Tell that to Roy Moore.
Actually we have non-discrimination as to who receives funds for purely secular purposes.
Yeah, right. Money is fungible.
Turkey is an even closer example of my point. That country has a strict secularist government, with a military establishment that considers itself constitutionally bound to enforce secularism. Religion-based parties are outlawed, and religious schools have to submit to heavy oversight. There are prohibitions against overtly religious garb in public, including headscarves for women, and even fezzes for men. On top of which, it's politically restrictive. Excessive criticism of the government is heavily frowned upon, at the least. Under those conditions, radical religion becomes the only vehicle with the staying power to challenge the establishment.
Exactly backwards. Turkey is the only one that has withstood - somewhat - fundamentalist pressure. Algeria and Pakistan became dictatorships under threats from fundamentalists; Egypt is close to a dictatorship. Saudi Arabia and Iran are theocracies. And the US won't push most of them towards democracy because we know that if they do, fundamentalists will take over.
Yes, quite true, and it's almost the direct result of decades-long efforts in those countries to drive Christianity from the public square
No, it's a result of allowing influx of a religious minority who don't accept the Western ideal of a secular, tolerant democracy. Ireland doesn't have a problem, right now. Why? Because Ireland doesn't have a substantial population of Muslims.
Many European countries were secularized long before the Muslims arrived. And they had no problem.
Tell that to Roy Moore.
That's an example of what I'm talking about.
[Actually we have non-discrimination as to who receives funds for purely secular purposes.]
Yeah, right. Money is fungible.
So? As long as religion isn't the reason the money is being given, then religion isn't being promoted any more than non-religion. To take your objection to its logical conclusion, government employees should be prohibited from giving their own salary money to their local church, because it's "taxpayer money".
Turkey is the only one that has withstood - somewhat - fundamentalist pressure.
You first cited Turkey as an example of how democracy leads to religious control, and now you're saying it's an example of how to work against it. You're not making a consistent point. But you were right the first time. Islamic radicalism is on the rise in Turkey. It's likewise on the rise in many other countries of the Middle East because when dissent is stifled, religion becomes the only viable carrier of it.
It should scarcely need to be added, of course, that the Islamic religion itself is rather geared towards extremism, so it doesn't take a whole lot to set it off.
No, it's a result of allowing influx of a religious minority who don't accept the Western ideal of a secular, tolerant democracy.
That's part of it also. Basically it's the whole multicultural disease, which denigrates everything about one's own culture - religion, attitudes, everything - and elevates other cultures above it.