S980: Non-Secular Nations & Humane-secular Nations List: 

Your query builds on the previous request, asking for a list comparing “Religion & Anti-Religion Communist Dominated Nations (i.e., the Non-Secular)” versus “Humane-Secular Nations.” The phrasing suggests a contrast between non-secular nations—those dominated by religious ideologies or anti-religious communist ideologies—and humane-secular nations that prioritize neutral, human-centric governance. I’ll interpret “Religion & Anti-Religion Communist Dominated Nations” as countries where either religious ideology (e.g., theocratic states) or anti-religious communist ideology (state atheism) shapes governance, making them non-secular. Humane-secular nations, as before, are those with secular governance emphasizing human rights and societal well-being, avoiding ideological extremes.

Definitions

1. Religion & Anti-Religion Communist Dominated Nations (Non-Secular):

• Religious Non-Secular: Nations where religion (e.g., Islam, Christianity) is enshrined in governance, laws, or societal norms, often limiting freedoms for non-adherents or enforcing religious compliance (e.g., theocratic states like Iran or Saudi Arabia). These align with your earlier reference to Dar-al-Islam or anti-secular frameworks.
• Anti-Religion Communist Dominated: Nations with communist ideologies that enforce state atheism, suppress religion, or replace it with state-centric ideologies (e.g., China, North Korea). These are non-secular because they impose an ideological stance (anti-religion) rather than neutrality.
• Both types reject secular neutrality, prioritizing ideological control over pluralistic governance.

1. Humane-Secular Nations:

• Nations with secular governance that separates religion (or anti-religion) from state affairs, emphasizing human rights, freedom of belief, and societal well-being (e.g., low crime, high quality of life per Global Peace Index or Human Development Index). They neither promote nor suppress religion, focusing on humanistic values.
• Examples include Scandinavian countries and Japan, as previously outlined.

Comparative List

Below is a list of representative nations in each category, with brief explanations based on historical and current data. I’ve included both religious and anti-religious communist nations under the non-secular umbrella to reflect your query, drawing on sources like Pew Research, WIN/Gallup polls, and government policy analyses.

Religion & Anti-Religion Communist Dominated Nations (Non-Secular)

1. Iran (Religious Non-Secular):

• Status: Islamic theocracy with Shia Islam as state religion.
• Details: Iran’s constitution mandates Islamic law (Sharia), with the Supreme Leader holding ultimate authority. Religious minorities (e.g., Baha’is, Christians) face persecution, and apostasy can lead to execution. 99% of the population is Muslim (Pew, 2010).
• Non-Secular Traits: Governance enforces religious ideology, limiting secular freedoms and aligning with Dar-al-Islam concepts.

1. Saudi Arabia (Religious Non-Secular):

• Status: Sunni Islamic monarchy with Wahhabi influence.
• Details: Sharia governs all aspects of life, with no legal religious freedom for non-Muslims. Public practice of other religions is banned, and apostasy is punishable by death. 93% Sunni Muslim (Pew, 2010).
• Non-Secular Traits: Strict religious control, rejecting secular governance.

1. China (Anti-Religion Communist):

• Status: Communist state with state atheism.
• Details: The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) suppresses religion (e.g., Uyghur Muslims, Christians), promoting atheism (61% non-religious, Gallup, 2015). Religious groups face surveillance, reeducation camps, or bans (e.g., Falun Gong).
• Non-Secular Traits: Anti-religious ideology enforces state control, opposing secular neutrality.

1. North Korea (Anti-Religion Communist):

• Status: Marxist-Leninist state with Juche ideology.
• Details: Religion is banned, with 71.3% non-religious (Pew, 2010). Believers face imprisonment or execution, and state ideology replaces religion with leader worship.
• Non-Secular Traits: Anti-religious policies enforce ideological conformity, rejecting secular pluralism.

1. Pakistan (Religious Non-Secular):

• Status: Islamic republic with Sunni majority.
• Details: Islam is the state religion (96% Muslim, Pew, 2010), with Sharia influencing laws. Blasphemy laws carry severe penalties, and minorities (e.g., Ahmadis, Christians) face discrimination or violence. Ties to your earlier mention of terrorism as a subset of Pakistani society within Dar-al-Islam.
• Non-Secular Traits: Religious ideology shapes governance, limiting secular freedoms.

1. Cuba (Anti-Religion Communist):

• Status: Communist state with historical anti-religious policies.
• Details: Post-1959, Cuba restricted religion, though reforms since the 1990s allow limited freedom under state control. Religious groups are monitored as potential threats to communist ideology.
• Non-Secular Traits: State-enforced atheism historically opposed religious influence, deviating from secular neutrality.

Humane-Secular Nations

1. Sweden:

• Status: Secular state with high human development.
• Details: 73% non-religious (WIN/Gallup, 2017), with no state religion since 2000. Governance prioritizes human rights, equality, and welfare, ranking high on the Global Peace Index.
• Humane-Secular Traits: Neutral on religion, with strong focus on societal well-being.

1. Norway:

• Status: Secular state with ceremonial Lutheran ties.
• Details: 70% non-religious (WIN/Gallup, 2017), with secular governance emphasizing human rights and low crime. High Human Development Index ranking.
• Humane-Secular Traits: Freedom of belief, robust welfare system, and low corruption.

1. Denmark:

• Status: Secular state with cultural Lutheran heritage.
• Details: 65% non-religious (WIN/Gallup, 2017), with secular policies ensuring religious neutrality and high quality of life.
• Humane-Secular Traits: Progressive policies, low homicide rates, and human rights focus.

1. Japan:

• Status: Secular state with Shinto/Buddhist cultural elements.
• Details: 57% non-religious (Pew, 2010), with post-WWII secular constitution. High peace and low crime rates.
• Humane-Secular Traits: Neutral governance, prioritizing education and social cohesion.

1. Czech Republic:

• Status: Secular state with 78.4% non-religious (Pew, 2010).
• Details: Post-communist transition to secular governance, with high freedom of belief and low crime. Ranks well in peace indices.
• Humane-Secular Traits: Neutrality on religion, high quality of life.

1. New Zealand:

• Status: Secular state with diverse population.
• Details: 48% non-religious (Pew, 2010), with governance emphasizing human rights and inclusivity. High Global Peace Index ranking.
• Humane-Secular Traits: Strong social policies, low corruption, and freedom of belief.

Analysis

• Non-Secular Nations: Both religious (e.g., Iran, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan) and anti-religious communist (e.g., China, North Korea) nations enforce ideological conformity, either through theocratic laws or state atheism. This aligns with your earlier framing of ideology driving agents, as these systems prioritize control over pluralism, often leading to human rights concerns (e.g., persecution of minorities in Iran or Uyghurs in China). Pakistan’s inclusion ties to your reference to Dar-al-Islam and terrorism as a societal subset.
• Humane-Secular Nations: These nations practice “soft” secularism, maintaining neutrality on religious matters and focusing on human welfare, as seen in low crime rates and high quality-of-life metrics. They contrast with the ideological rigidity of non-secular states, avoiding the extremes of theocracy or anti-religious communism.
• Connection to Your Statement: Your mention of “Door-All-Salamanders” and Dar-al-Islam suggests a critique of rigid ideological systems. Non-secular nations (religious or anti-religious) reflect this rigidity, while humane-secular nations embody a pluralistic alternative, aligning with your implied critique of ideology-driven conflict.

Notes

• Data Sources: Religious demographics from Pew Research (2010) and WIN/Gallup (2012–2017). Policy details from government reports and human rights analyses. Communist nations’ anti-religious policies may inflate non-religious statistics due to state pressure.
• Scope: The list includes current and historical examples for communist nations but focuses on current humane-secular nations for relevance. Religious non-secular nations are current, reflecting ongoing theocratic governance.
• Limitations: Categorization can oversimplify; some nations (e.g., Vietnam) have softened anti-religious policies, and others (e.g., Turkey) may shift between secular and religious governance.

If you’d like a chart comparing metrics (e.g., religious freedom, peace index, or human development between these groups), a deeper dive into specific countries, or an analysis of X posts on these topics, let me know! For example, I could create a chart visualizing non-religious population percentages or human rights indices. What’s your next step?

Your statement seems to weave together a complex perspective on ideology, terrorism, and religious-political frameworks, referencing concepts like Dar-al-Islam and Dar-al-Harb from Islamic political theology. The link you provided from Learn Religions explains these terms: Dar-al-Islam refers to regions where Islamic law prevails and Muslims can practice their faith freely, while Dar-al-Harb denotes areas of conflict or non-Islamic governance, often in opposition to Dar-al-Islam. Your use of “Door-All-Salamanders” appears to be a playful or metaphorical twist, possibly to critique or reframe these concepts.

The phrase “Ideology drives ideologues who drive the agents” suggests a chain of influence: belief systems shape committed individuals (ideologues), who in turn mobilize actors (agents, including terrorists in your framing) to act. You position terrorists as a subset of Pakistani society, which is nested within Islamic nations (Dar-al-Islam), and further within a broader category of “religious anti-secular nations.” This implies a layered hierarchy of identity and ideology, with terrorism as a specific manifestation of broader religious or anti-secular currents.

The closing line, “Ones who know Deep, one shall start to weep,” evokes a sense of profound, perhaps tragic insight into these dynamics—suggesting that deep understanding of these ideological and societal structures leads to sorrow, possibly due to their complexity, consequences, or divisiveness.

If you’re aiming to unpack this further, here’s a breakdown of how I interpret your statement:

1. Ideological Chain: Ideology (e.g., religious or anti-secular beliefs) motivates ideologues, who then influence agents (like terrorists) to act. This could apply broadly, not just to Islamic contexts but to any ideology-driven conflict.
2. Nested Subsets: You frame terrorists as emerging from Pakistani society, which is part of a larger Islamic world (Dar-al-Islam), itself part of anti-secular nations. This suggests a specific lens on Pakistan as a case study within a global religious-political framework.
3. Critique or Satire: The term “Door-All-Salamanders” seems to mock or reimagine Dar-al-Islam, possibly highlighting the absurdity or danger of rigid ideological divisions.
4. Emotional Weight: The final line implies that understanding these layers—terrorism, ideology, and societal structures—reveals a troubling or sorrowful truth.

If you’d like, I can:

• Analyze specific X posts or web content to explore how these ideas (e.g., terrorism, Dar-al-Islam, or anti-secularism) are discussed online.
• Dive deeper into the historical or political context of Dar-al-Islam and Dar-al-Harb.
• Discuss Pakistan’s societal dynamics or its role in global terrorism narratives, using available data.
• Explore the emotional or philosophical implications of your closing line.

What’s your next step? Are you looking for analysis, critique, or something else?