A monarchist will nearly always find a need to control the church and religions or vice-versa, as occurred in both world wars, as well as countless times in prior history.

Yes, in the West this was the case but this was after the schism and after the papacy became a geopolitical power in its own right and rivaled against the monarchs for power.

In the East there was no rivalry between Church and state because the model was different. Both institutions had their respective roles and the roles but the state itself wasn't secular but confessional because the people and the aristocracy were Christian (Orthodox). This meant the empire was unified in creed and worldview, and had a cohesive community.

Our founding fathers knew better than to attempt to weld two powers that were impossible to remove, hence the 'separation of church and state' and 'freedom of religion' that stipulates a ban on both oppression of religion and the establishing of a state religion.

Yes, that would be the instutionalization of pluralism and liberalism. But is that a good thing? You can see the fruits such propositions bear. And still people wonder why people in the US can't agree on anything and are divided? Maybe because the whole project is based on individualism, liberalism and pluralism? Not to mention that religion itself is inseparable from government. Every person holds religious believes and it's inevitable that they'll influence their decision making. It's very naive to assume people can be Christians or freemasons in their private life, but somehow when they become presidents, it all of a sudden stops being relevant? Not only this doesn't happen but it's illogical to expect it.

Sharia law or an equivalent is the very thing we as a democracy now fight.

Last time I checked, most western democracies facilitated the immigration of millions of muslims and gave them free reign under the rights of religion, expression and free speech. How can democracy fight anything when it has to be accepting of it by virtue of being a democracy? Do you realize there's internal contradiction in that system? Karl Popper called it the paradox of tolerance but it's no paradox at all - it's a built in self-destructing logic because democracies can't guard themselves against any majority - be it Christian nationalists, muslims, communists or fascists.

An unremovable principality is absolute power and complete power corrupts absolutely.

That's a cliche that has aged like milk. There's nothing inherent about holding power that makes a government corrupt. What makes it corrupt is the corrupt ideas behind it. As if cutting the power in small pieces makes the system less corruptible? On the contrary - such compartmentalization makes it ripe for the creation of a technocratic deep state that can centrally control the smaller offices of power and be way more corrupted than an absolute monarch or a dictator. Case in point - the NWO after WWII.

A monarchist will nearly always find a need to control the church and religions or vice-versa, as occurred in both world wars, as well as countless times in prior history.

Yes, in the West this was the case but this was after the schism and after the papacy became a geopolitical power in its own right and rivaled against the monarchs for power.

In the East there was no rivalry between Church and state because the model was different. Both institutions had their respective roles and the roles but the state itself wasn't secular but confessional because the people and the aristocracy were Christian (Orthodox). This meant the empire was unified in creed and worldview, and had a cohesive community.

Our founding fathers knew better than to attempt to weld two powers that were impossible to remove, hence the 'separation of church and state' and 'freedom of religion' that stipulates a ban on both oppression of religion and the establishing of a state religion.

Yes, that would be the instutionalization of pluralism and liberalism. But is that a good thing? You can see the fruits such propositions bear. And still people wonder why people in the US can't agree on anything and are divided? Maybe because the whole project is based on individualism, liberalism and pluralism? Not to mention that religion itself is inseparable from government. Every person holds religious believes and it's inevitable that they'll influence their decision making. It's very naive to assume people can be Christians or freemasons in their private life, but somehow when they become presidents, it all of a sudden stops being relevant? Not only this doesn't happen but it's illogical to expect it.

Sharia law or an equivalent is the very thing we as a democracy now fight.

Last time I checked, most western democracies facilitated the immigration of millions of muslims and gave them free reign under the rights of religion, expression and free speech. How can democracy fight anything when it has to be accepting of it by virtue of being a democracy? Do you realize there's internal contradiction in that system? Karl Popper called it the paradox of tolerance but it's no paradox at all - it's a built in self-destructing logic because democracies can't guard themselves against any majority - be it Christian nationalists, muslims, communists or fascists.

An unremovable principality is absolute power and complete power corrupts absolutely.

That's a cliche. There's nothing inherent about holding power that makes a government corrupt. What makes it corrupt is the corrupt ideas behind it. As if cutting the power in small pieces makes the system less corruptible? On the contrary - such compartmentalization makes it ripe for the creation of a technocratic deep state that can centrally control the smaller offices of power and be way more corrupted than an absolute monarch or a dictator. Case in point - the NWO after WWII.

A monarchist will nearly always find a need to control the church and religions or vice-versa, as occurred in both world wars, as well as countless times in prior history.

Yes, in the West this was the case but this was after the schism and after the papacy became a geopolitical power in its own right and rivaled against the monarchs for power.

In the East there was no rivalry between Church and state because the model was different. Both institutions had their respective roles and the roles but the state itself wasn't secular but confessional because the people and the aristocracy were Christian (Orthodox). This meant the empire was unified in creed and worldview, and had a cohesive community.

Our founding fathers knew better than to attempt to weld two powers that were impossible to remove, hence the 'separation of church and state' and 'freedom of religion' that stipulates a ban on both oppression of religion and the establishing of a state religion.

Yes, that would be the instutionalization of pluralism and liberalism. But is that a good thing? You can see the fruits such propositions bear. And still people wonder why people in the US can't agree on anything and are divided? Maybe because the whole project is based on individualism, liberalism and pluralism? Not to mention that religion itself is inseparable from government. Every person holds religious believes and it's inevitable that they'll influence their decision making. It's very naive to assume people can be Christians or freemasons in their private life, but somehow when they become presidents, it all of a sudden stops being relevant? Not only this doesn't happen but it's illogical to expect it.

Sharia law or an equivalent is the very thing we as a democracy now fight.

Last time I checked, most western democracies facilitated the immigration of millions of muslims and gave them free reign under the rights of religion, expression and free speech. How can democracy fight anything when it has to be accepting of it by virtue of being a democracy? Do you realize there's internal contradiction in that system? Karl Popper called it the paradox of tolerance but it's no paradox at all - it's a built in self-destructing logic because democracies can't guard themselves against any majority - be it Christian nationalists, muslims, communists or fascists.

An unremovable principality is absolute power and complete power corrupts absolutely.

That's a cliche. There's nothing inherent about holding power that makes a government corrupt. What makes it corrupt is the corrupt ideas behind it. As if cutting the power in small pieces makes the system less corruptible? On the contrary - such compartmentalization makes it ripe for the creation of a technocratic deep state that can centrally control the smaller offices of power and be way more corrupted than an absolute monarch or a dictator.

A monarchist will nearly always find a need to control the church and religions or vice-versa, as occurred in both world wars, as well as countless times in prior history.

Yes, in the West this was the case but this was after the schism and after the papacy became a geopolitical power in its own right and rivaled against the monarchs for power.

In the East there was no rivalry between Church and state because the model was different. Both institutions had their respective roles and the roles but the state itself wasn't secular but confessional because the people and the aristocracy were Christian (Orthodox). This meant the empire was unified in creed and worldview, and had a cohesive community.

Our founding fathers knew better than to attempt to weld two powers that were impossible to remove, hence the 'separation of church and state' and 'freedom of religion' that stipulates a ban on both oppression of religion and the establishing of a state religion.

Yes, that would be the instutionalization of pluralism and liberalism. But is that a good thing? You can see the fruits such propositions bear. And still people wonder why people in the US can't agree on anything and are divided? Maybe because the whole project is based on individualism, liberalism and pluralism? Not to mention that religion itself is inseparable from government. Every person holds religious believes and it's inevitable that they'll influence their decision making. It's very naive to assume people can be Christians or freemasons in their private life, but somehow when they become presidents, it all of a sudden stops being relevant? Not only this doesn't happen but it's illogical to expect it.

Sharia law or an equivalent is the very thing we as a democracy now fight.

Last time I checked, most western democracies facilitated the immigration of millions of muslims and gave them free reign under the rights of religion, expression and free speech. How can democracy fight anything when it has to be accepting of it by virtue of being a democracy? Do you realize there's internal contradiction in that system? Karl Popper called it the paradox of tolerance but it's no paradox at all - it's a built in self-destructing logic because democracies can't guard themselves against any majority - be it Christian nationalists, muslims, communists or fascists.