>so you think it comes down to what the 'state' allows? what if
>the 'state' is ruled by maniacs hell bent on killing people
>who dont believe in what they do?

Then there's a state religion. Look at historical examples and tell me if there has been an organized religion (which is a redundancy, really--religion implies organization) that has not been either suppressed or coopted by the state? Religion offers a nexus of power distinct from the state, and it's usually up to the state whether to crush it or dance with it. Read up on the early history of the Anglican Church and you'll see what I'm talking about.

The separation of church and state is a very recent phenomenon, given at least two millenia of a symbiotic relationship between politics and religion.

>>And if religion 'A' (I presume you're referring to Islam)
>>preaches violence against religion 'B' (I presume you're
>>referring to Christianity), then I have to say that you are
>>intellectually lazy at best, willfully and maliciously
>>ignorant at worst.
>
>you would be assuming incorrect of course. i meant the exact
>opposite...but i would expect no less from the people on this
>board to assume otherwise.

Come up with a better example than you gave in your initial post, then. Check your train of thought--violence against Muslims by Christians in retribution for violence against Christians by Muslims leads to more retribution. Down a dark path such thinking leads, foolish padawan.