If the real “problem” for the critics is religious pluralism then their real agenda would seem to be more profound than they have hitherto admitted: one-church theocracy (i.e. state advocacy of one church and enforcement of the first three commandments, as numbered by the Reformed churches).I'm not sure what RSC has precisely in mind (or why he stops at 3). I think, though, that what a lot of folks in the more traditional Reformed ranks think would be proper would be a civil magistrate that does not treat anti-christian religions with equal dignity to the Christian faith. Yes, that's not very pluralistic. That doesn't mean that "king" (or whatever mode the magistrate might take) would have to permit only a single denomination, but it does mean that you wouldn't be letting folks set up mosques in your land, to take a "for instance."
It doesn't mean that the king could force anyone to love God, but it does mean that he could use the FCC (to select the American example) to stop folks from breaking the 3rd commandment by profaning Jesus' name on the airwaves. It does mean that religious idols could be destroyed throughout the land to help folks abide by the second commandment. And, yes, it means that the king might want to consider whether the general equity of "thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" is pretty much to shut down palm readers, fortune tellers, and so forth in keeping with the first commandment.
I don't know why any of this should shock RSC. Yet I get the distinct feeling that it does shock him - perhaps because he associates that kind of zeal not with Joshua or Gideon but with certain Muslims. Perhaps it is because he wouldn't like to be under a non-pluralistic non-Christian regime. But those aren't logical or Scriptural reasons for having a negative reaction to the rejection of religious pluralism.