One recurring comment I read from secularists at threads on websites like NPR is how Christians should be forbidden from imposing their religion on the rest of society by voting for laws in accordance with their convictions and conscience. ... yet ironically these same people seem perfectly content to impose their own view and laws on the rest of society which are in accord with their own convictions and conscience. Ask them how they know their view is right and true and you get hemming and hawing because they know deep down that their their own convictions are by faith alone. There is nothing objective or scientific about their views yet they proceed as if they were .... a convenient justification for a monopoly on power - an imposition of a kind of secular theocracy, as it were.
Take the issue of abortion, for instance. According to this kind of secularist logic, it is well and fine for secularists to use the democratic process their own subjective unscientific views about their nature of human beings on Americans with their pro-abortion laws, but Christians, because they are "religious", should not be allowed to fight for the right of human beings to live, or else they would be violating separation of church and state. Folks, we live in a Democratic republic. If we can, by the grace of God, persuade 50.1% of the people to vote for biblical laws, that is the will of the people. Outlawing abortion should be our goal. To achieve our goals we are using the same legal methods as everyone else. Someone's laws are going to be imposed, even in a democratic republic. So to decry that Christians cannot theocratically impose their views is an attempt to silence a whole portion of the population when secularists are doing the very same thing they accuse their philosophical opponents of.
Note: Most Christians strongly affirm freedom of conscience. Beliefs cannot be coerced or they would not be genuine beliefs of the heart. Furthermore the sinfulness and depravity of man is a strong argument to keep the power of men in serious check, including our own. This can be achieved partly through rule of law and balance of power. Knowing we ourselves are sinful, we cannot trust ourselves with unlimited power so need contrary voices in the public square we disagree with, like secularists, to have freedom to speak their opinion. Liberty of conscience and persuasion is a better system than one which is coercive. Although we would like to see our society better reflect biblical principles, we do not believe in the muzzling of ideas. That appears to be what many secularists want however and they use the excuse of separation of church and state to silence their opposition. Separation of church and state does not mean people cannot bring their faith convictions into the public square: we all do that, religious or secular. Its original purpose was to keep tyranny at bay by not allowing any one denomination or philosophy of life the sole voice in society. Does that sound familiar? So many secularists, oddly, are becoming the very thing they claim to despise.