I do hope that they igored science in deciding whether the freedom of religion exists or not.
What is the implication of the article? That if my science doesn’t support your religion, then your rights are void.
I wouldn't.
Authentic Science should never disagree with Authentic Religion (think about it: the God who gave His Word also Created the heavens and earth and built the laws of nature upon which authentic science should be based).
On the other hand, pseudo-science that is based upon a false belief structure, should never be the basis of anything. For example, the pantheistic pseudo-science of global warming.
Raising science to the status of a supra-religion?