“Contemporary liberals increasingly think and talk like a class of self-satisfied commissars enforcing a comprehensive, uniformly secular vision of the human good. The idea that someone, somewhere might devote her life to an alternative vision of the good -- one that clashes in some respects with liberalism's moral creed -- is increasingly intolerable. That is a betrayal of what's best in the liberal tradition.”

An extremely accurate depiction with a bit of clarification. Enforcement of a comprehensive, uniform and moral creed is descriptive asset(s) of a religion (secular refers to a corporeal domain as is averse to a spiritual domain - thus explaining a temporal religion / Religion is:
a) any specific system of belief ⋯, often involving a code of ethics, and a philosophy [the Christian religion, the Buddhist religion, etc.]
b) any system of beliefs, practices, ethical values, etc. resembling, suggestive of, or likened to such a system [humanism as a religion] ⋯ any object of conscientious regard and pursuit (Websters Dictionary) Religion is: real piety in practice, consisting in the performance of all known duties to ⋯ our fellow men. (Bouviers Law Dictionary)
Religion is: an object of conscience, an ethic(s), a moral(s), a value (system) or an orientation of correctness / enlightenment, believed sufficiently conventional and sacrosanct as to enable an attributable action. Religions foundation, through fruition, encompasses self obligated pursuits and devoted interests based on said enablers. When said enablers are drawn upon or referenced as authority, power or reason to enforce, a formal religion is established. - feed the hungry, cloth the naked, finance the poor, provide medical to the ill are all ethical acts of religion.
Thus, the greater enforcement of the liberals (or anyones) vision of that which is good instead of that which is at natural law, the greater the violation of liberty, justice, inalienable rights, the noble station of man and the Constitution (by way of extremely terse examples: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof (1st Amendment); the de jure nations foundational organic law, the law of nature and of nature's God (Declaration of Independence); and, to "secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity: (Preamble)) The statist theocracy infesting this land, with its forced canons is an immoral, unlawful, unjust and religion of "anti" good scourge.

'A class of self-satisfied commissars enforcing a comprehensive, uniformly secular/religious vision of the human good.' -- this has been the drama of the world since the dawn of civilization. 'Letting people be' is never proposed as a 'solution' to a 'problem.' We will always have Utopian dreams, and people should be free to pursue them -- but more importantly, people should be free to NOT pursue them. Communal living may be paradise for some as opposed to competing in a marketplace -- but others may prefer a more solitary life. What we see in collectivist views is that we should all be working towards the growth and influence of the community, while the individualist works towards the personal growth and influence of the individual. The collectivists wishes to control everyone, while the individualist wishes only to control himself. The collectivist considers the individualist 'selfish' and the individualist considers the collectivist 'irresponsible.'

Then the man has no idea what Liberals are and takes the road which is currently be traveled....