There are a number of different kinds of pluralism, such as "cultural pluralism" and "political pluralism," but when you see the word in Vine & Fig Tree publications, it's a safe bet that what is being discussed is the idea that the State can remain "neutral" with regard to religion.
"Religious freedom" is an impossibility.
Imagine your next-door neighbor is preparing to sacrifice his daughter in accord with the tenets of his (bizarre) religion. Do you believe in "religious freedom," or are you going to try to rescue the girl? If you believe the State should prohibit murder, do you believe this "sacrament" should also be prohibited? What if the father seeks protection of his "First Amendment rights?"
Nobody believes in pure, total, religious freedom. Certainly the State does not.
Every government is based on a religion.
Every law is a political expression of "Thou shalt not . . . ."
The claim of "neutrality" or "religious freedom" is simply the
government's way of covering up the true religion of the State. America's laws were based on the Christian religion two
centuries ago. Today our laws are the social externalization of the religion of
Secular Humanism. But by claiming to be "neutral," the State covers up its own
Humanist theocracy and keeps Christians from lobbying for an explicitly Christian
Theocracy.
"Pluralism" is political polytheism.
Vine & Fig Tree