Alright I can see we have common points in there but then what's the bone of contention ?
I say an individual is perhaps more responsible than the state(as a whole) for his/her own actions so therefore the state's role is limited & religion pretty much becomes a non issue unless we're talking about riots here ! From what I see, your stand is that the state & its policies towards religion dictates how that particular society develops & so everything is held ransom to the state's policy !
Is that what its all about
yes pretty much that's the point. religion and state should not be mixed. when I say state you think of the country alone but it also includes the individuals! The state and individuals in a country should both treat religion at a personal level and not be bothered about other person's acts and religious beliefs or try to dictate them.
That's what brings individuality and free will and gives a chance for progress and development.
Now change the equation - greater the involvement of state in religion (a religious state) and/or greater the propensity of people in a country to interfere in other's life on religious basis (i.e treating religion as most supreme aim in life) the lesser the focus and chance of scientific progress. So its a combination of both individual and state that as a whole affects the scientific outcome of a society. Overall any influence (from state or individual) which affects the free will/individuality of people will go against progress of science in that society.
Now you will always have individual and random elements who will be retrogressive and narrow minded in a country. But if the society has enough liberal minded people then it can progress. So following options follow:
1) all/high majority of people in a scoiety are retrogade and too religious (Saudi) - no scientific development possible (state probably would be religious)
2) all/high majority of people in a society are progressive (US, Japan, India etc) - high chances of scientific development and progress (state would be irreligious as people wont support anything else)
3) Sizable liberal population and minority but noticeable conservative religious population (Pakistan) - can go both ways and in such cases state has a big role to play.
if the state supports and remains irreligious and they support the liberal population it can make the country move to option 2.
But if the same state becomes religious, then it becomes powerless to act against the religious conservatives - then overtime the country moves to option 1.
But free will/Individuality is a must for scientific progress and development. Even in a country which has a non religious state only those people who are liberal and great thinkers, would be the ones to become great scientists and researchers.