Seems kind of like the difference between a Patriot and a Nationalist. You would be the Patriot side, someone who stands behind their faith and thinks what it has done is awesome, but recognizes that other people have other faiths that they feel the same way about and that doesn't bother you.
Well, no...why should it bother me? We've always lived with people of other faiths. In the Holy Land, there were the Jews and the pagan Greeks, in Egypt there were the Jews and the pagan Egyptians, in India there were (and still are) the much more numerous Hindus, etc. None of this has ever been a problem, though it also hasn't always been a picnic, either. I guess you could say that's it's not a
theological problem, though it has occasionally been a
political problem, in some eras and places more than others.
The other side would build up their faith at the expense of others. It is so superior that others hardly have the right to exist.
But whether or not it is superior shouldn't have anything to do with whether or not other faiths should be allowed to exist. Those are two different positions, and they're not mutually exclusive. I can have my religion and think it's great, you can have yours and think it's great, and at the end of the day that's how it should be. Completely separate from that, the laws of the country should be for everybody. When they aren't, you end up with really bad situations where, as some people apparently fear, demographic shifts can radically alter the character of the society, such that if some country in Europe experiences massive Muslim immigration (for instance), there are fears that the newly ascendant Muslim groups will attempt to establish their law over that of the preexisting law. That is a reasonable fear in that case (after all, that's what happened in all the countries that were originally conquered by Islam in the 7th-8th centuries, during its initial expansion), but it wouldn't be so easy in a society with religiously-neutral law and strong protection for minority groups, because in those cases pure strength in number can't in itself do anything. If there is any looming danger in Europe it is in the attempted destruction of both of those things by those who would like to introduce concessions to religious law on the national stage (cf. voluntary religious law for individual communities such as, e.g., Jewish or Orthodox Christian dietary rules -- these aren't any 'less enforced', I take it, but I don't imagine that they'll throw you in jail for not keeping kosher in Israel, or that not fasting for Lent is a crime in Ethiopia the same way that
eating during Ramadan will earn you a trip to the police station in Pakistan) precisely because they do not recognize any such separation between religion and politics. Islam doesn't do "Let's not use the state to enforce our religion", and apparently some forms of Christianity don't either. But since I come from a particular Church tradition that knows better (after 14 centuries and counting under Islam, about two hundred under the Chalcedonians, etc.; we've had really bad luck with governments except for maybe the 150 years or so between the end of the Diocletian persecutions in c. 313 and the aftermath of Chalcedon in 451), I can't agree.
I guess that's what I find so weird about a lot of this discussion, because it seems like people are trying to use the very thing that could destroy them to protect themselves from destruction. I don't think it's going to work, and furthermore it strikes me as nonsensical.