There are those who are more fanatical than others. Those who can only vote based on their religious beliefs. Those who can only make decisions based on their religious beliefs. I guess they might color everything to a certain degree, but there are fanatics for whom religion is the central defining characteristic of their lives and those people are problems.
Again, that doesn't really make much sense to me. Imagine if you were talking about a secular humanist instead of a Christian, then repeat everything you just said but apply it to that group instead.
"...those who can only vote based on their morals. Those who can only make decisions based on their morals. I guess they might color everything to a certain degree, but there are fanatics for whom secular humanism is the defining characteristic of their lives and those people are problems."
I'm not sure if you really mean what you are saying. The meaning of the words you are using is one of two things.
Either:
1. You are opposed to people whose morals, guiding principles, and world view are at the core of their life and guide everything they do.
or
2. You are opposed to the idea that religion should be the foundation of anyone's morals, guiding principles, or world view.
Do you really mean either of these things?
Or perhaps is it only particular expressions of specific religions you have a problem with?
If you really mean the first, then I'm not sure what you imagine the ideal person should be like. Maybe Data from Star Trek TNG?
If you really mean the second, then you do have a fundamental problem with religion. Genuine religion is what forms the foundation of an adherent's morals, guiding principles, and world view. If you really believe religion shouldn't be the foundation of those things then you aren't just against religious fanatics, you are against the very idea of religion.