If you would vote in favor of something because the words of Locke and Hobbes have affected how you view the world why would that be different than voting in favor of something because the words of Matthew, Luke, and John affects how you view the world?
Almost every law is about forcing people in some form to do what the person thinks is best for the country based on their own opinions and views of a situation. You talk about people doing what they think is best for the country, not what they think is needed religiously. You talk like those are mutually exclussive. Do you think that somehow people that oppose abortion think its "good for the country" any less than those that seek to ban non-"green" things do it for that reason? Do you think that somehow people who push for allowing a moment of silence at the start of school think its "good for the country" any less than those that seek to ban transfats? Just because YOU don't think its good for the country does not disqualify the notion that they don't. And just because some of the country won't like it obviously doesn't disqualify it because there's no law that gets passed that is liked by everyone in the country.
YOU think that abortions just going to lead to the death of a lot of women and is bad for the country. Others think that it already leads to the death of many people and disallowing it would be good for the country. Why is their view on it magically, as if there is some universal truth to it, "bad" and yours is "good" otehr than because it fits your own biases and opinion to the issue.
You act as if there is some universal "Right for the Country" that is crystal clear and unquestionably true to all.
I would have no problem with someone believing alcohol is a dangerous and troublesome drug that leads to numerous deaths and thus due to that view votes to ban alcohol. So then why should I have an issue if someone felt that alcohol was sinful and poluted ones body and spirit causing people to act dangerously and troublesome and thus it should be banned? These individuals have constitutional protection to practice and express their religion, and part of that expression is the understanding that ones peronal philosophies...be it gained from a religion, from a philosopher, even just from living life"...influence how you view the world.
To tell people they can't make political decisions based in part on their religious beliefs is unconstitutional imho, and more than that is ridiculously bigoted when you allow any other prsonal philosophies to be applied as "reasoning".