WELCOME TO THE NEW WORLD ORDER...

[Mister Agenda]

Its idiocy. Communism isn't any kind of secularism, it's an economic system (and not a very good one in my opinion).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Orthodox_Church
The Russian empire was dissolved and the Tsarist government - which had granted the Church numerous privileges - was overthrown. After a few months of political turmoil, the Bolsheviks took power in October 1917 and declared a separation of church and state. Thus the Russian Orthodox Church found itself without official state backing for the first time in its history. One of the first decrees of the new Communist government (issued in January 1918) declared freedom from "religious and anti-religious propaganda".

And the idiocy of countering my contention that the Stalinist government was not secular with an example of them being anti-secular did not occur to you?

It's a little hard to envision a scenario where a government would be TOO neutral in matters of religion. Certainly a communist state engaging in religious oppression would not be an example of it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secularism

Secularism is the principle of the separation of government institutions and persons mandated to represent the state from religious institutions and religious dignitaries. One manifestation of secularism is asserting the right to be free from religious rule and teachings, or, in a state declared to be neutral on matters of belief, from the imposition by government of religion or religious practices upon its people.[Notes 1] Another manifestation of secularism is the view that public activities and decisions, especially political ones, should be uninfluenced by religious beliefs and/or practices.

As you can clearly see, there are more than just one manifestation of secularism.
not to mention of course the transition of Russia to secularism would be seen as oppression since the country was Russian orthodox, but in a link from wiki (below) it states that most organized religions were not outlawed.

Yes, we all know you found one line on the internet somewhere in the world that you think supports a definition of secularism that will let you apply it to state oppression of religious freedom, but it's only your profound lack of intellectual integrity that let's you turn 'from the imposition by government of religion or religious practices upon its people' into 'see, secular governments shut down churches!' Yes, to the extent a secular government imposes religious practices on its people, it's not being secular; but where you're getting communists preventing people from practicing their religion being secularism is your ass.

It seems pretty clear that you're the only one here who doesn't understand what it means. Denmark is an interesting case of a country that both supports a state religion and whose constitution guarantees freedom of worship and religion and doesn't require anyone to pay taxes to support someone else's religion. It could be more secular, but not a LOT more secular.

this is not even up for discussion, having a state sanctioned church, is by definition NOT secular.

No shit, Sherlock. 'Secular' is not a binary condition, either on or off. It's a continuum, and the side of the middle Denmark is on is the secular side. Paraguay is a religious country and a secular nation. Denmark is a (somewhat) religious nation and a secular country. You don't get to put Denmark on the 'theocracy side' of the middle because it's got one non-secular provision in its constitution.

The part in bold says nothing about suppressing religion. You can go to church all day and as long as I don't have to listen to it, religious rule and teachings are not being opposed on me. It doesn't say there can't be religoius rules and teachings, just that I can't be subjected to them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Orthodox_Church

the Communist regime confiscated church property, ridiculed religion, harassed believers, and propagated atheism in schools. Actions toward particular religions, however, were determined by State interests, and most organized religions were never outlawed.

And yet again, you think it's some kind of counter to my point that Russia wasn't secular to point out them doing anti-secular things. Or that may be what you're pretending to think, I'm not really sure where the line between stupid and dishonest is drawn with you.