There is a saying: People who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones. The implication is if you’re going to make a criticism, you better not be worthy of the same criticism. No one needs to learn this valuable life lesson more than an outspoken atheist.
Atheists, of course, have no fear of offending God, nor do they care about offending Christians. Thus, they feel no shame in creating belligerent spoof accounts with some variation of His name. One such account spat out the words "NEW COMMANDMENT: Thou shalt not use your religion as an excuse to take away other people's rights." But all this does is shows that whatever troll is behind the account has not thought through his own worldview.
To begin with, before we talk about any religion being used as an excuse to take away a right, we must first establish that there is a right to be taken away in the first place. But there are no atheistic philosophies that can do this. In fact, the very definition of a right depends entirely on your perspective of religion. In Christian philosophy, a right, in its most basic form, is that which you are owed purely by virtue of being human. These rights are granted by God, and may only be legitimately overruled by God, or those He has authorised to do so.
This leads us to a conclusion that cuts two ways for atheists. On the one hand, it does mean the government cannot strip you of your rights. We can say, for example, that even though the Nazis were not Christian, it is entirely permissible to impose Christian morality on them. As a Christian, I can say the Holocaust was objectively evil, whereas an atheist cannot. Nevertheless, because most atheists, especially if they are going to feign some degree of tolerance, admit that the Holocaust was undesirable (as the Lord has written His law on their hearts), they are typically quite grateful for Christian intervention against Fascism.
But there are two flip sides of this, first starting with the fact that, as they claim, a Theocracy is bad for everyone. In reality, this depends on two factors: Which god is in power, and how much power does it have? Objectively, a true Theocracy will not happen until Christ returns, and so while Theonomists do exist within the Church, the most Biblical position actually seems to be for Christians to simply assimilate into whatever government exists, obeying them until doing so conflicts with Godliness, and praying for them so that peace may reign. If Christians happen to gain political office, we are not to try to enforce a Theocracy, since doing so would actually require us to blaspheme. The job of the government, according to Romans 13, is to be a minister to mankind, being a terror to evil works (like theft, rape, murder etc.) and a rewarder of good. Thus, I would agree with the atheist that an artificial Theocracy would be a terrible thing. But even this is because I believe the Bible.
The second way Christian involvement in politics cuts against atheists, however, is that being, as Richard Dawkins puts it, "a bulwark against something worse", typically means being a bulwark against them, too. See, when an atheist says silly things like "don't use your religion as an excuse to take away my rights", they don't mean "don't use your religion as an excuse to kill me for blasphemy". No, what they mean is "don't use your religion as an reason to impede my depravity".
Nowhere is this seen more obviously than the issue of abortion. No one will ever be able to explain why abortion should be considered a human right. It is counter intuitive to even try. Life is the most basic and most well known human rights. How, then, can we even justify a so-called doctor extinguishing the most innocent lives on behalf of, of all people, their own mother? Much less call it a right? Yet, when an atheist says we shouldn't use religion to take away someone else's human rights, what they actually mean is abortion is the one time they don't want you to care about human rights.
Ironically, this is to the extent where your rights don't matter. Everyone has the right to pray. Of course, as a Christian, I would say it is a good thing to pray to the Lord. But even if you're an atheist, and especially if you're going to feign tolerance, you must accept that prayer, which by its very nature can never do anything to anyone, is morally acceptable, and should be legally acceptable. But as the recent example of Isabel Vaughan-Spruce shows, there is no compromise to be made here. In the UK, the basic human right to communicate with God is officially a crime.
This is one of many examples of when tolerance has been an excuse for tyranny in recent years. See, while atheists are quick to say Christians shouldn't be allowed to use our religion as an "excuse" to "take away their rights", they are extremely quick to take away our actual rights to practice our faith in peace. While they tell us to keep our faith to ourselves so they can do whatever kind of violent or dangerous stuff they like, they also love to enforce their faith on us. While they talk about human rights, a concept that simply cannot be justified in their philosophy, the truth is, they don't want to be hindered by such things any more than the Nazis did.
They don't care about the right to life, they want to decide who lives and who dies. They don't care about the right to bodily autonomy, they want to decide what you can and can't do with your body. They don't care about freedom of religion, they want to tell you what to believe. They don't care about the free market, they want to tell you how to operate your business, or who you may buy from, or who you may sell to. The atheists who are most vocal about "human rights" do not care about human rights.
"Tolerance", in the modern day, has lost all meaning. Whereas it should be the Biblical principle of "If it is possible, as much as depends on you, live peaceably with all men" (Romans 12:18), it has instead become "if possible, as much as it depends on you, force all people to conform with atheistic norms".
Ultimately, I would agree that religion should not be an excuse to take away human rights, but that is because I believe there are human rights to take away, and I have a solid foundation to both justify and identify what a human right is. I can tell you that abortion is not a human right, because I can tell you that life is. When you murder a human being, you are not killing some monkey, or some savage race that must be eliminated by the superior Caucasian. You are killing a precious human being, made in the image of the Living God, and even if you seem to escape in this life, you will be judged for it. But the government, who "...does not bear the sword in vain..." (Romans 13:4) has a responsibility to carry out God's command: "Whoever sheds man’s blood, By man his blood shall be shed; For in the image of God He made man." (Genesis 9:6).
An atheist can make no such claims. Even the Evolutionist view that there are 5 races, including "...the highest type of all, the Caucasians, represented by the civilized white inhabitants of Europe and America" (A Civic Biology, 1914), is illogical unless that "height" can be measured by some objective standard. But there are no atheistic philosophies that provide an objective standard by which morality of any kind can be measured. Human rights are an inherently religious concept, and therefore, while it is 100% true that your religion cannot be used as an excuse to take away human rights, it is also a fact that one needs a religion to even say there are human rights to take away.
Of course, ultimately, this is not just a case of who can justify human rights and who just wants to be a hooligan. In fact, atheists really tip their hand when they say things like this. When they say it is their right to do such unholy and depraved things as murder their own kids, and Christians shouldn't be allowed to "use their religion" to oppose such atrocities, they are actually exposing their motive for rejecting Christianity.
See, if Christianity is true, there is no right to an abortion. In fact, there is no right to sin full stop. That doesn't necessarily mean Christians should seek to punish every sin committed. As sinners ourselves, that would be impractical. Even the law given to pre-Christian Israel is described as "weak through the flesh" (Romans 8:3), and thus God does not expect us to enforce it today, as it has served its purpose. But what it does mean is that aside from the government existing for the primary purpose of putting a limit on sin, even the sins that are not directly illegal are still immoral. The government, for example, may not be required to punish someone for cussing, but that does not mean you have the right to cuss.
The end result of this is that you can live under the best government that has ever ruled, or under the most depraved set of mobsters to ever claim authority, in the end there is only one Lord, and He will ultimately judge your every thought, word, and deed. Every lie you have ever told, He will judge. Every item you have ever stolen, He will judge. Every violent act you have ever committed, He will judge. Every time you have ever made a spoof social media account in His name and used it to justify your own immorality, He will judge.
And we're all guilty.
The Bible not only tells us that the wages of sin is death, but that all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. That means God has us all dead to rights. Not one of us would survive His judgement. But the good news is, God offers us a very special right: "But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name: who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God." (John 1:12-13).
Forgiveness is on the table! Even snot nosed little brats who can see no other purpose in their lives than to troll Christians on the internet do not have to continue wasting their precious lives. Through Jesus, eternity is not just on the line, but also on offer. And all it takes is the humility to confess the truth.
See, while well-meaning amateurs will say things like "accept Jesus as your Lord and Savior", the fact is, He is already your Lord. The question you need to ask is whether or not you are content to remain a rebel, and receive His judgement, or repent, and become His child.