The question should probably be rephrased since a statement such as 'people have religious rights' puts a rather odd use and meaning to the term 'right'. Property rights, a right to bear arms, a right to legal defense, a right to vote, etc., are all discernable practices of a 'right'. That's to say, I can be sure that I am observing such 'rights' if and when they are being practiced. But how sure could I be if I thought I was observing the practice of a 'religious right', and, what kinds of behaviors would I be able to identify as 'religious'?
The point here is that due to the utterly arbitrary nature of what constitutes the essence of religious behavior, practice, and principle, it would be nearly impossible to point at such an instance of religious practice and say 'wait, that can't be religious in nature', and be sure I was correct about my judgement. On the other hand, I can be quite certain when I notice the practice and/or violation of such rights as those mentioned above.
That being said, a more accurate definition of 'religious right' might be something like: 'the right to behave in any way that does not violate the other real and substantial rights of other people'. You'll note that because there can be no positive definition of what religious behavior actually is or isn't (because religion is essentially non-sensical at worst, ambiguous at best), there can be no sensible prohibition of 'religious rights' in the first place. In shorter words; what the fuck is it?
(rhetorical question. please everybody, don't line up to answer it. I already know the answer and could right you three volumes on it)
And when nothing substantial can be said about 'religious rights' therefore, one can just as easily quote some random French philosopher and include his words in the official definition:
https://legal-dictionary.thefreediction ... aw,bouvier
In the end, it's not possible to describe what kinds of things people do as 'religious' in nature, because anything can be religious, because 'religion' doesn't mean anything.
In fact, I could leave the church of the flying spaghetti monster and start my own church of the hopping burrito monster, and I'd be well within my rights. I could dress my congregation in yellow garb and ask that they draw jalapenos on the wall while playing flutes (not at the same time, obviously, because you need both hands to play a flute), and call all this behavior 'religious', 'spiritual', and in pursuit of 'deeper more profound meaning', etc.
In the west, the courts aren't too concerned with religious rights unless such things come into conflict with other more concrete rights. In fact, religion - which incidentally promotes a passitivity of character in its practictioners - actually assists in maintaining the status-quo of capitalism by helping to discourage and deter any thought of violent rebellion against it. It works in the periphery, as it were, to satiate those being most abused by the capitalist system (the working classes).
In this sense, it would be in the court's best interest to allow such arbitrary rights as 'the right to practice the religion of [insert favorite brand of illogical superstitious nonsense]' since the branches of government work in tandem with capitalism and draw their power from exploiting the working classes. It's a pretty good deal in the end; I let you hop around happily chanting whatever you want, you're less likely to realize just how ridiculously absurd your situation actually is, and you keep on working your nine to five. Bada bing, bada boom. Everybody's happy (some of us all the way to the bank).
