WELCOME TO THE NEW WORLD ORDER...

[Huggy Bear]

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?

The nerve to call someone an idiot when we were talking about COMMUNISM not STALIN.

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

Stalin did not invent communism, the date above is referring to 1917, Stalin didn't come into power until 1924.

Also explain how, "separation of church and state" and "freedom from religious and anti-religious (read atheist) propaganda" isn't secular?

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.

So secularism is black and white...Gotcha!

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.

So secularism isn't black and white... wait... what? Can't have it both ways.

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.

Like I said, you can't have it both ways. If it's your claim that Russia wasn't secular because it engaged in anti-secular activity, then you cant claim that Denmark is secular when it clearly engages in anti-secular activity. Which is it?

(By the way, just for clarification, I emboldened parts of your quotes.)