The ever more ridiculous televangelist Pat Robertson claimed in one of his more notorious TV appearances that Islam is "not a religion but a violent political system". Of course there are differences between Islam and Islamism, but I wouldn't expect good old Patty to have heard that. Let's just take his statement at face value: does a religion stop being a religion once it starts following political goals, sometimes but not always through violence?
Whether that is true or not, it should apply universally across the board. Salafi Muslims are scary even if they are not violent. But they are not the only ones caring first and foremost about winning political points.
Case in point: a solid majority of evangelicals are now supporters of Mitt Romney. This, despite the fact that according to many Christians, the Mormon faith is not proper Christianity. Obama is an orthodox Christian, and Romney is not.
Evangelical Christianity happens to be the only religion in the US that is so strongly correlated with political affiliation/leaning. If you know a person is Jewish, Catholic, mainline Protestant, or religiously unaffiliated, you cannot determine that person's political leanings on that basis alone. If you know the person is evangelical, you can, with a high degree of accuracy. And they "vote the party".
So should we declare that Pat Robertson's religion is no longer a religion? I guess we could, if we were to listen to Pat Robertson.