Oh. Is that all?
The era of the ghetto and the casbah are, thankfully, a thing of the distant past. Let's keep it that way.
Religious freedom benefits Catholics. If the state stays out of religion, we're all the better for it. Countries that don't have a First Amendment end up with the state imposing restrictions on religious practice. We're much better off without an established catholic Chruch. The Church will only be tarnished by association with a secular government.
So, are you, by your silence on the issue deflecting? or assenting that there was no such Catholic monarchy in the occidental world which imposed Catholicism on anyone?
Can you define religious freedom or otherwise post here an authoritative definition (i.e., from your Bishop or from the Pope)?
Apparently even the Popes think that the state should impose restrictions on public religious practice, whether there's an official state Church or not, as shown in recent Papal documents such as the Syllabus of Errors, Dignitatis Humanae (one of the 16 documents promulgated from the Second Vatican Council), and most recently Caritas in Veritate...so, why you think the state should not, I don't understand. I mean, you're essentially saying that Satanists should be allowed publicly to desecrate the Eucharist, commit illicit sexual actions with adults and children as a part of their rites, and sacrifice human beings, as well as be protected by the state in the fulfillment of these religious activities. Even though these things may seem execrable to you and I, it is part of their religious practice (i.e., the duty they believe they owe their god).
It would be a contradiction to say that you're not seemingly advocating such a situation, since you very much seem to be stating that the state should impose no restrictions on religious practice.