What is the difference between Hitler and Napoleon, Caesar, Timur, Genghis Khan?

Not him but if Saudi Arabia was Christian it would be literally tge perfect state.

competence

Says a lot about you. So you like totalitarian regimes then and no separation of church and state? Says a lot about you then.
Nice thing is, you gonna hate the society you are living in, and thats not gonna change.
Enjoy you reactionary faggot!

>history is written by the victors

Oh yes, that's why we hold the soviet union in such high regard.

>So you like totalitarian regimes then and no separation of church and state? Says a lot about you then.
Yes. So?

Separation of church and state is a retarded American memery.

Actually it is the standard all over the Western world. Secularism is literally what the West was founded on and what makes the modern world modern.
Until the age of enlightenment Europe was meh tier at best, after enlightenment they started to rule the world.

No, it isn't. England, Scotland or Scandinavian countries still have state churches and in many other countries churches are funded by taxes. It's really only Americans who invented this retardation and went full retard with it.

>2017
>monarchist

Everybody, look at this unorthodox and independent-minded young man and take note of his creative opinions.

Truly one of the last great free thinkers!

Read this thread: warosu.org/lit/thread/S4570057

>No, it isn't. England, Scotland or Scandinavian countries still have state churches and in many other countries churches are funded by taxes.
Oh sorry, apparently you are stupid and don't understand what secularism or separation of church and state means.
Here is an article, so at least know the basics and can contribute to the discussion without making a joke out of yourself: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secularism

i remember harold godwinson

Your own link literally lists England, Norway, Denmark and Greece as countries with state churches you illiterate fucking nigger.

I don't see the Soviet Union around writing history anymore, do you? It was held in high regard in its own history books.

said literally no one ever

>Ikarus of 20th century
>Genius, conqeror and statesmen
>----||----
>Brutal mongol warlord
>Brutal mongol warlord who had Kublai at his disposal

Again negrito, a state church has nothing to do with the separation of state and church or secularism.
Freedom of religion, keeping the church out of state business and laws, thats what secularism is about.
Now read the article again.

>a state church has nothing to do with separation of church and state

You're literally too stupid to even live.

If the queen or someone is the head of both the state and the church, then church and state are by definition not separated. Try to think before you post.

Why is it so hard for you to get /pol/, just because a state sponsors a church doesn't mean the church have anything to say in the state. Religious laws are not enforced by the state, the church has no influence on the decisions and law of the state and religious freedom is granted.
And thats what the separation of church and state is about.

Feel free to disprove that point.

>then church and state are by definition not separated.
That depends on the definition. If said head of state is purely ceremonial, same with the title for head of state and the country in question grants religious freedom and has no laws based on church teachings, then it is secular.

Again negros, you are on Veeky Forums not on /pol/. Try to get your basics right first, read about the age of enlightenment, what secularism is and whats the actual definition of separation of church and state is. Pulling some shit out of your ass and screaming loudly doesn't count as an argument.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state

No retard, YOU don't have a clue what you're talking about.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_religion

>A state with an official religion, while not secular, is not necessarily a theocracy
>while not secular
>NOT SECULAR

>Secularization is the transformation of a society from close identification with religious values and institutions toward nonreligious values and secular institutions. The secularization thesis refers to the belief that as societies progress, particularly through modernization and rationalization, religion loses its authority in all aspects of social life and governance.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secularization

Hi /pol/, having a state sponsored religious community doesn't indicate the state is not secularized. All the western world is secularized. Deal with it.

In England there is a law disqualifying Catholics from assuming the throne. A Catholic literally cannot become a King or Queen of England, by law.

I should've stopped replying the first time you started with the /pol/ shit, clearly a sign of desperation and losing the debate.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_state#List_of_secular_states_by_continent

>Genghis Khan?
Win wars and die by DST
>ceasar
Win wars and die by conspirancy
>Napoleon
Win battles and die by conspirancy
>hitler
His generals win battles and die as rothschild agent.

Hitler and Napoleon, Caesar, Timur,

Yes, you should have, seriously! But then, you can't because you are a fucking autist.

Feel free to provide a list of European non secularized states. I.E. states where the religion still plays an important matter or has deep influence on the politics and laws of said states.
hint, abortion laws are a good indication, but thats about the last bastion religion indirect influence via society on the state.

The term secular state doesn't mean what you think it means, end of. You're literally just using your own definition.

Yo, I opened a new thread for the subject of secularism: Really don't want to side track this stormfag thread no longer.

ever heard of the cold war?