It seems a little (a lot?!) redundant now but as I have just found my copy of Hegel (Philosophy of Right) (when I had given up looking; always the way!) and as I had intended to include him previously I shall do so as a footnote of sorts to my previous post as his comments are well worth mulling over;
“The state is the march of God in the world ( Es ist der Gang Gottes in der Welt, daas der Staat ist); its ground or cause is the power of reason realizing itself as will. When thinking of the idea of the state, we must not have in our mind any particular state, or particular institution, but must rather contemplate the idea, this actual God, by itself.” (my italics, §258A)
and
“We must hence honour the state as the divine on earth, and learn that if it is difficult to conceive of nature, it is infinitely harder to apprehend the state. That we in modern times have attained definite views concerning the state in general, and are perpetually engaged in speaking about and manufacturing constitutions, is a fact of much importance. But that does not settle the whole matter. It is necessary further that we approach a reasonable question in the mind of rational beings, that we know what is essential, and distinguish it from what is merely striking. Thus, the functions of the state must indeed be distinguished; and yet each must of itself form a whole, and also contain the other elements. When we speak of the distinctive activity of any function, we must not fall into the egregious error of supposing that it should exist in abstract independence, since it should rather be distinguished merely as an element of the conception”. (my, italics, §272A)

In “The Relationship of Religion to the State” (url= http://www.amazon.co.uk/Hegel-Politi...9753]Political Writings[/url]) Hegel elaborates further and is a text which repays careful reading (in many ways it is a distillation of themes begun in the Philosophy of Right,
“In general, religion and the foundation of the state are one and the same thing – they are identical in and for themselves. In the patriarchal condition and the Jewish theocracy, the two are not yet distinct and are still outwardly identical. Nevertheless, the two are also different, and in due course, they become strictly separated from one another; but then they are once more posited as genuinely identical. [That the two have then attained] that unity which has being in and for itself follows from what has been said; religion is knowledge of the highest truth, and this truth, defined more precisely, is free spirit. In religion, human beings are free before God. In making their will conform to the divine will, they are not opposed to the divine will but have themselves within it; they are free inasmuch as they have succeeded, in the [religious] cult, in overcoming the division [die Entzweiung aufzuheben]. The state is merely freedom in the world, in actuality. The essential factor here is that concept of freedom which a people carries in its self-consciousness, for the concept of freedom is realised in the state, and an essential aspect of this realisation is the consciousness of freedom with being in and for itself. Peoples who do not know that human beings are free in and for themselves live in a benighted state both with regard to their constitution and to their religion.– There is one concept of freedom in [both] religion and the state. This one concept is the highest thing which human beings have, and it is realised by them. A people which has a bad concept of God also has a bad state, a bad government, and bad laws”.(my italics in bold, p.225-226)
However, standing as Hegel does at an epochal moment where religion has almost completely been separated from the political (de-sacralised) and confined into a distinct realm with distinct functions Hegel also notes that,
“the state and religion can also be divorced from one another and have different laws. The secular and the religious spheres are distinct, and a difference of principle may also arise. Religion does not simply remain in its own distinct sphere, but also affects the subject, issuing precepts with regard to the subject’s religiosity and hence also to its activity. These precepts which religion issues to the individual may be distinct from the principles of right and ethical life which obtain within the state.(my italics in bold, p.228)


On a different tack does the book club have a formal structure or do we simply flag up issues that concern us about Brown's Religion and State as we encounter them?