>>40491
>Still not an answer.

Yes it is.

>It was not really literal religion thing, when you say god it's quite different from what we understand from god, if you openly show disdain to state traditions and adopt a zealous behaviour you should expect to crucified.

It is a literal religion thing.

>Well it is, there are lots of different thinkers who had not to interpret ancient knowledge according to state religion, there were even godless people.

It's not, even by your own idea of it it's not. Even if it was state tradition, not being allowed to criticise or abstain from state tradition is not freedom of speech now is it?

>They knew it's just it was mostly tied with roman state structure and disappeared when rome have gone.

That is the point, it was a Roman thing that the Romans were doing and that was tied to them and their own structures and ways, it was not a Briton innovation or a Saxon one and clearly it was not something that was passed on to them.