Well, nobody said that about all religions (e.g not for "virgin sacrificing daemon worship" -- though it does sound fun), and for all people practicing them. Christianity didn't make Torquemada any good, but it worked quite well for St. Aquinas.
With that said, the story doesn't have much to do with religion. The guy who funeral they said shouldn't matter was a political leader, not a priest.
The guys that sued/prosecuted the girls did mention "hurting religious sentiments", but that was merely because that was the only semi-plausible accusation under law (since it was a funeral).
In actuality it was a political chase -- people thought they insulted their dear party leader.
(Oh, and it's not like the police arrested them for what they did. The police detained them temporarily just because they had to: that's the law when such an accusation is made, even for someone who didn't do anything).
> With that said, the story doesn't have much to do with religion. The guy who funeral they said shouldn't matter was a political leader, not a priest.
He was also more of a national/ethnic leader than a religious one, with religion only serving as a convenient delineating factor for the "nation" he represented, and even then, only later in his career. He started out as a Marathi ethnic-nationalist, and then started adopting elements of Hindutva as a way of broadening his "brand" to non-Marathis.
>But if there were no "religious sentiments", there will be no law.
Which is no argument at all. It's like saying, "if there weren't blacks, there would be no racism".
You can have restrictive laws based on everything, no need to single out religion. Sources of restrictive laws range from health (like the drug laws), to tolerance (no hate speech), to patriotism (too many to mention), to children (internet censorship etc).