There's no such thing as "forcing secularism down the throat of a majority". Let me explain why.
Democracy is commonly called the "rule of the people". In practice, this translates into "rule of the majority".
The rule of the majority isn't always just or fair. https://twitter.com/zulfimusic/status/1292162421105332225

What's to stop the majority from infringing upon the rights of minority groups? So in order for democracy to be just, we presuppose certain rights to be inviolable. These are what we call the fundamental human rights. Religious freedom is one of these rights.

Religious freedom is the freedom of each individual to believe in and practice the religion they want.
Since every individual has this right, no individual can force their religion on another individual.

In religious states, the state favours a particular religious group. This is almost always the religious group that the majority of the country's population belongs to.
In such a scenario, the state is by definition relegating other religious groups to second class citizens.

Not only does the state takes measures to discriminate against religious minorities, it also consequently gives the greenlight to the powerful majority to discriminate against minorities.
Let's take Pakistan.

The Constitution bars Non-Muslims from holding the office of President or Prime Minister. The Penal Code places severe restrictions on the religious freedoms of Ahmadis (Articles 298 B and 298 C). The state explicitly favours Muslims in all public spheres.

This, in turn, gives rise to a feeling of entitlement among the Muslim majority which leads to social discrimination and even vigilante violence against religious minorities. (Did another thread on this, which I'll link at the end)

So a religious state is, by definition, the apparatus through which the majority infringes upon the rights of minorities. It is majoritarianism, but it is not democracy since democracy presupposes certain inviolable rights, which a religious state violates.

If your defense of a religious state is based on the appeal that this is the will of the majority, then the same reasoning can be used to support the Hindu Nationalist policies of BJP government of India, which was elected by the majority of Indians.

The alternative to a religious state is secularism. Secularism, defined narrowly, is the separation of state and religion. A secular state is a state which promises to remain neutral on the question of religion and neither supports nor discriminates against any religious group.

Sometimes, this promise is not kept (see Citizenship Amendment Act 2019 by the nominally secular India).
However, secular states are superior to religious states when it comes to religious freedom, since religious discrimination isn't enshrined in the Constitution.

Secular states also have a much better record of protecting the religious freedoms of minority groups.

To sum up, secularism doesn't infringe upon the religious freedoms of the majority. Rather, it stops the majority from infringing upon the religious freedom of the minorities.

My thread on how discriminatory policies by the state give rise to and protect extremism and ultraconservatism in society. https://twitter.com/Qaiser__Khan/status/1293538309595992066?s=19