Secular state The
wikipedia says
The word secularism in political and social sense, it denotes a claim by an individual or a collective entity, the decision-making than any ideological conditioning, moral or religious beliefs of others.
Lay is, in this sense, who believes it can and must unconditionally guarantee the their freedom of choice and action, particularly in politics than those who, instead, considers the need to reconcile his freedom or submit to the authority of an ideology or a creed.
Since we're talking about the state, collective entity, it is called "independent decisions" and a secular state legislates on the basis of the principles of law that form it: the Constitution, and with it, the Declaration of Fundamental Rights 'man and other sources of law universally (or almost) been recognized as fundamental in a modern, democratic and free.
It follows that the State must recognize any individual religious sentiment (as long as this does not go against the laws, such as hard I would see a revival of the ancient Aztec religion, which included human sacrifices as offerings to the gods to thank them for the Creation - unless the sacrifice is symbolic, as is the offering of the body and blood of Christ - which, for the dogma of transubstantiation become significant when they are made, then not only a symbol for those who believe). No matter that this belief is seen by millions or a few people: and I do not think only a few Jews and Muslims, but also in Shinto, Buddhist, Wiccan, Zoroastrian, Raelians, Jehovah's Witnesses, atheists, humanists, etc..
And I speak of individual religious feeling on purpose, because this is the inalienable basis on which religions are built and then through the right of association ...: this is conceptually the Catholic Church: a very large group of people who have a same or similar religious feeling and have needs related to it. The state, however, beyond the obvious practical numerical considerations and not substantive, should not make a difference if it was truly secular, between a group with millions of people (there are several places of worship, for example), and one with thousands (will be created in places of worship or in private apartments, but the state should facilitate, and not oppress them).
The problem arises when those who are in majority also wants to impose its religious way of seeing the life to others. At home they can do what they want, and I find it hypocritical Catholics who, taking advantage of laws made in moments of lucidity secular state, abortion or divorzino. But if their divine law forbids him from eating meat on Fridays, for example silly, because, ironically, they should impose it at all? And why, if their man can not lie with a man, no one should do it? Requiring the State to legislate on the basis of religious laws do not differentiate those theocracies that many now oppose and consider the cradle of Islamic terrorism. Democracy protects all, and must not become the dictatorship of the majority over the minority, in this and any other area!