This Question presupposes that there is some benefit in not having Church and State separated. But, as long as there is not full and transparent separation between Church and State, there will always be the risk that the relationship will be abused for the benefit of Church or State.
It may well be that advocates of a binding relationship between Church and State expect that this would work to the benefit of the Church, but it also means that the state has the power to interfere in Church appointments, promotions and even doctrine. This Question is also pertinent to the categories in which it was asked. Outside Israel, a close relationship between religion and State could be very harmful to Judaism. Similarly, a close relationship between religion and State could be very harmful to Islam, other than in Islamic countries.
maryland i think
No, there is an official head of the church of england and it is not the queen or her representatives. When king henry 8th was alive, he created the church of england and down the road of history, the church and state separated.
it separated the church of the Eastern empire from the church of the Western Hemisphere.
To be separated from the Church of England.
Church of England
Virginia passed the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom in 1786, five years before the Bill of Rights was created.
The Protestant church separated from the Catholic church during the Renaissance.
The Catholic Church was separated from government.
It is currently known as the Old Apostolic Church.
Virginia passed the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom in 1786, five years before the Bill of Rights was created.
Pilgrims.
A compound that can be separated by electrolysis must be in the LIQUID state of matter.