Most, if not all, advanced societies have freedom of thought, which inevitably protects the rights of individuals who wish to believe which ever ideology they so wish, regardless of it's probability of being true.
Freedom of religion, in Canada, is used time and time again as a means of oppressing other religions than christians, and I would imagine it is used in the same way by other religious groups in other countries. It is redundant, painfully costly and utterly contradictory to the freedom of thought of children, which I hold more deeply and direly needed than freedom of religion.
"Rights" is an all-encompassing term, and includes, at its core, human rights. When we look at the rights to life, liberty, and security, as present in multiple constitutions as well as the Commission on Human Rights, we see that rights are the foundation of any freedoms, and therefore supersede said freedoms. As important as freedom of religion is in society today, when it is taken to the point of extremism (ISIS, Westboro Baptist Church) we need systems in place that ensure rights always take priority.
I am all for freedom of religion, but it's more important for people have fundamental human rights. A person's personal choice of religion should not be able to interfere with another person's basic rights in any way. It's unnecessary and what someone does with their life is none of your or your religion's business.
I believe every person should have the right to choose there own actions, religion should still be a persons choice to follow but should never be forced onto another if they have differing beliefs. I think religion being given precedence leads to extremism and has for many generations. ISIS would be an example today or the Spanish Inquisition of peoples rights loosing priority to religion
Freedom of religion is a right. I think the more pertinent question would be "Should the right of religious freedom be allowed to infringe upon other, non-religious rights?"
In which case, my answer is still no. No one right should be used to impose one's personal belief or practices onto another individual.
So what you are asking is like asking ''should some rights be more important than other rights''. As far as I'm aware, rights have equal status in the eyes of law, providing the utilization of one by a particular party right doesn't infringe on the rights of another person. So, essentially, rights have to have boundaries to be able to create equilibrium in applications.
For instance, if a gay person walks into a Christian owned shop and asks the clerk to deliberately make a reef that says ''God Loves Gay People Too'', the clerk should be able to refuse under their right of free religious and political expression. But if a gay person walks into a Christian owned shop and asks for a ready-made item on sale and the clerk refuses because that person is ga, then the gay person should be able to sue for discrimination.
So, there's a balance to be found there, between rights.
Ultimately, no, I don't think one right should be more important than another right.
This question doesn't make sense because having the option to be religious is a right itself. In some countries freedom of religion isn't allowed. I believe both are equal, human rights are important, just like the right to choose your religion, however I do not think it's right to force your religion onto someone else. I also believe heavily in separation of church and state because when you combine the two it takes away the rights of other people.
Freedom of religion is a right. Your religion cant interfere with other peoples freedom of speech/press/ect and all of that but your freedom to practice your religion ahouldnt be infringed either. You just cant make other people practice it (ie let them have birth control please)
Everyone just live and let live.