As a whole, I agree with this. I suppose my question was more geared toward

“These are important questions, especially if societies violently enforce a particular, necessarily religious conception of religious freedom on its members and other nations.”

That raised in my mind the inquiry :”violent enforcement in Canada?” So I that’s why I was wondering if you were speaking on a larger scale.

Thank you for clarifying though!

What is necessary to understand is that when people generally hear “religious” they think “supernatural religion” rather than “beliefs about value, life, death, ultimate things” which can and have historically taken the form of civil religion or pagan/natural religion. But there is no valid philosophical reason that justifies a double standard that discriminates against supernatural religion in favor of civil or pagan/natural religions.

For example, a secular materialist might believe that human beings have value or “human dignity” and deserve to be protected by law because they attained rationality (of some kind) through evolution. But this philosophical belief is ultimately religious in nature; it cannot be proven, it is about ultimate value, people disagree with it (for example: Why should rationality ground dignity–privileging the smart–rather than emotional capacity–privileging the emphathic?), etc. etc. : the same objections to supernatural religious belief apply to civil/pagan/natural religious belief.

So, every polity presupposes some religious understanding of political order (including what constitutes religious freedom) and enforces laws (e.g. concerning religious freedom) by the coercive power of the State.

Canada is no exception.

The sooner we understand this truth, the sooner we can actually understand the religious presuppositions underlying our political order and determine whether they are good or not. Otherwise, we’re just fooling ourselves about the real foundations of political order.

These are important questions, especially if societies violently enforce a particular, necessarily religious conception of religious freedom on its members and other nations.

Atheists apparently see no contradiction in declaring for themselves the right to try to persuade you (and your children) of what they believe – by any means, fair or foul – while simultaneously insisting that their ideological rivals have no right to argue in public.