"Not so very long ago, the idea of religious freedom enjoyed all the self-evident virtue of a Norman Rockwell painting. Sure, Americans disagreed about what it meant in practice, leaving their Supreme Court to hash out the details. Still, however Americans differed in their religious beliefs, they espoused religious freedom and insisted that it cannot be government's job to promote any one religious sect over others or coerce anyone's conscience in religious matters."
The reality is that this has changed. New critics have emerged about the value of religious freedom as a fundamental right. In this article Timothy Shah, RFI Senior Advisor, and Daniel Philpott, Professor of Political Science, University of Notre Dame, review some of the arguments against religious freedom and make a case in defense of this "beleaguered human right."
Philpott, Daniel and Timothy Samuel Shah. "IN DEFENSE OF RELIGIOUS FREEDOM: NEW CRITICS OF A BELEAGUERED HUMAN RIGHT". Journal of Law and Religion 31.03 (2016): 380-395.