The interaction between religion and the state is a discourse that is often associated with contradictions on both sides regarding points of contact. Given the distinctive governance mechanisms and resource bases, these concepts cannot exist under identical laws. As a result, an enforced connection between religion and the government may be corrupting that religion itself. For instance, according to Williams (n.d.), any attempt by civil services to tie religious doctrines to constitutional laws contradicts the idea of Christianity. Religious aspects of conscience, philanthropy, and other values do not always overlap with the principles by which administrative and judicial bodies work. Unification, in turn, leads to the loss of these values, thereby destroying basic religious dogmas.
Another reason why an enforced connection between religion and the state corrupts the former is forced uniformity. Williams (n.d.) argues that such a practice can be a pretext for fueling civil war since freedom of religion is an important value. Constitutional norms, in turn, can transform this freedom by introducing appropriate adjustments that regulatory obligations and liabilities. Ultimately, religious foundations may lose their strength due to these innovations, and people may become entangled in the intertwining of civil and church laws.
Finally, the mixing of religious and civic values is contrary to the principles of brotherhood inherent in Christianity. As Williams (n.d.) highlights, an enforced connection hinders the free development of both areas under consideration. For the church, such an obstacle is critical since the principles of worshiping God have been formed over the centuries and cannot be revised due to amendments or additions, as is the case with civil laws. Thus, attempts to unite religion with the state are fraught with the corruption of religion itself and the loss of crucial values.
Reference
Williams, R. (n.d.). The bloody tenet of persecution for the cause of conscience (excerpt). In D. Hennessy (Ed.), Classics of American literature (pp. 12-13). David Hennessy.