What we can say for certain is that Katrin argues a position which is inconsistent with the maintenance of the secular state.

And that's why I said 'theocracy.' Because for all practical purposes, that's what theocracy is - a move to dismantle the secular state and its aspirations[1] to a level ground for all participants, and replace it with ethical and judicial systems that privilege religious traditions over secular ones.

Let's have the Wikipedia definition:

Theocracy is a form of government in which a deity is officially recognized as the civil Ruler and official policy is governed by officials regarded as divinely guided, or is pursuant to the doctrine of a particular religion or religious group.

Arguing that policy should allow a religious group to have privileges which aren't available to other participants meets that definition, don't you think?

And considering we've been insulted as 'atheist fundamentalist sectarians' and 'Stalinists', and it's been insinuated that no one in this discussion has any real interest in progress or basic human rights - purely because we don't immediately accept an argument that pretends to be about human rights, but is clearly really just an argument for theological privilege based on a very selective view of what human rights actually mean in practical politics - I think the comments have been more restrained than they might have been.

Which definition of theocracy did you think I was using?

[1] Well - former aspirations, anyway.