Religious Laws vs. Social Laws

The judge in my case here in California insists on frequently reminding me that, “there are some of us who feel no one should be allowed to represent themselves”.
This view amazes me, especially coming from a judge. If a man stands accused of behaving contrary to a law agreed upon by the society in which he lives, the courts job is not to compel the man to believe in the rightness or justness of the law but only to compel the man to obey the law regardless of any difference between what he believes and what society in general believes.
In other words, if I believe smoking pot is harmless and should not be against the law, and I am charged with smoking pot, the courts job is not to convince me that smoking pot is wrong! The courts job is only to convince me not to smoke pot! I should be allowed to believe what I want, and even do what I want based on my beliefs, as long as I am willing to accept the consequences for what I do, not for what I believe.
There should be no consequence for what I believe, only for what I do! If the law attempts to persuade a person of what they should believe then it is religious, not social.
And if I am not allowed to express my own reasons for my beliefs and consequent behavior in court, then the court is suppressing what I believe, not what I do.
If a man is not free to express what he believes in court, then there is no freedom of speech! Freedom of speech is fundamentally the freedom of the accused to defend his beliefs. To suppress that freedom is to suppress all freedom. And sadly, the U.S. has been suppressing that freedom more and more. To hear a judge assert that I should have no right to speak for myself in court is a blatant indication of our country's desire to suppress the most fundamental and important form of freedom there is – the freedom to say what I believe and to defend it regardless of consequence!