You can have your religious views, but don’t legislate them. You should not expect others who do not hold your religious views to live by them.
The above mantra is anti-democratic, anti-American, and anti-Christian.
First, why can’t a person legislate their religious views? The answer is typicaly “separate of church and state.” Now let’s put aside the disagreement of this Supreme Court ruling for it has little bearing on whether religious people can legislate their views. In fact, in most cases, the freedom of religion could be taken away and religious people could still legislate their views. Why? Because most often they are not legislating their religion but their values.
For example, image the following scenario. A Christian, whose religion states that salvation is receive through God’s Son – Jesus Christ, walks into a voting booth and votes for a Constitutional Amendment defining marriage between one man and one woman. Then a Muslim, whose religion states that damnation is certain for those who say God has a Son and salvation is dependent on Jesus Christ, also votes for the same amendment. Then an Atheist votes for the amendment. How can people with contradictory religious and no religion vote the same way? Because they are not voting a religion, they are voting their values. Values are informed by family, culture, education, belief in God or not, and more. There is nothing any more in violation of church-and-state for a religious person to vote their values than for an Atheist to do so. This is why in part simply being religious does not warrant getting ones voting privileges revoked.
Second, the purpose of a democracy is for all people, even the religious, to have their say in the laws and policies of their governments. It is anti-democratic and anti-American to claim they are doing something wrong when they participate in their civic duty. If people who make this claim don’t like the idea of their fellow citizens having a say in government, they are free to move to a country with a dictatorship. Then they won’t have to worry about religious people having a voice or vote because no one will.
Third, it’s cherry picking. Back to the same-sex marriage example. If it is wrong for one to vote their religious values, what about people whose religion informs them to vote for same-sex marriage? Are these people shoving their religion? No, not as long as a persons religion informs them to vote liberal positions.
Fourth, it’s self-serving. The real thrust of the statement is not for religious people to do the right thing, but to do someone else’s right thing – for religious people to vote against their view and for someone else’s.
Fifth, legislating views and living by them are two different things. Some non-religious people may feel that it is bad for society to legalize illicit drugs. They are not dictating to others how to live. If some people want to talk the risks in using illicit drugs they can. But just because people want something legal doesn’t mean everyone needs to agree and make it legal. In many cases, to do so would be profoundly immoral (rape, incest, infanticide, etc.).
Sixth, it is anti-Christian. People who’s Lord said the greatest commandment is love have an obligation to uphold what is right according to their faith and oppose what is wrong. To approve of what the Christian faith calls sin is unloving to God and others as well.
Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. ~ 1 Corinthians 13:6
Seventh, if one believes others show vote against their values, then they should show the way and do it themselves. But they won’t. This is hypocrisy.
If one has confidence in their view then argue for it with legitimate arguments, not fallacious ones like “don’t vote your religion.”