Are the Church and State Parallel?

The concept of separating Church from State has been a topic of debate since the earlier days in the Bible. A parable recorded how Jesus was upset about the people using the Temples for markets and other personal money-changing venues. This marks the first known separation; and later, our Presidents made notice of how religion should be separate from state regiments.

Even with this being duly noted, there are many instances where the Church and The State have ran hand in hand; For instance, when our Presidents are sworn in, they do so with the Bible, and on our currency, it states: "In God We Trust".

Both can be used as tools for structure, order and law by definition, but to some who may disagree, it's a harm affiliated with keeping the two hand in hand; It was once recorded that the Church may harm the State by making it superstitious, as in examples of being an influence to public policies in a manner detrimental to those who do not follow all the church's teachings. But what does this say about those who may not share these beliefs, are placed in its realm with such things as swearing-ins, and using currency that "Trust In God"?

So many times have we went about our daily routines and activities without notice of how God has been a part of our lives, and not just God, but the teachings. When a person chooses not to go to church, does that not make him any less of a person? And when a State Official chooses not to be sworn in by the Bible, does that cause him to lose his position?

But according to an article on Wipedika.com, this sentiment, along with many others who have opinions concerning the relationship between Church and State has not been universally held, however. For example, Charles Murras of France, a non-Catholic, thought that the influence of the Catholic Church was necessary for the continuation of his country and political objectives. Added to this is the fact that most people feel that religion cannot stand beside a State, but how can this be factual, when majority of a State is borderline to the Church?

Another article provided such information, detailing how the two may not be hand in hand, but is needed to have a controlled, or balanced State. It was agreed, yet debated how the State should not establish a particular state religion or require religious observance, it still must be infused with religious ethics and values in order to operate "properly", and needs to encourage ethical and beneficial religious belief, both inside and outside of government. It was also argued that the teachings of religion are the basis of law and civil society and that a society which discourages the promulgation of those beliefs cannot function. And finally, certain groups argue that religious groups ought to be involved in politics in order to assure that laws are passed which reflect what they perceive as universal truths.

Could it be possible that one actually generated from the other, in concerns with the State and the Church? Is there really a difference between the both? Or, could they truly be running parallel?