Is western democracy turing into the Borg?

Last night I watched a BBC documentary called Are Christians being Persecuted. It's no longer available on BBC (one begs the question WHY?), but you can see it here.
In a nutshell, the documentary points to the marginalization of Christianity in UK, but at a much larger scale, it raises a question of relationship between legislation and faith-based institutions throughout the western world.
Why is it that we are so interested in secularizing our societies? Why is the secularization trend so strong that it goes into overkill when individuals so much as dare to make a faith-based statement?  And lastly, why does the State interfere in religious matters?
Our quick willingness to marginalize religious matters in the name of minority rights seems a bit too similar to the Soviet block some 20 years ago. OK, it is a bit different in western democratic countries, we are not imprisoned if we go to church/mosque/synagogue/temple. At least not yet. But forcing people to abandon their faith and the ability to publicly identify with our faith-based community and beliefs is in its own way a banishment of individualism. So from freedom of self-defining, we are all ordered to abandon who we are from a spiritual perspective "for the sake of peace and tolerance in society". OK, we can see that in tightly packed communities such as our cities, it is important that one people group does not shove down others' throats it's identity and culture. That's what we did in the colonial era, when the entire world was under the fist of Great Britain, France, Spain and Portugal, to name a few. It seems we learned a lesson back then and we're eager to apply it in this context, lest we force immigrants to lose their identity. So walking away from Christianity (asuming the West is "christian") is an attempt to welcome immigrants. This is great! We should make people feel welcomed in their new country. But will secularization of society make newcomers welcomed, or is this the beginning of The Borg? Does freedom mean freedom from self also? How far do we go in our efforts to welcome the other, and does this welcoming require self-denial?
As far as the shear intensity and eagerness to secularize society, we can only compare it to our ancestors' attempts to sanctify society by weaving faith into the fabric of society. OK, back then we may say we needed a firm moral guidance so we would eventually abandon animal sacrifice and look at our God with a more philosophical eyes. Back then, monarchs embraced Christianity (starting with Constantine) and put faith to a good use, which (trans)formed society. Some even were quite knowledgeable in matters of philosophy and theology. But our leaders today deem it archaic to speak of faith in an age of reason... not understanding that faith and reason are complementary, that faith calls for reason by going into deep philosophical discussions about the word we live in, about our responsibility before God and others, about the interlinked nature of human society not so much a gathering of individuals but as an interdependent group (almost an organism). They seem to have forgotten (if ever knew) that it was the theologians that taught the world that personal beliefs require appropriate actions. Nowadays our legislators are abandoning faith claiming reason, not understanding that reason requires faith (be it religious or ideological). So by being so adamant about secularization, they are building up a new religion, without moral guidance, without teachers, without mechanisms of maintaining interpersonal links. They should watch Star Trek again, and see that The Borg is not a happy society... nor is it tolerant.
And lastly, why DOES state interfere in religious matters? Don't they have bigger fish to fry that who is to be a minister in a church, and will the church bless homosexual marriage? How about some energy in solving the global financial meltdown? We elected politicians to establish the rule of law, which should guarantee our safety and provide a legal framework for economic and cultural development of the masses. If Church and State are separate, why is it that the State usurps the right of self-management of the Church? And this is where the crux of the issue lies: religious groups are governed by their internal belief system, not by state-imposed dogmas. If Christian theology says that homosexual marriage is a sin, then for the community of believers homosexuality is sin. The state cannot, and should not try to interfere in theological matters. If offended groups feel they are discriminated in their religious community, they should work things out within that community. The state is the King, not Robin Hood. And this is the second point where statesmen should think through their roles as trendsetters not judges. When issues are theological and ethical, politicians are the last ones to speak out. We have enough theologians and philosophers to deal with such issues. Any "help" from amateurs harms us all, because people that are not grounded in their faith and without a strong moral system cannot and should not interfere in disputes over theology and ethics.
When people learn to appreciate who they are, they will be able to appreciate others and treasure differences. When we understand the role of faith in our individual lives, we will learn to be tolerant to other religions. Human rights are for all humans, not for those who cry louder. Real democracy is equality, not favoritism. If one people group is allowed to practice their religion, then this right should be granted to all religious communities. The right to freedom of one individual cannot be granted at the expense of the freedom of others. When things get messy over belief systems, morality and ethics, the state should let things in the hands of theologians, philosophers and social workers. Democratic societies should remember what the role of the state is, and stick to it.