Religion and government do not go together . Religion is far more dangerous than government if it is abused, which it often has been as long as organized religion has existed.
I agree that the OP is total nonsense, it demonstrates a severe lack in understanding of both what religion and progressivism is, not to mention that both of those terms have very diverse meanings.
But I have to disagree with you here. This is not true either historically or conceptually. Historically, non-religious tyranny far outweighs religious ones. The 20th century alone outweighs all historical religious tyrannies combined (and even that is problematic, because politics/religion as a divide is both an artificial and modern conception, so to say that the crusades or the arabic conquests were religious and only that is a rather poor and lacking understanding of those events). Of course you can go the Christopher Hitchens route and claim that Stalinism and nazism were religious in nature, but that is flatlining the concept of religion to the point that it is defined as everyth)ing and nothing (nothing in the sense that Hitchens at the same time has to define religious heroes like Bonhoeffer and Martin Luther King Jr. as essentially secularly motivated, which is equally absurd). There are almost no significant conflicts in world history (<5%) that can be defined as exclusively religious in their motivations.
All ideologies have the potential to be totalizing and tyrannical, including western secularism, who in their zeal to convert the, in their eyes, primitive cultures of the world to our view have caused massive damage. This is not something that is unqiue to religion or that religions are any particularily potent at. And there is no such thing as a non-ideological culture or government. Human weakness and frailty, the will to dominate others is what corrupts ideologies, including religion, and a truly religious person should know their own potential for destruction and the selfishness that drives it.
Progressives are not opposed to Christianity or any other religion per se . They are opposed to religion and religious leaders getting power.
No, that is a misunderstanding of what secularism entails. Religion HAS power and religious leaders can get power, a religious leader can have political power just fine. But the goal of a secular ideology is that a religious leader with political power must argue their positions in a universal language, not relying on reference to particular creeds or confessions. This is generally a good idea, even if the idea of a universal and neutral language/reason is naive.
Without separation of church and state , tyrannical theocracy is inevitable .
Not really true. It can happen and it has happened, but it is not inevitable. Do you see the Scandinavian countries as tyrannical theocracies in the modern period? Norway had a state church until 2012, Sweden until 2000 and there still is a state church in Denmark. In fact, it is historically impossible to understand the development of the welfare states in these countries without reference to the Lutheran church. The development of safety nets for the poor and the development of free education for all people originated with the church. But of course, this was informed by the Lutheran idea of the separation between two kingdoms.
