What is the difference between a state that uses religion to oppress the masses and a state that calls its brand of religion secular?

The reason why North Korea, the old Soviet Union etc suppressed religion was that religion encroached on what it saw as its bailiwick, feeding fodder to the masses in order to control them.

When pete speaks of such states not tolerating political non conformity, he doesn't seem to acknowledge that to these people, there is no difference between religious and political non conformity.

I suggest that he looks at where religions have a front seat in politics and ask himself where tolerance of others is a feature?