Tale goes both ways for rights. Values projecting onto values
   here, both directions. Ultimate authority in a secular society
   is secular law. Secular law passes judgement just as religions
   pass judgement. Religions can influence secular law just as
   secular law can decide to influence what religions are allowed
   to influence. It's the nature of a pluristic society which
   guarantees freedom of religion which is freedom -for- religion
   to exact influence within its realm. But when it crosses into
   the legal, secular, political realm, a different set of laws
   ultimately applies. Those laws _can_ be influenced by religion
   but only as much as the secular allows it. Combo of freedom of
   speech and separation of church/state. Situation's a little
   different in societies where there's more of a blending of the
   secular and religious. But ultimately, diplomacy of a sort is
   the answer. Debate is a part of diplomacy. Lawmaking is a part
   of diplomacy. It works and crosses whatever lines we feel like
   drawing today. === For example, Jehovah's Witnesses are an
   extreme iconoclastic religion. They've successfully lobbied to
   have freedom from iconography within schools and courts,
   successfully lobbying against oath-taking. Quakers have had
   similar consciencious objections to oath-taking. In a sense
   their religions were imposing upon the state. But it just so
   happens that their religions imposition of iconoclasm and
   non-oath-taking ALSO happen to be in-line with the secular needs
   of the society, so it was more or less agreeable. ==