Please excuse any mistakes, as this is my first FR post.
The Church has dealt with the issue of a forced conversion at length with far greater implications. During the Diocletion persecution many Christians were forced to pay homage to false gods. Many others refused and accepted torture or martyrdom. Those tortured and martyred were given a special reverence during the liturgy.
The question of those who did succumb went beyond the individual question to those in holy orders who gave in. That is, were the orders of those ordained by someone who later succumb to Rome valid? The question was so important it ended in a schism of the church between the one holy catholic apostolic church and what is now known as the Coptic church that would later turn to the heresy of Nestorianism. St Augustine was just one defender of the church on this issue.
My point is that this question was very important to the Church Fathers and it was dealt with at great length with all of its implications. It seems strange to deal with it as it applies to FOX journalists without any reference to the copious amount of thought already done.
As WHW points out, this issue has been discussed for thousands of years.
I would say it applies to anything, though, not just religion. How can you publicly profess something that violates the principles you claim to have? My point in another post was that even if these reporters were complete secularists and not Christian, by professing Islam they were accepting sharia and rejecting all of the principles of Western liberalism that they claim to believe (freedom, equality, etc.).
Young Conservative, you seem to think that beliefs have no consequences and no substance, hence it does not matter what you publicly profess. Why don't you give this matter an objective test: look at the results. Islam's ideal is theocracy, so are no functioning Islamic secular states (except for those that are run as police states and are pretty tenuous, such as Turkey), the condition of women in Islam is appalling, and Islam has a history of conquest and violence since its very beginning. Christianity, on the other hand, is not a political system, can operate in any political system that respects human rights, has at its heart the fundamental belief in equality and dignity of all human beings, and has a history of building hospitals and caring for lepers and the outcast. A newly converted Christian will go out and want to join a religious order and spend his days in prayer or tending the sick; a newly converted Muslim hits the internet to look for bomb recipes. There's a difference, and you have to admit that what one believes is important and does make a difference on a scale that goes beyond the merely personal.
Again, this is true in anything, not just religion. You obviously do not believe that truth exists; you believe that it is all the same. It's not, and at some point, we have to decide what is our sticking point; that is, what is the thing we cannot deny without sacrificing our integrity, our freedom and our human dignity. What would it be for you? Would you be willing to say anything to stay alive or even to avoid serious difficulties, such as loss of income or status? Or are there any beliefs and values you would refuse to deny, or some you would refuse to profess because they are so opposed to what you really believe?