, law as part of efforts to reject sinful “Western values.” Large majorities affirmed the belief that the United States is trying to “weaken and divide” the Muslim world and slightly smaller majorities said America’s goal is to “spread Christianity in the region.”

The impact of the rumors can, perhaps, be seen in another paradox seen in these surveys, said Haqqani. Large majorities in Egypt, Indonesia and Morocco (results were mixed in Pakistan) agreed that violent groups that kill civilians are guilty of violating the “principles of Islam.” However, less than a quarter of those polled believed that Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda were responsible for the Sept. 11 attacks.

“Many Muslims seem to believe that 9/11 was a great achievement, but that Osama didn’t do it,” he said. “They are confused by all the rumors.”

Leaders in the West must understand that almost half of the world’s Muslim population is illiterate. Meanwhile, the 57 Organization of the Islamic Conference nations contain about 500 colleges and universities, compared with more than 5,000 in the United States and 8,000 in India. That is one university for every three million Muslims.

Yet this painful fact is not the only source of this predisposition to embrace conspiracy theories, said Haqqani. After all, the digital consumers who use their cellphones to spread ridiculous text messages are not illiterate.

“What we are seeing is not just a crisis rooted only in religion or education,” said Haqqani. “This is a culture-wide crisis of politics and economics and technology and education and it is easy to see the role of religion because of the powerful role that faith plays in the lives of millions of people.

“The greatest fear of most Muslims is that their societies will be over run by the Western world. … They believe that modernity equals Westernization, Westernization equals promiscuity and licentiousness and all of that equals a loss of faith. We cannot change that overnight. It is a project of a century or more, in which millions of people must learn that the modern world is built on values, laws and tolerance, not just highways, airplanes and cellphones.”

   Send article as PDF to

Many people disagree, saying that it’s impossible to defend basic human rights without a religious or at philosophical commitment to moral absolutes.

It’s easy to tell who is who when they speak out.

Consider this voice: “Freedom on the one hand is for the sake of truth and on the other hand it cannot be perfected except by means of truth. … There is no freedom without truth.”

That was the young Polish bishop who would become Pope John Paul II, arguing for a tight connection between truth and freedom at Vatican II.

Evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins disagrees, to put it mildly: “To fill a world with religion, or religions of the Abrahamic kind, is like littering the streets with loaded guns. Don’t be surprised if they are used.”

While it’s easy to find examples of religion being used to justify great evils, Washington Post columnist Michael Gerson finds it hard to grasp how Dawkins and company can study history and say things like that. It’s no surprise that Gerson feels this way, since he is best known as the White House scribe who wove faith-based images into so many speeches for President George W. Bush.

“This anti-religious viewpoint claims too much. Do its advocates really intend to lump the Grand Inquisitor with the Amish? To say there is no difference between radical Salafists and Sufis?”, asked Gerson, speaking at a global conference entitled “Fact vs. Rumor: Journalism in the 21st Century.” This gathering in Istanbul was organized by my colleagues at the Oxford Centre for Religion and Public Life.

“Surely the content of religion makes some difference,” added Gerson. “But the central problem with this anti-religious attitude is this: It would remove the main source of reform — the main source of passion for justice and change — in American history.”

If it’s hard to maintain a demilitarized zone between religion and politics in America, it’s even harder to do so in a land like Turkey, where many politicians insist that they have created a “secular Muslim state.”

Many other Turks have severe doubts about the success of that project, especially those in the nation’s shrinking Orthodox, Protestant, Catholic and Jewish minorities. Ask the Armenians if trying to separate “truth” from “rumor” raises tolerance issues in modern Turkey.

While Gerson discussed a wide range of issues in an off-the-record dialogue session, including the Iraq war, his keynote address focused on the big picture — his conviction that in “every culture, standing for truth against lies and conspiracy theories is essential to tolerance.”

At the very least, he stressed, tolerance requires a belief in at least one absolute truth, a belief in human dignity. And without some kind of doctrine of human equality — that, for example, all men are created equal and in God’s image — it is hard to defend universal standards of human rights and social justice.

In American history, said Gerson, the source of that moral truth has often been found in the prophetic voices of religious believers.

Thus, the Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr., wrote these words in his “Letter from the Birmingham Jail.” A truly “just law is a man-made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law.”

Moral relativism, on the other hand, forces leaders to root their decisions in power and power alone, said Gerson. The result is “the rule of the strong — the rule of those who can seek their wants and impose their will most effectively.”

Thus, as a contrast to King, consider this voice from the bloody 20th Century.

“Everything I have said and done in these last years is relativism by intuition — if relativism signifies contempt for fixed categories and men who claim to be bearers of an objective, immortal truth. … From the fact that all ideologies are of equal value, that all ideologies are mere fictions, the modern relativist infers that everybody has the right to create for himself his own ideology and to attempt to enforce it with all the energy of which he is capable.”

The speaker? That would be Italian fascist Benito Mussolini.

   Send article as PDF to