Religion and politics have been a subject for discussion for a long time. State and church deal with the relationship of organizations that are independent from each other on the basis of structure. Religion and politics deal with two fields of activities in the life of the same people.
People who belong to some religious groups are also members of secular society and this duality causes complications. Given that religious beliefs deal with both moral and social issues, people of faith have to express them through their activities as citizens in the political order. Even if ethical convictions have their roots in religion, it does not mean that they have nothing to do with politics.
Nevertheless, the question “How they should be represented in social life” is controversial and very difficult. Religious beliefs and public policies are of personal nature and cannot be considered to be of secular importance, because they depend only on particular views of certain people. Due to the fact that the population belongs to different religious groups and many citizens do not practice any religion at all, the moral and social views should be expressed in a way that is acceptable to the largest audience.

Someone said: “If you, Christians, think that abortion is a sin, fine. Don’t have any. But don’t impose your personal beliefs on the rest of the population by adopting laws that forbid it.” This statement seems to be confusing. In order to make it clear several brief comments can be helpful.

1. The attempts to get laws adopted represent the efforts to impose the beliefs of some people on the rest of individuals who do not belong to their group. It is legal for everybody to attempt to get a law adopted if they think it will promote the public welfare. It is appropriate for Christians who make great efforts to make abortion illegal, but not because it is considered to be wrong by certain religious doctrines they hold. They should try to prohibit abortion because it would be good and wise taking into consideration the values mentioned in the cultural and moral tradition of the community. The moral argument for legalizing abortion in the early stages depends upon the differentiation between a fetus and a fully developed person. This distinction should be supported by human experience that is available to all Americans. People can accept the personality of the fetus on the basis of religion and vote properly. Nevertheless, they will seek to impose their beliefs on the rest of citizens that do not belong to their group taking into account more general principles of culture.

2. The beliefs that citizens attempt to express politically have their roots in philosophy, religion, and some doctrines about society. They do not spring from nowhere. The religious beliefs regarding morality and society are as legal as those that come from non-religious convictions. Thus, Christians, Jews, or Muslims attempt to get laws adopted that come from their beliefs. As long as these laws do not represent an establishment of religion and have a secular purpose they are considered appropriate.

3. Ideally, people of faith should not try to get laws adopted on the basis of religion but because they convey the principles of secular society. If religious believers decide to fight for universal coverage, they should argue for this purpose not because the Bible requires so, or God wills it, but because it calls to “liberty, life, and happiness.”

4. Notwithstanding, if people of faith consider that distinguishing between religion and political implications of their faith represents a splitting of a unitary set of beliefs, then it is appropriate to let them act correspondingly. If people persuade other voters to support legislation because the Pope, the Bible, the Koran authorizes it, not much will be done about it. We are not able to control why people support or vote the policies they follow. In the booth, people can vote for whoever and whatever they want. Voters act according to their self-interest, prejudice, religion, racial identity, philosophy, devotion to justice based on American beliefs. Democracy is a messy and untidy issue. People can do what they want and are restricted only by Constitution.

5. Thus, a two-sided criticism is necessary. We must request that the government do not take into account the principles of only one subgroup. In this context, we are a secular society. Thus, the political and ethical implication of faith has to be framed on the basis of the values of our history and traditions. Also, we must insist that people of faith have the same right to express both the ethical and social consequences of their belief on the basis of politics and their non-religious ideologies. “Civil religion” that is present in our history makes the notion of secular society difficult. However, the “religion of the Republic” offers little ethical guidance concerning the principles of liberty, equality, justice, etc.

6. Church policy and ideology should be the criteria in guiding the Church and its officials through the decision of whether or not to support politics and various candidates. Such support may have its dangers, though, because it can result in conflicts, based on controversies, specific to political programs. On the other hand, the State should pay much attention to the fact that religious institutions can profit from the situation and be exempted from taxes.
It takes much wisdom to address the Church – State and religion – politics relations in an adequate way. We have to bear in mind that these should not be confused and that difficulties may arise in addressing the situation. We should be guided by certain views that must be based on Constitutional principles and reason. We should also realize that finding the balance between these different structures is a very hard matter, but trying to desperately find simple methods of problem solving is not a way out, either. Historical practices and principles that govern the nation must always be taken into account when dealing with such structures.

Unfortunately, nowadays in many countries religion and politics are closely intertwined.
In some countries influence of religion is less in some countries is more.
As for me in those countries where religion is the main part of politics internal situation is worse then in those where religion was separated from government. What we can see in countries when fundamentalists are in power? We can see numerous revolutions or battles between different religious movements. These countries are poor and getting poorer, because businessmans are afraid to invest money in unstable economic.
When religion interferes in the life of country this is the big chance to slide into the Middle Ages.
Where woman have no rights, where man can be told what kind of hairstyle to do, when someone can be killed only for wrong words against God.
Especially woman's and child's rights are violated. As weakest part of society they are harmed most of all.
So as we can see from examples of other countries combine of religion and politics only harms.

Since the 1600s, there's been talk of the Trias Politica. John Locke and Charles de Montesquie stressed the importance of separating the judiciary from the executive and the legislative etc. etc. etc. Effectively this is the only viable way to protect civil liberties. If you then go and put the church ABOVE these three powers, civil liberties are OBVIOUSLY going to be at stake. Religious freedoms should, of course, be protected. Jewish and Muslim children should not be forced into eating non-Kosher/non-Halaal food in schools, nobody should force a Catholic woman to use birth control and, should you want to go to church/shul/Mosque, you should be allowed to do so. However, forcing OTHER people to do as you do is inherently wrong and unjust. Particularly in a democracy, and in melting pot democracies (such as America, Australia, South Africa - where people have come from all over the world, and settled down, often coming for the purpose of avoiding religious persecution), it's COMPLETELY wrong to enforce one religion on everyone. Religion is a personal choice, and we should be allowed to do as we want. Whether I want an abortion or not may impact my going to heaven or hell, but it sure as heck isn't some Christian's choice where I end up!

However, the situation is a bit more complex in TRADITIONAL countries. For instance, Middle Eastern countries have always been Muslim. The majority of their populations are Muslim. Muslims continue to be persecuted in other countries. There is no reason why they shouldn't be allowed to make their religion a more core part of the state (for example, Muslims have to pray multiple times a day, which isn't really possible in Western democracies, where we work through the whole day - but it may very well be possible in Iran or Dubai, and that's great, because if you're Muslim you then have a place that allows you to do what you want to do). It's a very Western and globalizing perspective to decree that what they're doing in Iran or Saudi or Dubai is "backward". That is a CHOICE. Plenty of Muslim women all over the world CHOOSE to follow Muslim religion to a tee. Similarly, many Christian women do this. And Jewish women. All the major monotheistic religions discriminate against women. So. I don't think it's fair to blame it all on the Muslims. I think they should be allowed to do their thing in their own countries, and we shouldn't judge. They should also understand that Western democracies aren't ever going to shut down shop seven times a day to pray. And that's fine. Because they can always go to a country where this is allowed and even encouraged.

I also think a lot of flak is given to the Muslim countries and people forget Israel, a state whose entire existence hinges on religion. What do you guys think about Israel? Is it right that they discriminate against non-Jewish citizens, or allow you to immigrate there the moment you can prove your religion? Imagine if the E.U. let you in for being Catholic!

Generally in "modern" countries, I think religion and politics should be kept separate. However, in traditionalist countries peopled mostly with one faith, you can mix the two. There are still plenty of countries that AREN'T like that, and plenty that ARE and maybe the world needs a mix like that...

Hello! The link between religion and politics was created from ancient times and it continues to exist or try to do it till our days.
We know that in past church had a great influence to politics, economy and culture. It was used not only to help people who needed its help, but also to manipulate. It tried to inspire the same believes in all population and this process wasn’t every time a peaceful one. We know that a lot of people were killed for their “wrong” believes.
Now the same situation remains in some religions (as a Muslim one). In such cases it is very easy to notice the manipulation and the influence of somebody’s believes and wishes on human destinies.
If we speak about Europe, here the situation is more difficult to be described. At the first time we see human rights, independence and freedom. Nobody can touch our body and our soul. The state is separated of the church and they don’t influence one another. But if we look deeper we can see people’s addiction to the same, official religious believes and I think it is not very well.
My opinion is that everybody should make a personal choice and to believe in what he wants to believe in.

In the past centuries the state and society considered religion as very important thing, the state depended on the fate of the people. Therefore, the state took on the responsibility for keeping the faith in its citizens . For the attracting of people in the true faith was permissible coercive mechanisms of state power, including violence. Something like it was reproduced in Soviet society , not only in the religious and ideological sphere , where any dissent is brutally persecuted . Thank God that these days are gone. But I would not blame history. For the people of that time this state of affairs was considered as acceptable.
The state and society in its activities should be based on the proportional role of a particular religion. They need to interact with them and , therefore, respect the religious choices of its citizens. It is quite natural that the believer as a complete person seeks for embody their faith in private and public life. He or she can not go to work and to be religiously neutral person, and , on returning home, to feel themselves as Orthodox or Muslim. However, I do not think that the expression of their faith in public life can insult a person belonging to a non-religious or other beliefs. In all countries neither orthodox nor a Muslim should not hesitate to motivate their social actions by tenets of their faith.
In addition , it is important to maintain a dialogue between religions on significant public issues to maintain peace and harmony in society

Today we can see a close connection between religion and politics, especially in geopolitics. There are a lot of blames on almost all available religious leaders that they try to achieve own or somebody’s political interests through religious activity. Same time, religious sphere uses by states to implement their domestic and foreign policies.

Nowadays, even religious terrorism stopped to be only deterrent system, because some states started to use it as reliable method to realize own politic interests, as method of manipulation of public opinion and effective cover for policy of "double standards". Many religious terroristic organizations, for example on the Middle East, were directly created and trained by according special services organizations of foreign countries, sometimes even of several countries though their “cooperation”. For example, recurrent "Islamic" attacks in western countries easily distracted the society from own economic problems, which politics can’t decide, and shifted attention of people to consolidation in the face of external “enemy”. Politics also get their hands free to implement military actions in foreign countries, which they named as participated or supported such attacks.

With these purposes, many governments are happy to use this tactics again and again. Even they “hire” religious terroristic organizations with purposes of security of own business projects implementing abroad, mainly of oil industry. Moreover, terroristic religious organizations “help” to maintain instability in some regions, when it is beneficial for some influenced western countries – again, with the purposes to decide own political and material interests through covering by religion.

Generally, religion matters are using by politics mainly with own purposes, which are not always good for anybody other except them, even they are not always good for the population of their own countries. However, as final result, this small “evil” can’t decide problems of the countries, who try to overcome own economic and politic difficulties through using this questionable method. There are many examples of this, which nowadays we can see. However, it is very bad that religious factor presents in spheres, which are very distant from spirituality and real religion feelings and beliefs of the people.