A secular state, especially such that reveres objective evidence, is by definition totally helpless in attempting to differentiate between religious and non-religious motives. The state is totally in the dark with no tools whatsoever to get even the slightest clue of what religion is (including that clumsy 4-point scheme mentioned in the article).

Historically, the state was therefore shown to be swayed by those largest and most powerful organisations that claim to be religious, whereas individuals of either small religious groups or having their private religious path, have no recourse to justice and respect to their way of life.

Therefore, as a religious person, I prefer the freedom of conscience to all and sundry over some phoney or ignorant "freedom of religion". Moreover, in order to err on the side of caution, I strongly advocate all human freedoms and the minimisation of laws, just in the case there is a person out there whom the laws of the state deny their religious freedom - even one!

For crying out loud, this is 2014, can't some of you mutts discard this nonsense & superstition ? Religion is crap. I don't have a problem with the superstition as such but keep to yourself, don't annoy the crap out of us with this nonsense.
Let's try just for three years & keep that nonsense out of our schools & see if we're a better or worse society.
Religion has absolutely nothing to do with believing. Once some of the nutters come to comprehend that, society will get better.

Why tolerate religion?
I always thought there wasn't much harm in people believing in invisible gods in the sky, as long as it didn't impact on non-believers lives adversely.

However, over here in the West, the Liberal Barnett Govt, in it's infinite wisdom, has offered the Catholic organization St John Of God the contract to build a new PUBLIC hospital in our Eastern suburbs.

Why? Because they gave the cheapest quote?
Yes, but that is because they won't be including public funded abortions, vasectomies, tubal ligations, family planning, fertility clinics or anything to do with 'sins' according to the Catholic faith.
Not only will they not provide these in a public hospital, they also refuse to 'share' any infrastructure in 'their' hospital if the Govt. decides to build a stand alone clinic adjoining the hospital.

Now, that is all very well for their own private hospitals of course, because anyone going there knows they won't be able to receive those 'sinful' procedures there.
However, it is truly a monstrous act to foist their religious beliefs on those who need to go to a public hospital.....and the same goes for our spineless State Govt.

.

Dear Ralph Seccombe (the author here),

.

Thank you for that interesting résumé of Brian Leiter’s book "Why Tolerate Religion?”.

All things considered, of all the people I have frequented both professionally and privately throughout my lifetime, I can only think of two who, I am willing to believe, truly believe(for one) and believed (for the other) that there is a god – the former, an Anglican bishop, the latter my (deceased) mother. That must be a rate of about two in a thousand.

The totality of that thousand would, of course, be included in any census as belonging to some religion. According to the CIA’s World Factbook, for example, 88.33% of the world population belong to some religion, 9.66% are “non-religious” and 2.01% are atheists.

My gut feeling is that there are more people in the world who believe in a god than those who don’t. But I doubt there is much of a margin between the two. And I suspect that most of those who don’t believe in a god probably do not consider themselves to be “atheists” at all but, more than likely, belong to some religion.

In fact, I suspect that the large majority of “atheists” are probably to be found among the “religious” 88.33%”, the 2.01% of “declared atheists” representing just the tip of the iceberg. The true number of “atheists” or “non-believers” is probably closer to something like 40% of the world population, if not more.

As we all know, it is the small percentage of hard-liners among the “true believers” and “declared atheists” who pose problem. They are the “intolerant” ones.

They are the justification for specific laws in order to ensure “freedom of religion” for religious people and for religion to be considered a universal Human right.

Apparently Brian Leiter does not answer his own question “Why Tolerate Religion?”. The Human Rights Commissioner, Tim Wilson, attempted a reply in his Blackfriars Lecture at the Australian Catholic University just a couple of weeks ago . It is worth a read :

https://www.humanrights.gov.au/news/speeches/forgotten-freedoms-freedom-religion

.

The basic principle is surely very simple: you can only claim a 'right' to do or be something and remain unmolested when you cannot choose to do or be otherwise. We should not criticise people on the basis of the colour of their skins, their genders, their sexual preferences, their native intelligence or lack thereof, their disabilities or anything else that they didn't choose to have wished up on them. We can and should criticise people on the basis of how they spend their money, the clubs they join, the political parties they support, the posts they wrote on discussion groups, and the religions they choose to follow; because only by allowing free criticism of their choices can we persuade them to make better ones. By trying to ban all criticism of voluntary choices -- as if such a thing were even possible -- you are trying to block the path to improvement.

`<>.Apparently Brian Leiter does not answer his own question “Why Tolerate Religion?”. The Human Rights Commissioner, Tim Wilson, attempted a reply in his Blackfriars Lecture at the Australian Catholic University just a couple of weeks ago . It is worth a read :

http://www.humanrights.gov.au/news/speeches/forgotten-freedoms-freedom-religion

<<..In this speech I outlined that I have concerns about the key freedoms of expression, worship, association and property rights. Reasserting them will be the focus of my tenure as Human Rights Commissioner.

It probably seems odd to refer to freedoms we exercise on a daily basis as ‘forgotten’.

But as foundational freedoms, they are being taken for granted and are consequently compromised.

Any compromise is rarely explicit. Instead, compromises occur through the incremental advancement by government of policies with worthy objectives. But they consequently encroach on rights.

The most recent and notable example has been the debate about the limits on free speech resulting from the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth) and whether it should be unlawful to say something that ‘offends, insults’ or ‘humiliates’; especially in light of the same standard not being applied to other groups within the community. But it is not alone.

In my second speech on the theme of these forgotten freedoms I will address the challenges facing freedom of worship.

But first, some administrative background.
The office of Australian Human Rights Commissioner..>>

..may soon absorb..the handicapped commisioner..
http://www.google.com.au/search?q=commisioner+disabilities&

http://www.probonoaustralia.com.au/news/2014/05/disability-commissioner-role-uncertain