Government sponsored religiosity

http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/columnists.nsf/keepthefaith/story/A11EDBDA129D16F5862574D80002719F?OpenDocument
Townsend’s article offers a look at how the role of religion in China is evolving. What really struck me was the difference between the exercise of religion in China and the United States and other western countries. It would probably stun most westerners to envision a society where “Each of the five recognized religions is officially run by the government”. It might be assumed that any religion not approved by the state is subject to persecution (as is seen in the “underground Catholics”). This is almost totally antithetical to the American ideal that, to paraphrase, no official shall prescribe what is orthodox in the realm of religion. It seems the close relationship between Church and State which exists in China demonstrates an often overlooked factor in why such a connection is a recipe for disaster. In America, the general thinking is that we need to keep religion from influencing the political sphere; in China, the government influences religion, and this seems to cheapen and demean religious practice, making it nothing more than a tool for the state to use to control the lives of citizens. Underneath a nice sounding separation of church and state though, we might question if China is actually onto something; if a religion is not part of the government, than it may very well be in competition with the government (as the article mentions this is almost exactly what Mao was thinking when he sought to purge China of the outside influence of the Vatican). While this may sound like an outlandish abstraction, I think that examining the way in which government and religion have existed in different societies shows that there is truth in this idea. In many societies of old, the ruler was considered a God, and religiosity was generally sponsored, or at the very least approved by the State; in such a set up, there would be little conflict between the two spheres, except when a maverick individual might decide that they had discovered a higher form of spiritual consciousness. Even in England today, there is still state sponsored school prayer and a relationship between the church and state (though this may be viewed as a vestigial remnant of a bygone era). However, it seems that as there have been continuing challenges to religious authority in the past several hundred years, religion has taken on a different role, and one could argue, been relegated to the private sphere (it is acceptable to believe whatever, but not do whatever). No longer is religion entirely something one is born into and must keep forever. It seems that whatever, the case, government sponsored religiosity is not compatible with most notions of personal freedom and free exercise, and serves to both demean religious practice and give governmental agencies a stunning amount of authority over citizens. The separation of the two spheres is necessary for both the preservation of genuine religious practice and to keep governments from exerting undue influence; however, the price for this separation is that the two will always be in something of an uneasy truce, and conflicts may arise.