For author, religion is a path to acceptance

Last Sunday's Democratic presidential debate in Iowa featured eight candidates whose ethnic backgrounds spanned the globe and who all professed some religious faith, even if it was utilitarian. (US Representative Dennis Kucinich told the moderator that he had been "praying to God that you'd call on me.")

Peggy Levitt argues in her book, "God Needs No Passport" (The New Press), that this is more than just a campaign-stage display and that the international face of religion is a fundamental, but misapprehended, force.

Just as American corporations straddle national borders, immigration has turned American religion into a global enterprise. This year's bickering over immigration reform obscured the harmonizing potential of religion, a key source of most Americans' identities, Levitt argues.

Her own identity includes her Judaism, her position as chairwoman of the sociology department at Wellesley, her fellowship at Harvard's Weatherhead Center for International Affairs, and her expertise on jet lag. (Researching the book took her to India, Pakistan, Ireland and Brazil, as well as to places across the United States.)

Following are excerpts from an interview this week:

Q You say the pro- and anti-immigrant arguments we've been hearing are "out of sync with our national reality," specifically religious reality. How so?

A Many people believe immigrants sever ties to their countries of origin and that remaining connected to one's homeland is antithetical to becoming assimilated. In fact, people keep feet in both worlds. One way that people do that is through religion. The [example] that would be most familiar would be the [Roman] Catholic church, with headquarters in the Vatican. But more and more, we see Hindu organizations that also have an organizational structure across borders, evangelical Christian organizations across borders. Immigrants are bringing new traditions and also Asian-izing and Latino-izing longstanding denominations.

Q You argue that we should relax about immigrants having transnational religious loyalties.

A Exactly. We should embrace people who know how to live between cultures and religions, because those are the people who are on the cutting edge of what it means to live in a global world. The person who is inventing what it means to be a Muslim or Hindu in America is teaching native-born people about their religious traditions and is also a translator back about what religious life is like in the United States. That's what it means to live in a global world, and it gives us the public relations face lift we desperately need.

Q You distinguish between tolerance and pluralism. What's the difference?

A One is living side by side, sort of separate but equal, acceptance but not engagement. Pluralism means willing to be changed and change, a level of listening, interaction. Americans need to understand newcomers better, and newcomers need to make America understandable to the places that they come from.

Q Isn't there a danger in people getting too much identity from religion? The tribal, disbelieving, circle-the-wagons instinct some Catholics had to the [church's] sex abuse scandal turned out to be utterly wrongheaded.

A I can't tell you that there aren't lots of examples where there have been negative consequences of people identifying religiously. But let's think of the role religion played in the antislavery movement, the civil rights movement. Let's think about what religion is doing now in the new sanctuary movement for undocumented immigrants. For all the negative examples, you can also think of positive examples.

Q You're not worried that we might go down the path of Europe, where secular culture and religion, particularly Islam, are finding accommodation hellishly difficult?

A The United States is fundamentally a religious country. Being religious has always been a way to become American. I don't think what's happening in Europe is going to happen in this country.

Q Religious pluralism doesn't preclude a belief that immigration laws should be enforced?

A Of course. What religious pluralists feel about immigration reform falls across the spectrum.

Q You say America "demands religiosity." That's not literally true, as my atheist friends say.

A There's a classic book by Will Herberg, "Protestant-Catholic-Jew." His argument was it was OK to be different based on religion in America, much more than [differences] based on your ethnicity or race. I think that's true. Obviously, you can be an atheist; you can be agnostic. But there's also a lot of room to be a believer.

Q Are you optimistic that America will find, or maintain, religious pluralism and harmony?

A I think we have to be optimistic. There are certainly going to be people who aren't interested in religious dialogue. But for the whole range of others that are open to a conversation, I'm saying that religion as a positive resource has been co-opted by the religious right. Whoever is willing to have a conversation can either let that continue or say this is an untapped potential source of social glue and change.

Questionsor comments can be sent to spiritual@globe.com.