https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state#Friendly_and_hostile_separation
historians find, for example, that defeats for laicite in France *increase* separation of church and state, since that moves further from Turkey or the USSR's model--think the "headscarf ban" or PQ's "Charter of Values" that they tried to push a while back; what I'm saying is that the whole notion of "secularity" isn't actually self-evident and unproblematic
much of our Mideastern meddling was pre-Religious Right: we screwed with Afghanistan since--what, 1973? Charlie Wilson, Brzezinski, and Avrakotos weren't no snake-handlers; Israel had numerous secular and even leftie friends when we gave it its permanent
cartes blanches after Suez, the
Liberty, and especially Entebbe; until Dubya the Mideast Desk was entrusted to quite un-theological State and Pentagon flunkies (IIRC they were sent to bother the PRC); and as for the NAs--they were hardly at the forefront of the "No Blood for Oil" marches back in 2002, now were they?!
I'm actually *in* history of medicine so I've been scrounging for any neo-empiricists, and what Coyne and Pinker provide (science theory-wise) has struck me as singularly unimpressive: it's like they're trying to resurrect LogPos; it's not 1932 anymore, guys
= new reply since forum marked as read