Every country in the world, including the Western nations, is grappling on some level with the tension between religion and state. Presumably, one would have expected the Western states to be exempt from this quandary, given that a basic component of the West's identity and self-definition is the democratic regime, which stipulates that the decisions made by the majority of voters (or their parliamentary representatives) are the ultimate determining factor, and not religious fiats. Moreover, Western identity does not content itself with the formal definition of a democratic regime but bases itself on a value-centered, humanist/liberal definition as well, which asserts that majority decisions too must pass the test of basic human rights if they are to be accepted. Stated otherwise, those religious dictates that impinge on basic human rights should be rendered invalid, even if the majority of the public (or its representatives) supports them.
But it seems that even the cornerstones of Western identity cannot outweigh the primordial elements of human identity, one of which is the tension between religion and state. It is the tension of social rationale and human ethics weighed against the need for an ancient tradition and the fear of the unknown in our unstable world as well as the desire for an anchor in a state of uncertainty. For what does faith in the democratic principle reflect if not belief in a rational social order that guards society against chaos (the underlying assumption is not that the right decisions will necessarily be made as part of the democratic process but that the latter is the only way to prevent constant clashes between those who hold different opinions). And what does the humanist-liberal worldview reflect? Faith in a basic system of ethics and in the human need to avoid harming the fundamental rights of others. These are worthy values; hence they carry a great deal of weight in the tension between religion and state. But the other side of the coin, namely religion, also reflects values of great importance: the need of mortal man to feel that he is part of a lengthy chain of ancient traditions, and the need on the part of man - constantly faced with an unstable world in which the uncertain surpasses the certain - for a sense of security that says to him: If you will only do such and such, you will be assured of a favorable destiny, if not in this world, at least in the world to come. This security, this anchor, is supplied by religion.
Thus, both sides of the coin reflect basic needs of the human soul, and for this reason the tension between them is present also in Western society, where the foundations of its identity would ostensibly place the state and its democratic form of government above religion. Even in Western societies of long standing, there are enough individuals for whom religious faith and the anchor it provides are sufficiently important that they attempt to question the values of the liberal-democratic state, at least in certain areas. And the proof is that in the United States, too, which placed the separation of church and state at the core of its identity and its Constitution, the sheer increase in the number of appeals to the courts on religious issues (abortion; the public status of the Bible, in particular the Ten Commandments