You really have to be careful with these blanket statements because it only takes one case to the contrary to disprove them.
Oh, yes, Queen Elizabeth is head of the Anglicans. Almost forgot her. They have state churches in the Scandinavian states as well.
I'm trying to remember when Buddhism renounced the privilege of kicking around the state (when it can), and Shinto was a state religion not too recently ~ caused all sorts of problems too.
In a sense you are correct. To paraphrase Einstein, "No number of experiments can prove me right but it only takes one to prove me wrong."
I'd like to know what examples you can remember to support that blanket statement. Out of curiosity.
Queen Elizabeth head of the anglicans was involved with 911,khobar towers, uss cole, arnold klinghoffer, munich, embassy bombings, marine barracks lebannon, homicide bombers, 7 day war, ieds iraq, zarqawi beheadings....etc etc?
Just dang. What the heck else will I learn here?
Howdy doody was a muslim cleric?
Yes, but in those cases, there is no penalty for not belonging to the state church, and no governmental benefit for doing so. Technically speaking *we* don't have separation of church and state, but we do have a ban on a state religion and a ban on prohibition of any other religious worship. Some states, as oppposed to the federal government did have state official religions, which is why the first amendment says "Congress shall make no law". Guess which amendment is the one most often applied against the states, while the others, which are not limited to "Congress" by the words of the Bill of Rights, are spottily applied at best. Particularly the second amendment, which is not applied against the states at all, AFAIK.