As you rightly point out, my reply was not meant as more than a factual rebuttal - which of course is valuable in and of itself if you want to make a coherent a

As you rightly point out, my reply was not meant as more than a factual rebuttal - which of course is valuable in and of itself if you want to make a coherent and sound argument. You also conveniently cut out the point that the state will collect membership taxes for the Church of Sweden, just as happily as it will for the local catholic branch or one of two registered islamic congregations. I'm not sure what the rest of your post has to do with mine.