Is a civil state necessarily a secular state?

You know, not as a rational or kinda way, but mostly as something not strictly rational – I feel that people would be wrong either way: secular or religious.

Hmm... how to explain it... I'll try this one: when I am cooking a soup, a pot is boiling, and I put cleared vegetables into that in a proper time. I cannot do the soup blindly putting anything to the pot as some animated magicians do sometimes, telling only few words. No, I got to watch the process, to control it, to change something if necessary.

Besides, have you heard of the ultimate manipulate argument? It has a various forms, but it has the same essence: it occurs when there's a wrong dilemma. So, 'secular' and 'civil' are neither necessary separated, nor melted.

Actually, looking closely to many many practices in politics almost everywhere we can spot lots of traditional elements in politics, so what are those 'traditional ways' of not in some way religious?

Sometimes I spot people arguing each other about the tastes, while the proverbs reads "only fools are arguing about tastes with each other". So, secular/non-secular isn't something that worths to be so really disjoined. Better to get them along: religious for morality and purposes of life, while secular for medicine, science, art, etc. And religious isn't about only functions, and the same about science, art, etc. The better to develop it, to make religion be better, and the same about science, art, etc.

So, the resultative remark is: without love no civil state is civil (even of it's not non-secular).