Over the past week, I’ve been in rooms filled with people working to make pluralism a reality—first at the Pluralism in Action conference in Atlanta, then at the Global Faith Forum, and finally at the International Religious Freedom (IRF) Summit.
Each of these gatherings brought together a remarkable mix of leaders, thinkers, and funders committed to navigating deep differences. But more than that, they revealed something essential about what makes pluralism work—and what can hold it back.
One lesson was clear: Pluralism only works when people stand up for each other’s rights, not just their own. The strongest, most resilient spaces are those where people take risks to protect one another—building real trust in the process.
The other? Showing up matters. The people who engage in these spaces shape what pluralism looks like in practice. And when certain voices are absent, they leave the conversation—and the movement—to those who are willing to step in.
Both of these lessons point to the same core challenge: if we want to build a strong pro-pluralism movement, we need more than just shared values—we need a commitment to shared rights and shared responsibility.
The IRF Summit: A Model of Shared Rights in Action
The IRF Summit might be one of the most religiously and ideologically diverse spaces I’ve ever been in. Groups that are often at odds—ranging from the ADF and Family Research Council to the Uyghur Human Rights Project and Bahá'ís—shared the same space, working toward a common goal.
What makes this possible? A shared right—religious freedom—anchoring the space.
Every organization in the room has a direct stake in this issue. Many have members, partners, or communities who have faced persecution, imprisonment, or even death for their beliefs. That shared investment creates an organizing principle strong enough to hold together a diverse coalition—even when participants don’t fully agree on what religious freedom should mean in practice.
But this is where a critical opportunity for growth emerges. The conversations at IRF often center around defending one’s own community’s religious rights, which is essential—but the real power of pluralism is when people advocate for the rights of others.
This point was made powerfully by Amjad Khan, National Director of Public Affairs for the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community USA, who emphasized that standing for religious freedom means standing for religious freedom for all—especially for those outside our own traditions. That’s the leap we need to see more of: moving from self-protection to collective protection.
This shift isn’t just about moral conviction—it’s strategically essential.
And it’s backed by research on threat reduction. When people feel their personal safety,
values or rights are threatened, they tend to be more aggressive and more polarized. When people feel their personal safety, values, and rights are secure, they become less likely to view others as existential threats. This, in turn, reduces polarization and makes cooperation across differences more possible. Conversely, when groups focus only on protecting their own rights, rather than defending the principle of shared rights, we risk reinforcing division rather than overcoming it.
At the same time, spaces like IRF also reveal something important: who participates shapes the conversation. The diversity of religious perspectives is striking, but ideological diversity is another question. Some communities—especially ideologically liberal or secular groups—have tended to absent themselves from these conversations on religious liberty. That may be changing with the new administration, but historically, liberals have been the minority voice in a conversation that affects everyone.
And when certain voices don’t engage, they cede the space to those who do. If pluralism is going to thrive, it requires broad participation—across religious and secular lines. Otherwise, the framework for rights gets shaped primarily by those willing to step into the room.
This isn’t just about representation—it’s about what happens when some people see rights as belonging to one group rather than a shared responsibility.
Building Relationships That Strengthen Pluralism
When diverse groups manage to genuinely protect each other, it feels like a revelation. This deep sense of mutual protection was on display at the Global Faith Forum, where the Multi-Faith Neighbors Network (MFNN) showcased their work to bring together religious leaders—rabbis, imams, and evangelical pastors—to build real relationships and stand up for each other’s congregations against threats and violence.
Their work happens in some of the most difficult places for religious minorities—including Pakistan and Uzbekistan—where standing up for one another can come with real risks. And yet, they do it anyway.
Having evaluated some of MFNN’s programs firsthand, I can say with confidence that this model doesn’t just work—it builds real trust. These clergy don’t just talk about religious freedom. They defend each other, even when it costs them something. That’s where pluralism moves from theory to practice.
Where Do We Go From Here?
This brings me to the Pluralism in Action conference, which gathered an incredible group of leaders committed to strengthening pluralism. The dedication of the planning team and participants was clear—it was a space full of people actively searching for ways to make pluralism stronger.
One of the big questions I walked away with is: What is the strongest organizing principle for the pro-pluralism movement?
The IRF Summit has religious freedom as a focal point. The Global Faith Forum has deep relationships built on mutual protection. What should anchor the broader pluralism movement?
A strong candidate: A commitment to shared rights. And I’d suggest the five rights of the First Amendment:
Religion
Speech
Press
Assembly
Petition
______________________________________________________________
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,
or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech,
or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble,
and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. "
_______________________________________________________________
These rights are concrete and undoubtedly part of our shared American heritage. They have long records of jurisprudence and communities of practice. They could form the basis of our shared responsibility.
The most resilient pluralistic spaces are those where people don’t just defend their own freedoms but step up for others—especially when it’s inconvenient or uncomfortable. That’s what turns pluralism from an ideal into a lived reality.
If we want a movement that lasts, unites, and truly protects democracy, we need more than just shared values.
We need a shared commitment to each other’s rights.
If you’d like to learn more about how to shift your work in a more pluralistic direction, get in touch. We can help.
Comments