“…according to a new poll by the Public Religion Research Institute, 64% of Americans do not want to live in a primarily Christian nation. Instead, they prefer an America of many faiths without a Christian majority.” - RNS
“Upholding the Constitution’s religious liberty protections, which also safeguard our own faith, precludes the government targeting Islam for legal discrimination… But insisting on that freedom of conscience does not mean leveling all religions or pretending there is no conflict of belief between Christianity and Islam….It’s not “Christian nationalism” to recognize that fact.” - CToday
“They are like different languages in order to arrive at God, but God is God for all….Since God is God for all, then we are all children of God.” - Crux
More:
“As a Republican official led a Sikh prayer, images of Christian crosses flashed behind her.” - RNS
“neutrality between sects is meant to allow all to flourish. This is the important distinction between separationism—which has mistakenly been touted as the best way to advance pluralism—and pluralism itself.” - Law & Liberty
“We must address this problem head-on, explaining to our congregations why Western culture is pluralistic. Without diving too deeply into the philosophical weeds, I teach my church about Kant’s separation of faith from knowledge.” - Lifeway
“Lesslie Newbigin defines the ideology of religious pluralism as, ‘the belief that the differences between the religions are not a matter of truth and falsehood but of different perceptions of the one truth; that to speak of religious beliefs as true or false is inadmissible.’” - IFWE
I’m a long time veteran of the intra-conservative interventionism vs. non-interventionism debate. I was a non-interventionist before Ron Paul made non-interventionism cool. So I have seen all the recycled arguments over and over and over and over … I say this not so as to debate interventionism vs. non-interventionism here. That is not the purpose of this essay. I say it to provide background as to what brings up the real subject of this essay.
As a veteran of these debates I have seen all the arguments, but one that I have seen increasingly recently is the contention that Islam is not a religion. The idea being that Islam is not “just” a religion but is instead an all-encompassing political ideology that impacts government, law, education, social organization and convention, etc. of which religion is only a part. The more maximalist proponents of this theory will add that establishment of a world Caliphate, domination of those who refuse to go along, intolerance of other religions, etc. is an inherent part of Islam. This “Islam is not a religion” argument is often seen in conjunction with concerns about the imposition of Sharia law at home.
While seldom directly stated, the implication of this line of reasoning is that Islam cannot be treated as simply another religion deserving of tolerance but must be treated as an alien ideology that threatens the very American way of life. (As I will illustrate below, this is a curious line of reasoning. Essentially the argument is that Islam is dangerous because it is illiberal and thus requires an illiberal response.) This argument seems mostly to imply that Islam is a potential problem domestically within our shores, but given that the argument is usually made within the context of debates over foreign policy, it usually has unstated but implied foreign policy implications as well; namely that since Islam is inherently aggressive and bent on world domination, it must be met with an aggressive and forward military response.
Actually, I do believe that there is much truth to the contention that Islam is a broadly encompassing worldview, but the facts of that are not what are in contention here. The issue is whether Islam’s ideological breadth disqualifies it from being a religion. I have two problems with this line of reasoning, the first semantic and the second much more profound.
