Religious coercion in the light of Halacha

And even murder for a person who does not think there is a problem is necessary to prevent it with “religious coercion”. And what is different from desecrating the Sabbath, fornication (or that the seven commandments of the children of Noah are different) that is not clear. Perhaps the rabbi means that precisely in things that you do that express faith (if there are such things and if Judaism is not just practical) there is no need and possibility of a plan to coerce. The question is whether keeping the Sabbath, fornication and so on and so on. belong to this category.
I would be happy if the rabbi explained why there is no point in coercing a person who does not believe. This is because doing the commandments is an expression of faith (which it certainly is not) and there is no meaning in doing the commandments for someone who does not believe. But then the action itself is not bad. How does it become bad for someone who suddenly believes?

And what about the Maimonides”s words about coercing him until he says I want it, which is defined as “at his will”. (And as you know, it's not like Taliohu and Zavin, where he really wants the sale)

It's different because in murder you don't force him to do the mitzvah or prevent the offense, but rather to prevent the harm. In mitzvot like Shabbat, there is no harm to anyone else. And even if you force him, it won't help because he still doesn't fulfill the mitzvah.

And regarding Maimonides, I have written more than once that indeed the law compels him until he says, "I want to, but I don't belong with someone who doesn't believe." And I have already been preceded by several poskim (such as Mahrik).

Thanks to the rabbi for the response
I would be grateful if the rabbi could direct me
to the basic sources of his words

I found in Hazon Ish (surely familiar to the rabbi) the matter of lowering and not raising
But his conclusion is similar - as soon as the fence is forcibly made on people who do not believe, it causes an excessive breach.

And it seems that the law of lowering is not applicable except at a time when His providence, blessed be He, is manifest, as when there were excellent miracles and a voice of the voice, and the righteous of the generation were under private supervision that was visible to all, and the unbelievers then were in special cases in the inclination of the instinct to lust and debauchery, and then the elimination of the wicked was the fence of the world, as everyone knew that the expulsion of the generation brings calamities to the world, and brings a word and a sword and famine in the world;

But in the time of the disappearance, when faith was cut off from the door of the people, the act of lowering the fence is not a breach, but rather an addition of a breach: which would be in their eyes as an act of corruption and the silence of G-d. And since we ourselves are to correct, the law does not apply when there is no correction, and we must return them with the depths of love, and place them in the light of what our hands touch. [Chazon Ish, Laws of Slaughter, 2, 16].

Thank you.

Why is there no harm in the private parts? Desecration of the Sabbath is harm, and therefore we (and he) are forbidden to do it.
What is the difference if the harm is to someone else or to Heaven?

See my article here:
https://mikyab.net/%D7%9B%D7%AA%D7%91%D7%99%D7%9D/%D7%9E%D7%90%D7%9E%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%9D/%D7%91%D7%A2%D7%A0%D7%99%D7%99%D7%9F-%D7%94%D7%9B%D7%A9%D7%9C%D7%AA-%D7%97%D7%99%D7%9C%D7%95%D7%A0%D7%99-%D7%91%D7%A2%D7%91%D7%99%D7%A8%D7%94
The damage is from the fact that the thing is a crime and not from the fact that it was done, Since it is not a crime and even if it is enforced, nothing will change in the religious status of the act, there is no reason for it.

Sorry. Apparently the security on my computer decided to block this link (I wonder what they use to decide to block it)

Search for "Failing a Secularist in a Crime." The article is accessible through the website of the journal "Asif" (and if they are also blocked there, then who knows, maybe they will decide to put a stone after their own downfall and publish halakhic-academic criticism articles signed by so-and-so)