system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
CMV: You have no basis to tell others what to do based on religious beliefs if they do not hold the same beliefs.

I hold the view proposed in the title. I am open to examining it because I see many instances in history and today of people giving behavioural prescriptions based on religious beliefs to others who do not hold the same beliefs.

A religious belief is an example of a belief obtained through faith only. This means that spiritually and aesthetically, you find a proposition somehow worthy, and therefore want to believe it is true. At the same time, there may be no evidence for the proposition, but this doesn't matter for the purposes of faith-based belief. This is more relevant today than in the past, when people attempted to prove the existence of God with logic and find empirical evidence, whereas today it seems that most people think faith means believing based on the value they see in the proposition, not any evidence.

Most of the core beliefs of a religion fit this description, such as God exists, he is omnipotent, omnibenevolent, etc. 

Many practices and codes of behaviour are derived from the core beliefs. A religion mandating vegetarianism says: if and only if \[some core belief\], then one must be vegetarian. A religion says: if and only if A, then B.  

Let's take the example of abortion. Some religions assert that life is a gift from God, and that you ought not to take it away. The proposition "one must undergo abortion" follows directly from the assertions. The assertions are believed based on faith, not evidence. If one were to command another to not undergo abortion, and they both believed the same body of faith-based assertions, that would be completely fine. 

But when one commands another, and the other does not believe those faith-based assertions, that's when problems arise. Given a certain faith-based assertion, one can choose to believe it or not, and either choice is equally valid. The belief is based on subjective tastes. However, given an evidence-based assertion, one of the choices is more valid depending on how strong the evidence is. For some evidence-based assertions, the evidence is so strong that one choice is absolutely valid. These evidence-based assertions apply to people of all belief systems, so one can always tell another that they ought to do something if that ought is based on evidence. 

Contrarily, if the ought does not follow from evidence-based assertions, it is incorrect to command another. It is incorrect to say that one religion is more valid than another.
gpt
To what extent does anyone have the right to enforce their moral values, secular or religious, over anyone else? Morality, secular or religious, is inherently subjective. Right and wrong don't have any basis in reality - many people relate right and wrong to good and bad, or pleasure and suffering, but not everyone, and there is no moral system or single value that everyone will agree with. Not everyone believes in the same values you do - can you enforce your values on them?

So either nobody has the right to enforce their moral beliefs (say murder is wrong, for an admittedly hyperbolic example) on another, or religiously founded morals are just as legitimate to be enforced on others as secular ones.