in the public sphere, the argument goes, one's religious views must be put forward with diffidence and circumspection. You can still have them and express them - that's what separates us from theocracies and tyrannies - but they should be worn lightly. Not only must there be no effort to make them into the laws of the land, but they should not be urged on others in ways that make them uncomfortable. What religious beliefs are owed - and this is a word that appears again and again in the recent debate - is "respect"; nothing less, nothing more.

The thing about respect is that it doesn't cost you anything; its generosity is barely skin-deep and is in fact a form of condescension: I respect you; now don't bother me.

This is, increasingly, what happens to strongly held faiths in the liberal state. Such beliefs are equally and indifferently authorized as ideas people are perfectly free to believe, but they are equally and indifferently disallowed as ideas that might serve as a basis for action or public policy.

Strongly held faiths are exhibits in liberalism's museum; we appreciate them, and we congratulate ourselves for affording them a space, but should one of them ask of us more than we are prepared to give - ask for deference rather than mere respect - it will be met with the barrage of platitudinous arguments that for the last week have filled the pages of newspapers.

this scary argument is from nyt and i found it in the International Herald Tribune
Stanley Fish, a law professor, seems to be arguing for theocracy and failing to understand that liberalism emerged out of the religious conflicts which followed the Reformation. In England we had a civil war and Christmas was banned by the Puritans, fundamentalist Protestants. From the English Civil War we get the philospher John Locke and the birth of liberal philosophy, the birth of human rights thinking and a theory of government as something which rises up from the people and builds upon individual liberty. Individuals bind together to form a commonwealth, thence authority rather than the Divine Right of Kings, a top down theory.
Attempts were made and failed to allow religious diversity in England.
As a result of the reactionary backlash which was the attempt to introduce uniformity to religious belief and practice post 1688 many Christians of diverse sects fled to America in search of religious freedom.
As inheritors of a philosophical school which had seen religious wars and persecution, the American founding fathers choose free speech. Free speech is not simply an idea it is perhaps a meta meme in that it is the provision of a space in which memes can interact.
What Stanley Fish dismisses as a museum is a rich and vital ocean with diverse tides, currents and eddies. Strongly held religious beliefs are fine unless and until they impinge on the rights of others. In the idea space all ideas are not simply objects to be admired or ignored, they war and conflict and mutate through argument and rhetoric.

Freedom of belief and freedom of conscience are profound values.

Stanley Fish talks of certain ideas demanding deference. How do we decide which ideas should be deferred to, which ideas have some sort of a priori supremacy. We decide by debate, politics and democracy. In the west we decided a few years ago to give free speech, human rights, the rule of law a priori supremacy. We decided that conflicting deeply held faiths were often irreconcilable and for the greater good should be kept in the private sphere.
Stanley Fish may want to reopen that debate but i see Christian fundamentalists wanting Inteligent Design to be taught as science and Muslim fundamentalists wanting a renewed Caliphate. I do not see these as the seeds for a new Age of Reason or an Age of Freedom.

He says "beliefs are equally and indifferently authorized as ideas people are perfectly free to believe, but they are equally and indifferently disallowed as ideas that might serve as a basis for action or public policy." I do not see public policies which have their basis in eg certain interpretations of Christian thinking eg the question of abortion "indifferently disallowed" but clearly religious arguments are not going to be given the importance people who share those religious views sometimes expect.
Cartoons which some see as blasphamous are not blasphamous to those who don't believe images, positive or negitive of the Prophet, are anything other than images, with no power and no profound emotional impact in contrast to those for whom the images are potent encapsulations of; Islamaphobia, a catalogue of insults and the racism experienced in the West or the sublimated oppression of tyrannous goverments and everyday life.
Certain arguments ie blasphamy are "disallowed" because they use faith as a first principle but many do not hold this to be a valid first principle and so any argument profoundly based upon it will fall if you do hold to that first principle.
People with deeply held faith often argue from faith but I believe that in the public sphere this is dangerous, inaccessable to reasoned argument and a fount of irrationality and emotion. Historically it has been the tool of demigogues. So we invented liberalism and free speech so those with diverse deeply held beliefs could coexist free to have faith in the private sphere.

Our faith in letting it all hang out - Editorials & Commentary - International Herald Tribune