“When a narrow subset of one religion starts making laws based on their interpretation of whatever, then it starts to impinge on others religious freedom. The way to alleviate this is to maintain a government based on secular values which do not favor one religion over another.”
Your statement makes no sense, unless by “religion” you mean, for instance, the witchcraft beliefs of aborigines whose practices involve ritual sodomy, amputations, and cannibalism (thinking about Papua New Guinea). All monotheist religions, and Buddhism (I include Hinduism in the monotheist religions as that is my particular field of study) all have the same basic moral values based on religion.
For your statement to make sense you need to supply evidence supporting it. The sentence “When a narrow subset of one religion starts making laws based on their interpretation of whatever...” needs elucidating. What exactly do you mean?
Additionally, a government based on “secular values” is a government which is choosing atheism as the standard over relgious based values. The only system I can think of that has done that is Communism. And what are secular based values, anyway?
Secularism does not equal atheism, nor does it automatically mean anti-religion. Nor was Communism strictly atheist as it promoted worship of the state. Secular laws do not have to get in the way of religious freedom; indeed, in this country the whole point is that secular laws guarantee religious freedom for all who are willing to abide by the basics. In theory we are all held to the same standard.