Ultimate resolution: French Revolution type violence. It took an absolute tyrant - Napoleon - to restore civilization.
People can be voting to take away the rights from people that are happier than they, and take the loss of their own rights, which are less useful to them as already downtrodden too far to conceive of a free life, with that as collateral damage.
First rights to speech and thought shall be imposed from above, by parties experienced with the joys and the merits thereof, the latter being proven by the power commanded by these free thinking and free speaking peoples to impose their freedoms on another people.
One law would suffice: anyone who can be proven to have harmed another person physically by either violence or theft will be punished by law, and to the full extent of the law especially when the harm has been inflicted on religious grounds.
An eye for an eye is not the worst idea to start with. That's the one part Iran has right. I bet it's more Zoroastrian than Islamic. It's sane because it is the simplest form of legislation, it involves the least (though still much) interpretation, and it's the most logically effective deterrent. One of the reasons people do what they do is that they don't care to understand the consequences. If they know that the consequences of their actions could be the same for them as for others, actions would ever so subtly become inclined to be less harmful and more fertile. So here is the golden rule in its real, negative aspect as a guideline (as all invented rules are): do not unto others what you would not have them do unto you.
The inversion is crucial - the negative forms a limit. The positive can not do so without negating itself in the very nature of positivity, which is boundless, always beyond itself when it truly is itself. And that's the function of religion in the coming time, as it was at times in Babylon, and Greece- the ventilation of excessive joys. Ontic sweat. This accounts for all its dirt and allows for none of its death.