WELCOME TO THE NEW WORLD ORDER...

[Mister Agenda]

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.

Thanks for catching that, it makes a HUGE difference in the point being discussed.

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.

I see that finding someone else in error is such a rare experience for you that you just can't stop celebrating. Congratulations.

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

They're both secular and neither applies to the Soviet Union oppressing the Russian Orthodox Church. Didn't they use 'atheist propaganda' which you've admitted above 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!

A particular policy can be black-or-white secular or not secular, but governments and populations are going to be on a continuum.

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.

Nope, and I haven't tried to have it both ways. You just desperately want me to have tried to have it both ways because you're not interested in discussion, just 'gotchas'.

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.

That's is true, but your ability to comprehend what is both ways and what is not is warped by your desperation to be right.

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?

The Soviet Union wasn't secular because of its widespread anti-secular policies and actions. It was too anti-secular to be considered secular. Denmark is secular because despite having an official church, religious freedom is both guaranteed in law and allowed in practice, and no one has to support the state church with their taxes; not to mention the majority of the population upholds a secular point of view in practice. It's too secular to be considered anti-secular.

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

Thanks for being up front about it, no worries.

---

Paraguay is a religious country and a secular nation.

Is it your position that an Atheist country cant have a secular government?

Of course not. What on earth would lead you to think I could possibly hold that position?