Update, December 31, 2019: In a New York Times op-ed, Katherine Stewart and Caroline Fredrickson embrace a term ‘religious privilege’ for what I describe here as evangelical Protestants’ claim to religious freedom rights that impede other human rights. They define the term as referring to “the freedom of people of certain conservative and authoritarian varieties of religion to discriminate against those of whom they disapprove or over whom they wish to exert power.” I hesitate, more from instinct than any articulable reason, to adopt this term myself though it appears apt.
Notably, their definition includes important elements: The ‘privileged’ sects are arbitrary, but typically “conservative and authoritarian,” for which we may reasonably read conservative Christian, a term which also includes Roman Catholicism. The latter is typically represented by traditionalist rather than by social conservatism in my scheme of conservative tendencies, but they share considerable ideological ground. They refer to this ‘freedom’ as being “to discriminate against those of whom they disapprove or over whom they wish to exert power,” which is substantially consistent with my view that they seek to constrain the human rights of others.
Social conservatives (mostly evangelical Protestants) are particularly prone to the belief that they are being persecuted for their religion.
A huge problem here is that evangelism intrudes on other people’s beliefs or absence thereof. It is explicitly about proselytizing, spreading an evangelist’s faith. Which means that for an evangelist, “freedom of religion” means the freedom to impose it on other people.