“Beware lest anyone cheat you through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradition of men, according to the basic principles of the world, and not according to Christ.” — Colossians 2:8 (NKJV)
Lately, I have found myself paying closer attention to the intersection of religion, politics, and the ideological movements shaping our world. Between the recent Houthi attacks on airports in Saudi Arabia, the anniversary of the October 7 attacks against Israel by Hamas, the civil unrest in France, and the controversial federal investigation involving Congresswoman Ilhan Omar so close to the midterm elections here in the United States, I have been asking myself some difficult questions.
Are we becoming better at distinguishing religious freedom from religious extremism? Or have we become so politically divided that even asking difficult questions about religious ideology is immediately interpreted as intolerance? And if that is the question at hand, who ultimately benefits from the tensions created by political division and the smaller, often overlooked issues that exist within it?
And perhaps an even more uncomfortable question: Have we become so accustomed to defending the ideals of equality and inclusion that we sometimes fail to examine whether the political movements seeking our acceptance are equally committed to protecting those same ideals? Or whether those ideals are sometimes used to advance objectives that are not immediately apparent?
I do not believe these are questions that should be dismissed. Nor do I believe they should be answered through fear, political allegiance, or assumptions about entire religious or ethnic communities.
Rather, I believe they require thoughtful examination, historical awareness, and, from a Christian perspective, biblical discernment.
Liberty, Identity, and the American Experience
As a U.S.-born minority woman and the daughter of immigrants, I understand the importance of equality, inclusion, and the opportunity to build a life in a country that protects individual freedoms. Those principles are not abstract to me. They are deeply connected to my upbringing, my family’s experiences, and what I have come to appreciate about the American identity. For me, being able to say that also means recognizing how often I have had to create a lane for myself simply to exist, belong, and pursue opportunities.
When I was younger and preparing to graduate from high school in the early 2000s, one initiative involving equality and inclusion that was frequently discussed was affirmative action. Affirmative action was established to address the effects of historical and systemic discrimination that limited educational and employment opportunities for women and racial and ethnic minorities. In other words, these policies sought to expand access to opportunities from which certain groups had historically been excluded, sometimes allowing race or other factors to be considered in admissions or employment decisions.
I remember a classmate, a Caucasian student whom I considered a friend, asking whether I had been accepted to a particular college. I told her that I had. I still remember her expressing her disappointment right in front of me because she had not been accepted to the same school. She complained that affirmative action was unfair because, in her view, it took admission spots away from students who actually deserved them.
I did not respond.
I simply looked at her as she expressed her disappointment, while thinking about everything I had accomplished academically. I had earned the highest writing test score in my entire school and received recognition for it. My overall test scores were high, I had taken advanced courses throughout high school, and I had accumulated enough credits to graduate the year prior. I had also been accepted to nearly every other college to which I had applied, many offering scholarships and grants. Interestingly enough, the school she was referring to was not even my first choice.
At that moment, I did not feel compelled to defend myself or explain my qualifications. It was not that I was afraid to have the conversation. Rather, in my young and still-developing understanding of the world, I had not yet learned how to process what was happening in the way I would be prepared to understand it today. Looking back, I recognize that her disappointment was real. But so were my accomplishments. What I could not fully articulate then was how easily a conversation about fairness could become a judgment about whether someone like me had earned the right to be in the room.
One of my earliest memories of understanding the significance of American liberty was helping my mother study for her U.S. citizenship examination. I remember learning about Patrick Henry and his famous declaration, “Give me liberty, or give me death!”
Even as a child, before I could fully comprehend the historical weight of those words, something about that statement resonated with me. There was a conviction behind it that I could not quite articulate at the time. The idea that freedom was so precious that someone would rather risk death than live without it left a lasting impression on me. As I grew older, I remember learning in school about the beauty of America as a melting pot, a nation shaped by people from different cultures, ethnicities, religions, and backgrounds who came together in pursuit of opportunity and a better life.
I was taught to see our differences not as threats, but as part of the richness of our shared American experience.
Wrapped up in those lessons were the candid and sometimes difficult conversations my parents had with us about assimilation, cultural expectations, and the importance of positioning ourselves for opportunities that might not otherwise be readily available. They understood that having the qualifications for a job did not always guarantee being chosen. Sometimes, gaining access to opportunities meant learning how to navigate social expectations, professional environments, and cultural differences simply to earn a seat at the proverbial table.
For us, that meant structured study routines, participating in extracurricular activities, and being raised with a strong emphasis on respecting authority figures and elders. Discipline. In other words, I was being raised to compete without even realizing I was competing. Looking back, I recognize that not everything my parents emphasized was necessarily an American value. Much of it reflected the cultural principles and expectations they brought with them.
Nevertheless, those lessons helped shape my character and became intertwined with many of the values that continue to motivate me today. But as I reflect on those childhood experiences through the lens of adulthood, I find myself asking a question I never thought to ask back then:
What happens when the very freedoms that allow us to embrace our differences are challenged by political or religious ideologies that may not embrace those same freedoms in return?
I believe there is an important distinction between welcoming diversity and abandoning discernment.
A nation can respect religious and cultural differences while still examining whether particular political or ideological movements uphold the constitutional principles that protect everyone. And perhaps that is what continues to resonate with me about Patrick Henry’s declaration. True inclusion should never require us to surrender the very liberties that make that very inclusion possible.
Ayaan Hirsi Ali: A Different Perspective on Assimilation and Identity
Recently, I listened to an interview between political commentator Dave Rubin and Ayaan Hirsi Ali. Hirsi Ali is an especially interesting figure to me because her experiences do not fit neatly into the political or religious categories through which we often interpret these discussions. But it leaves room for honest conversation.
Born in Somalia, she experienced political upheaval, displacement, and restrictive cultural practices before eventually becoming a prominent advocate for women’s rights and individual liberties. Her intellectual and spiritual journey has also been remarkable. She moved from Islam to atheism before publicly embracing Christianity within recent years. What particularly captured my attention during her conversation with Rubin was her explanation of the clan-based social structure in Somalia and how deeply it shaped her understanding of identity, loyalty, and belonging.
Hirsi Ali described learning her ancestral lineage as a young child and understanding that family and clan relationships were not merely cultural traditions. In her experience, they functioned as systems of social support, protection, and obligation. She explained that clan membership could influence whom individuals trusted, supported, and considered responsible for their well-being.
Listening to her describe these experiences brought me back to my own childhood and the cultural expectations my parents worked so diligently to instill in us. There are aspects of immigrant life that people who have never experienced it may struggle to understand. Immigration does not automatically erase the cultural traditions, loyalties, and expectations that shaped a person’s identity before arriving in another country.
Nor should it.
However, Hirsi Ali raises an important question about what happens when competing systems of loyalty influence public institutions.
Can a society maintain a shared commitment to equal treatment under the law when individuals or political organizations place clan, religious, or partisan loyalty above that obligation?
This question is not exclusive to Somali communities, Islam, or immigration. Similar tensions can emerge through political patronage, family networks, religious institutions, corporate interests, and other forms of group loyalty. The challenge is not the existence of cultural identity. The challenge arises when loyalty to a particular group is used to justify unequal treatment, corruption, coercion, or disregard for the rights of others.
When Inclusion Becomes a Political Strategy
Another part of the interview that caught my attention was Hirsi Ali’s criticism of multiculturalism and the political incentives that can develop around identity-based voting.
Reflecting on her experiences in the Netherlands, she described initially believing that political leaders and institutions approached multiculturalism primarily out of compassion and a genuine desire to help newcomers integrate into society. She also acknowledged the significant role Christian volunteers played in helping her learn Dutch and adapt to her new environment.
Here was a woman who had experienced religious oppression and later rejected religion altogether, yet she remembered the generosity of Christian volunteers as an important part of her successful transition into Western society. It reminded me that Christian influence is not demonstrated solely through public declarations, religious debates, or political involvement. Sometimes, it is demonstrated through the simple act of helping someone who is unfamiliar with their surroundings find a place to belong.
However, Hirsi Ali also argued that her understanding of multiculturalism changed after entering politics.
She came to believe that some political leaders had begun treating cultural and ethnic communities primarily as electoral constituencies, emphasizing the political advantages of securing group support rather than examining the long-term consequences of particular policies.
Her interpretation deserves critical examination rather than automatic acceptance. Political outreach to immigrant communities is not inherently improper, and shared ethnic identity does not establish coordinated political conduct. Nevertheless, the underlying question is worth considering:
When does political representation become genuine advocacy, and when does it become a transaction in which communities are valued primarily for the votes they can deliver?
That question should concern Americans regardless of political affiliation. I believe inclusion loses something essential when individuals are viewed primarily through the categories of race, religion, ethnicity, or political usefulness rather than as people possessing inherent dignity and individual agency.
From a Christian worldview, this is especially important.
James 2:1–9 warns against favoritism and the unequal treatment of people based on their perceived social standing. The principle extends beyond the walls of the church. It challenges us to examine whether our treatment of others is governed by righteousness or by what we believe we can gain from them.
Political Islam, Religious Freedom, and the Question of Ideological Influence
In the interview, Hirsi Ali alleged that certain Islamist networks use community organizations and political relationships to advance broader ideological objectives. And also offered controversial interpretations of Somali community politics in Minnesota and the political relationships surrounding Congresswoman Ilhan Omar.
Those statements represent Hirsi Ali’s political analysis. The interview does not independently establish that particular officials or community organizations are involved in unlawful Islamist activity. Nevertheless, the broader issue of religious ideology and political authority deserves examination. What happens when a political movement claims religious justification for restricting individual liberty, suppressing dissent, or subordinating civil institutions to religious authority? And how should democratic societies respond?
For me, the answer begins with a consistent standard.
Religious freedom must protect peaceful Atheists, Christians, Jews, Muslims, and others equally. At the same time, religious identity should not exempt any organization from scrutiny when credible evidence points to coercion, violence, discrimination, or unlawful conduct.
The standard should be behavior and evidence, not religious identity. This is where I believe Christian apologetics can contribute something meaningful to the conversation. I admittedly am still growing in this lane, but believe that the Christian response should not be driven by fear of another religion. It should be grounded in the conviction that truth can withstand examination and that every human being possesses dignity before God.
Entwistle, Worldviews, and the Importance of Discernment
My studies in psychology and Christian theology have also influenced how I approach these questions, particularly through the work of David N. Entwistle.
In Integrative Approaches to Psychology and Christianity, Entwistle (2021) examines the relationship between psychology and theology and explores how different worldviews influence the interpretation and integration of knowledge.
One of the models he discusses is known as the Spies model.
Although this model concerns the relationship between psychology and Christianity rather than religious infiltration or political espionage, it provides an interesting starting point for reflecting on how competing belief systems approach one another. I am not suggesting that Entwistle developed a theory about Islamist political movements. Rather, I am applying the broader concept of worldview analysis to a contemporary question.
How do our existing beliefs influence which information we accept, which claims we question, and which ideological assumptions we fail to recognize?
This question applies equally to religious conservatives, political progressives, and secular thinkers. It is entirely possible to become so committed to defending a particular worldview that we begin overlooking information that challenges it. It is also possible to interpret every unfamiliar belief as a threat simply because it differs from our own.
Neither response represents genuine discernment.
The Apostle Paul instructs believers in 1 Thessalonians 5:21 to test all things and hold fast to what is good. Notice that Scripture does not instruct us to accept every claim simply because it comes from someone who shares our faith, political affiliation, or cultural background. Neither does it instruct us to reject every claim because it comes from someone whose beliefs differ from ours.
We are called to examine. And that examination requires humility, patience, and a willingness to confront uncomfortable truths.
From Islam to Atheism to Christianity: Why Hirsi Ali’s Conversion Matters
Perhaps the most compelling portion of Hirsi Ali’s testimony is her eventual embrace of Christianity. In her 2023 essay Why I Am Now a Christian, she described how her rejection of Islam initially led her toward atheism and how she later began questioning whether secular humanism alone could sustain the moral principles she valued (Hirsi Ali, 2023).
Ayaan argued that Western liberalism cannot be fully understood without examining the historical influence of Christianity. She connected the development of freedom of conscience, tolerance, and individual liberty to the moral and theological traditions that helped shape Western institutions. These historical claims are open to debate. Modern constitutional freedoms developed through many influences, including classical philosophy, Enlightenment thought, political conflict, and religious reform.
Christian institutions themselves have not always consistently upheld the freedoms Hirsi Ali praises. Nevertheless, her argument raises a profound question for Christian apologetics:
Can a society preserve the moral benefits of a tradition while increasingly distancing itself from the beliefs that helped give those benefits meaning and what happens when politics becomes a religion of its own?
As I look at what is going on in this country (the U.S.) politically, I began thinking about how easily political allegiance can begin to resemble religious devotion. We see it when people defend political leaders regardless of their actions. We see it when party loyalty becomes more important than truth. We see it when individuals are expected to accept an entire collection of political beliefs simply because they identify with a particular group. And we see it when questioning a political narrative is treated as an act of betrayal.
In these moments, politics begins to occupy a place in our lives that should belong to conscience, truth, and, for Christians, ultimately God. This concern is not limited to one political party or ideological movement. The temptation to pursue power at the expense of principle exists wherever human beings organize themselves around authority, identity, and influence.
Jesus asks in Mark 8:36 what it profits a person to gain the whole world and lose his soul.
Although the passage addresses spiritual priorities, it also offers a sobering question for those who pursue political influence. What are we willing to compromise in order to gain power?
The Christian Responsibility: Truth Without Fear, Love Without Compromise
I believe Christians must be willing to ask difficult questions about religious ideology, political influence, and the preservation of fundamental freedoms. But our responsibility does not end with identifying potential threats. We must also examine our own hearts. Are we responding to evidence, or are we responding to fear? Are we seeking truth, or are we searching for information that confirms what we already believe? Are we defending religious liberty consistently, including for those whose beliefs differ from ours? And are we allowing political movements to shape our understanding of Christianity more than Scripture itself?
First Peter 3:15 instructs believers to be prepared to give a defense for the hope within them, doing so with gentleness and reverence. We are not called to surrender our convictions for the sake of appearing agreeable. But, neither are we called to abandon compassion in the name of defending truth.
The two must remain together.
I return again to my childhood memory of Patrick Henry’s declaration and the lessons my mother studied as she prepared to become an American citizen. Freedom is precious because it protects the dignity and conscience of the individual. And for Christians, that dignity is rooted in something even deeper than citizenship, nationality, or political identity.
It is rooted in the belief that human beings were created in the image of God (Genesis 1:26–27). Imago Dei. Perhaps the greatest challenge before us is not simply determining which political ideology will prevail. Perhaps it is determining whether we are willing to defend the principles we claim to cherish, even when doing so requires us to question our own assumptions. Because truth should never be the property of a political party. And Christianity (or any other religion), should never become merely another instrument in the pursuit of political power.
If we truly believe that Jesus Christ is the way, the truth, and the life (John 14:6), then our commitment to truth must extend beyond the boundaries of our political preferences, cultural loyalties, and personal fears.
We must be willing to test all things, including ourselves.
References
Entwistle, D. N. (2021). Integrative approaches to psychology and Christianity: An introduction to worldview issues, philosophical foundations, and models of integration (4th ed.). Cascade Books.
Hirsi Ali, A. (2023, November 11). Why I am now a Christian. UnHerd. https://unherd.com/2023/11/why-i-am-now-a-christian/.
Rubin Report. (2026, January 24). Somali immigrant has a chilling warning for the West | Ayaan Hirsi Ali [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zjTgFomlzsA.
