Guess the Country

[FeherTigris]

NHL: whatever is your definition of 'official' religion I am positive that all civilized European countries have abandoned including any religion in the state laws (see secularism) at least a hundred years ago. Even if the English Queen is the head of the Anglican Church it does not mean that the United Kingdom has anything to do with Anglicism officially.

And as for The Netherlands: large (southern) part of the country is Catholics, and the so called 'pillarization' in the Dutch society enabled many-many people of the Catholic faith to get in power. We just can't name them because it is not known (i.e., nobody is interested) whether any politician is protestant or catholic or atheist or what.

Not criticizing just adding my point.

[New History lovers]

An official religion is a religion that is, under laws that have never been overturned, established in a nation, or implied by its laws.  The fact that an official religion has not been changed, modified, or acted upon in centuries means nothing for whether the religion is established.  It must be specifically disestablished to end it being official.  Scotland and Wales have, separately, disestablished the Churches of Scotland and Wales, respectively, but the Church of England is still established by the United Kingdom, as is the Dutch Reformed Church in the Netherlands (again, there isn't an EXTREME number of Catholics in high office, i.e., not disproportionate: the British one is extremely disproportionate).

Ireland (Catholic), Norway (Lutheran), Spain (Catholic), Denmark (Lutheran), Sweden (Lutheran), Finland (Lutheran AND Orthodox), Italy (Catholic), Greece (Orthodox), and Russia (Orthodox), among others, have official religions or implied official religions.  France has institutionalized secularism, which counts as an official religion, meaning that religion is specifically and intentionally removed from public society by the government, which is different from Official Atheism, which also counts as an official religion, which means that all religion is denounced by the government (Communist countries are generally this latter, for example, the Soviet Union, China, and Cuba until recently (Cuba is currently, like France, institutionally secularist).  However, some European countries do have no official religion, or no implied official religion.  Some of these include Belgium, Germany, Austria, Poland, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, etc.  The United States is in this category as well.  For a country to have no official religion, they must officially have no religion established, and must also not repress the public display of religion (i.e., the Christian Democrats in Germany).  Just because there is a religion that is a majority does not make it official, such as Israel, which has no official religion, and Turkey, which is institutionally secularist.

[Delfos]

NHL i believe those are majorities, the king of Spain is catholic, but there's no official religion towards the state, the king is not the ruler, it's not a monarchy.

new country to guess: What country repealed an invader with waves of unarmed men?

[FeherTigris]

NHL: I am very curious to see a law that is not overturned (i.e. in effect) that mentions any religion having any official role in the mentioned states (or if you prefer this: a law that 'establishes' a religion in a country - except the well known Anglicism). Give us please a reference.
(of course we know that Islam is official in many Arab states)

[FeherTigris]

Delfos: repealed successfully or just tried it?

[The Abode]

still not convinced about The Netherlands having a state religion or an official religion.

I can't find anything on the Internet suggesting we do. I don't have any books of law here, though.

Granted, new laws are still ratified by the queen (which is really just a formality, it does say something in the vein of "We, Beatrix, by the Grace of God, ... etc". Taking into account that the Queen is (was!) a member of the Dutch Reformed Church, one could argue that we might have an official religion. Not a convincing argument in my opinion.

Especially when you realize that the Dutch Reform Church doesn't exist anymore. They merged with (a part of) the Calvinists and Lutherans to form the PKN. Is that now the official religion, instead of the DRC?

[New History lovers]

OOC: Again, de facto, there are no official religions in most of those countries any more, they are unenforced, the government ignores them, they are inconsequential.  De jure, however, they exist.  If the law was never overturned, it means that it still exists.  For example, the Finnish law, in 1809, established the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Finland as separate from the Church of Sweden, after its conquest by Russia, and their constitution after Soviet-granted independence, guaranteed its establishment.  But, anyway, this arguing is pointless.

However, I WAS incorrect about the Netherlands, where the church actually has been disestablished, so I retract that statement.

IC:

Russia, successor to the Soviet Union?

[Delfos]

repealed successfully. And NHL, if you mean the red army, they did thrown waves of men, but there would be something for them to carry, can even be a stick. So you're wrong. The country I'm aiming at successfully repealed an invader with waves (after waves) of unarmed men. (they probably didn't had sticks, but if they did, they were meant to be unarmed, i can say no more or I'll jump to the next clue :p)

[tak]

India

[Ranholn]

it would be india against the british, in one march he sent wave after wave to get beaten down by british troops

[Delfos]

hmmm, although i don't consider the British empire an invader of India, they legally 'owned' the territory, but it's just points of view. That assumption is correct but it is not the country I'm aiming at. When i meant invader i meant the did by force of the military invaded a country, and to repeal it, they thrown waves of unarmed men. At India, they made a revolution, it's not exactly the same thing.

X country invaded by an army of Y country, and repealed Y forces with waves of unarmed men. The withdrawn of Y's forces was caused by the waves of unarmed men.

India, or part of it, was owned by the portuguese, after some centuries the brittish managed to steal it from the portuguese, so they owned the territory. After this events there was a revolution (the one you say the brittish spanked the indians), and they were actually repealed with time. The withdrawn of the brittish forces was caused by the pressure (indian and international) to make it independent.

see the difference? maybe i should specify it at begining. But anyway, let me give you another clue as part of repayment of the guess of India:

[erm..i just erased the clue, it was too easy :p]
The invader withdrawn because of fear, not general fear, but seeing waves after waves of unarmed men, they fear for their lives if they couldn't kill enough men.
On the other hand, whenever the invader left their post, the waves of unarmed men would become waves of armed-with-invader-weapons men.

hope this is hard enough :p next clue will be the one i just erased :p

[FeherTigris]

so it should be cannons and seizing the cannons (other option would be fortresses like the Great Wall but you can not use fortresses to invade). unfortunately I do not know for sure any such battle while I can guess too many possible (European invader trying to colonize vs. African nation; European invader vs. American nations (indians); China invading a neighboring country).

[Delfos]

Well, Europeans did in Africa the same this the British did in India. When they were the 1st to discover, or the strongest present force, the territory belonged to them. In Africa there was no organized nations during the colonizations, most of them were tribes and people that never seen white people. There is no invasion, just a take over. Plus there's no important record of unarmed Africans repealing European, which would be impossible since the European were never repealed (they were, but alot of time after the colonizations, and by force of Kalashnikov).

Europeans...let's blame the ones that should take all the blame, the Spanish, slaughtered the indians because they were unholy, and destroyed their culture. 1st there is no repealing, 2nd the 'indians' were armed.

I don't know much about China invading other countries, know Tibet but in Tibet they didn't fought, and there is no repealing.

no assumption correct, you wasted the easy clue and I'm giving another instead: Nothing to do with Europe.

The next clue will be the easy one..but it will take time :p

[Delfos]

been a while...easy clue: I lied :p they were armed with 'the word' aka faith.

[Union]

Israel?