Nice. It seems trivial that people should be allowed to have private beliefs that don't conform to social consensus (including religious beliefs). It also seems clear that some rights violations (e.g. FGM, lethal duels) cannot be countenanced in a liberal society even if they are religiously motivated.
So the hard part seems to be (as you note) demarcating what religiously-inspired practices are sufficiently harmful or rights-violating to use the coercive power of the state to try to stamp them out. Wearing crosses at school/public office? Hijabs? Beating your child for 'religious' reasons? Restricting someone's ability to leave the house unaccompanied?
I think another interesting question is whether it is a rights violation to choose immigrants partially based on religious practice. I am inclined to think that while it would be impermissible for e.g. Sweden to ban its citizens from wearing hijabs in public, it would be acceptable (though something I would dislike!) for them to take cultural assimilation and religious expression into account in choosing which immigrants to invite into their country, in the same way that clubs/societies should be allowed to discriminate based on character/personality (but probably generally not identity traits). That seems probably no worse than most countries saying (implicitly) that they only want rich immigrants or clever immigrants. (Although maybe open borders is correct and all barriers to immigration are impermissible rights violations.)
Nice. It seems trivial that people should be allowed to have private beliefs that don't conform to social consensus (including religious beliefs). It also seems clear that some rights violations (e.g. FGM, lethal duels) cannot be countenanced in a liberal society even if they are religiously motivated.
So the hard part seems to be (as you note) demarcating what religiously-inspired practices are sufficiently harmful or rights-violating to use the coercive power of the state to try to stamp them out. Wearing crosses at school/public office? Hijabs? Beating your child for 'religious' reasons? Restricting someone's ability to leave the house unaccompanied?
I think another interesting question is whether it is a rights violation to choose immigrants partially based on religious practice. I am inclined to think that while it would be impermissible for e.g. Sweden to ban its citizens from wearing hijabs in public, it would be acceptable (though something I would dislike!) for them to take cultural assimilation and religious expression into account in choosing which immigrants to invite into their country, in the same way that clubs/societies should be allowed to discriminate based on character/personality (but probably generally not identity traits). That seems probably no worse than most countries saying (implicitly) that they only want rich immigrants or clever immigrants. (Although maybe open borders is correct and all barriers to immigration are impermissible rights violations.)