It seems that what you are saying is that the group with no religious affiliation, by and large, yourself being an exception, makes voting decisions based on abortion, homosexuality, and the general sense that a religious candidate or a position based in traditional morality embodies disapproval, and is therefore, as the young like to say, “Mean.” (This is how I understand your phrases “trash-talking” and “talking smack.” You may explain if this old lady has misunderstood ;-).
You have not mentioned any other way in which a religious candidate or position is a threat to these voters’ liberty or economic condition.
It seems to me to mean that all other interest groups should be allowed to voice their positions based on their driving interest, whatever it may be, but Christian conservatives doing the same is “cramming religion down people’s throats”.
That is correct. I will do so by means of example and also by means of showing overreach.
The group responsible for this and other attempts at legislating morality destroyed the terms "Evangelical" and "Conservative" on the west coast entirely and ensured a generation of Democrat voters.
Its not just "mean". These people were vicious. Their last gasp was to try to make homosexuality a crime punishable by jail time. It failed. Their actions caused the creation of a number of Gay Rights groups who persist to this day. They created an enemy for themselves. That enemy went on to win victory after victory. These constant attempts at legislating morality changed a state from red to blue.
Does this start making more sense now? The State where this took place has about 30% of its population in the "no religion" category and has always had the highest number of "no religion" people. What did the group sponsoring this legislation use as its reason for it? Bible verses mostly. Using religion directly as a basis for legislation turns these people off. Other means of persuasion are required.
Right now, the two fastest growing faith groups in the United States are Muslims and "no religion" with "no religion" far exceeding the growth of Muslims.
That's why I mention demography. Religion is something for older people. The kids are either leaving it or having no part of it in the first place.
My own personal suggestion is a more liberty-oriented approach like the one Barry Goldwater used. That seems to raise eyebrows among both the non-religious and a large number of liberals. I've had quite a bit of success talking up Goldwater in the middle of a deep blue sea.
There are other examples I can throw out, but let's start with this. I can move on to how a lot of non-religious people are mocked, discriminated against, and such. Heck, I can even give examples of Protestants flatting tires in Catholic Church parking lots.