Religion and state are frequently unhappy bedfellows.

Naturally, each blames the other or points the finger at individual religious systems. Islam is in the spotlight at the moment due to the movement by some to achieve political resurgence in the West.

Certainly, Islam in the West is at a very significant crossroads with two differing paths before it. It could choose to reject the present Western political system and fight (sometimes politically, sometimes literally) to create a utopian government based upon a reading of the Qur’an and the life of Muhammad.

Or, alternatively, it could choose a second path, which might be termed a ‘positivist approach’ and is advocated by many Muslim scholars, in which the religion adapts to local circumstances.

There is also a wider issue at stake. Those Christians (and Jews and Hindus) who point the finger at Islam and argue that any tensions are not the fault of religion per se but of this particular religion, forget that there are many occasions in which Christians have also rubbed up against the state.

Before policy-makers and religious believers each retreat into fearful bunkers and start shouting demands at each other, we need all to pause and think about a way forward, not least because the vexed question of social cohesion would benefit from the input that faith groups would have if suspicion abated and they were allowed into discussions.

Two issues (at least) need addressing in order to move forward.

First, the state should not demand more loyalty of its citizens than is reasonable. The state should not demand ‘mono-loyalism’: it cannot ask people to choose between either state or faith as many states in the past have done. ‘Identity’, especially in the modern age, is multi-faceted and multi-layered. At the same time people of faith, like other citizens, need to appreciate the role the state takes in securing justice, administering territory and providing security.

Second, people of faith need to understand that, whatever belief they hold, it is, at least in part, filtered through the culture of the state in which they live. For example, a British Christian interpreting core doctrines will do so in the light of the culture he or she is brought up in. A Christian living in another part of the world will interpret the same doctrines in the light of the culture that they grow up in. Therefore in a theological, as well as ethno-cultural sense, Christians, Muslims and Jews are also ‘British’.

So we return to the question in the title: Is tension between religion and state inevitable? The answer is ‘no’ – so long as the state does not ask too much and people of faith do not forget that they are both protected by the state and understand their own doctrines in the light of the culture that state breeds.

Sean Oliver-Dee is an Associate Research Fellow at the London School of Theology. His essay, Religion and Identity: Divided loyalties? is available here.

Details of Sean Oliver-Dee's latest book can be accessed here.