But surely murder—even for a person who doesn’t think there’s any problem with it—requires “religious coercion” to stop him. So how is that different from desecrating the Sabbath, forbidden sexual relations (or are the Seven Noahide Commandments different), shaatnez? Maybe the Rabbi means that specifically in matters whose performance expresses belief (if there are such things, and if Judaism is not only practical action) there is no need and no practical possibility to coerce. The question is whether Sabbath observance, forbidden sexual relations, and so on belong to that category.
I’d be glad if the Rabbi would explain why there is no point in coercing a person who does not believe. Is it because performing the commandments is an expression of belief (which surely it is not), or because the performance of the commandments has no meaning for someone who does not believe? But if so, if the action in itself is not bad, how does it become bad for someone who suddenly believes?

And what about Maimonides’ words that “we coerce him until he says, ‘I want to’,” so that it is defined as being “of his own will”? (And as is known, this is not like “they forced him and he sold,” where there he really does want the sale.)

That is different, because in murder you are not coercing him regarding the commandment or the prevention of the transgression, but in order to prevent the harm. In commandments like the Sabbath there is no harm to someone else. And even if you coerce him, it will not help, because he still is not fulfilling the commandment.

And regarding Maimonides, I have already written more than once that indeed the rule of “we coerce him until he says, ‘I want to’” does not apply to someone who does not believe. Several halakhic decisors already preceded me in this (such as Maharik).

Thank you to the Rabbi for the response.
I would appreciate it if the Rabbi could direct me
to the basic sources for his remarks.

I found in the Chazon Ish (certainly familiar to the Rabbi) regarding “they are lowered and not raised,”
but his conclusion is similar—once this boundary is enforced coercively on people who do not believe, it causes even greater breach.

“And it seems that the rule of ‘they are lowered’ applies only at a time when His providence, may He be blessed, is revealed, as in times when miracles were common and a heavenly voice was in use, and the righteous of the generation were under particular providence visible to all. Then the deniers were exceptionally perverse, inclined by the evil impulse toward lust and lawlessness, and then the eradication of the wicked was a protection for the world, for everyone knew that leading the generation astray brings calamities upon the world, and brings pestilence, sword, and famine upon the world.

But in a time of concealment, when faith has been cut off from the common people, an act of lowering is not a repair of the breach but an addition to the breach: in their eyes it appears as an act of destruction and violence, Heaven forbid. And since all our aim is to repair, the law does not apply at a time when there is no repair in it. Rather, we must bring them back with cords of love, and set them at the corner of light as much as we can.” [Chazon Ish, Laws of Slaughter, 2:16].

Thank you.

Why is there no harm in forbidden sexual relations or Sabbath desecration? There is harm, and therefore it is forbidden for us (and for him) to do it.
What difference does it make whether the harm is to someone else or toward Heaven?

See my article here:

בעניין הכשלת חילוני בעבירה

Sorry. Apparently the filter I have on my computer decided to block that link (interesting what they use to decide what to block).

Search for “Causing a Secular Jew to Stumble in Transgression.” The article is accessible through the website of the journal Asif (and if they’re blocked there too, then who knows, maybe they’ll already decide to throw a stone after their own fall and publish halakhic-scholarly critique articles signed, God forbid, by Ms. So-and-so).