Not everyone agrees with your definition.

I'd say most people in the west do.

Politically correct thoughtcrime / dissent = Downvote, I like it.

Disagree about what?

Civil asset forfeiture is incompatible with the definition of "state of law" (it's what you'd expect in some totalitarian banana republic, really).

Not allowing for same-sex marriage can not really be justified except for religious reasons. And if a nation claims to maintain a separation of church and state, religious reasons can not dictate law.

The death penalty is ineffective as a deterrent. The way it is practised in the US (in effect, the way it has to be practised to maintain any claim of being a civilised society) is extremely costly to the tax payer.

Assuming that killing innocent citizens is the amongst the worst things a government can do, the death penalty also can't be morally justified in anything other than a nearly perfect justice system (which the American justice system evidently is not).

Which point exactly are you disagreeing with?

> if a nation claims to maintain a separation of church and state, religious reasons can not dictate law.

But religious people can exercise their right to give input in the formulation of law---the same right all citizens share regardless of the philosophy that guides them to favor one position over another. After all, arbitrarily excluding religious viewpoints from public discourse would be discriminatory, would it not?