The modern day separation of church and state in the West is very much the exception to a greater historical trend whereby, more often than not, secular power had worked to privilege a particular faith tradition over others or to persecute those groups of differing faith. In reading the chapter “Ecumenical Mischief” by Richard Foltz, one can clearly see examples of such in the case of the Naiman leader Kuchluk–who “launched a full-scale persecution of the of the local Muslim community, forbidding the ritual prayer (salat) and commanding Muslims to convert to Christianity or Buddhism” (Foltz, p.106)–or in the case of Berke–who “sanctioned the slaughter of Samarkand’s Christians while they wee assembled in church” (Foltz, p.116). Similarly, edicts against practices such a halal butchery, bathing in running water, or circumcision clearly made life difficult for many a Muslim or Jew–who were at times forces to practice their respective faiths in secret. It was perhaps more the secrecy of their subjects that offended certain rulers, ever fearful of plotting against their persons or houses, than the doctrines of certain ‘out’ faiths motivated state-sponsored action against them. The historical Silk Road served to provide a vast nexus of meeting places for the cross-pollination of cultures and ideas–including those regarding religious doctrine and practices. Tolerance, while never the full norm, was often valued with a sort of ‘general openness’, setting the stage for both individuals and individual faiths to prove themselves valuable. As such, the dominance of any one religion or faith tradition would often prove nebulous over time, allegiances shifting like desert sands, with Islam starting to dominate the Western Silk Road and Buddhism the Eastern portion. While formal ‘interfaith dialogues’ or debates did take place under the Mongol Empire, such as the one described by Franciscan friar William of Rubruck, these moments should not be considered the norm. While praised by Muslim historian Kwand Amir for being open to “philosophical and religious debates” and for having ordered the translation into Mongolian of numerous scriptures from differing traditions, it should be noted that the famed Khubilai Khan was also responsible at one time for the suppression of Daoism and destruction of their texts in 1281CE (Foltz, pp. 117-118). Religion, when seen as a living tradition of community-based beliefs and practices, requires both space and support if it is to exist and remain both extant and relevant within a given society. In practice, many of the rulers along the Silk Road either privileged a particular religious tradition over another, denigrated a particular religious tradition, or merely pitted religious rivals against one another as a means of balancing power. While fairly multicultural and metropolitan in comparison to much of Medieval Europe at the same time in history, the historical Silk Road kingdoms of the Mongol Empire cannot be seen to be true places of pluralism with regards to religious faith.