Should national governments have the right to control and regulate religions?

In recent days, two examples of this have surfaced that appall me. In Switzerland, a law was passed stating that the construction of minarets, the four large structures that are an integral part of Islamic mosques, shall be banned. Without these minarets, which are used to call prayer five times a day, a mosque is unable to facilitate the praying of those of the Islamic faith. The law, drafted consciously knowing that if passed, it would be impossible to ever construct a mosque in the country, is blatantly racist and targets Muslims, the fastest growing majority in Europe.
Also, another story that I was disgusted by involved a prominent, private Jewish day school in London that rejected a child because he was not considered to be Jewish. The High Court has made it their matter and are ruling on whether the school has to accept the child or not, essentially tossing aside the religious decision and imposing theirs, stating whether the child is in fact Jewish in the eyes of the British Crown.
Governments should not have any control over the traditions, spread, or conduction of religions to such a high degree. The Swiss ban on minarets, in my opinion, is an attempt to expel all Arabs in the country and keep out all that would have entered. Not only is it racist, but also it prohibits the flow of ideas and cultures that makes our world the international one that it is. The British trials to determine whether this child is in fact Jewish or not are not only ludicrous, but also offensive. Who does the British government think it is to tell Rabbis and other respected members of the Jewish community that they are wrong? I feel that both governments are acting in inappropriate manners and are overstepping their boundaries as authority figures. I am revolted by the fact that mere mortals think they can, and are, controlling religions, something that only the most audacious existential power would even consider doing.
The Swiss ban on minarets has caused quite a media storm. Switzerland was once renowned for its tolerance and freedom of religion, but given the most recent happenings in the country, this may no longer be the case. There are two varying viewpoints on this issue: that of the conservative nationalists and that of the liberals. The conservatives believe that the “Freedom to manifest one’s religion or beliefs shall be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.” Liberals believe, best put by the Swiss Justice Minister, Eveline Widmer-Schlumpf, that “a ban on the construction of new minarets is not a feasible means of countering extremist tendencies” and therefore should not have been passed and is simply an attempt from the minority rightist groups to expel Islam from the Swiss region. The implications of the Swiss actions have been devastating. Islamic clerics all over the world have been calling on Jihadists to carry out holy war against Switzerland for tarnishing the name of Allah.
While one must consider these horrendous implications, it is also important to note what else is going on behind such a controversial law. The Swiss are, as are many other European nationalities, very nationalistic and do not want their culture to be entrenched upon by a foreign enemy; Islam is that foreign enemy to European culture. Therefore, in order to protect their European culture, the Europeans must control Islam, resulting in the Swiss banning of minarets.
In my own opinion, I feel as though the entire situation is ridiculous and the Swiss government should take this amendment and throw it away. It is a racist and ethnocentric proposition that should not be allowed to become law in a Westernized nation that has always been neutral in such issues.
With regards to the British trials to determine the legitimacy of the faith claimed by the boy and his family, I do not feel as though the ruling of the Court will have any sway in the religion anywhere in the world – ever. A government cannot say that someone is or someone is not Jewish, no mortal power has that authority. The British government is putting its nose where it does not belong and should stay out of this situation, harkening back to the separation of Church (or in this case, Synagogue) and state.
I am of the perspective that the British High Court has no legitimate authority in this issue, as are many people. Our camp is considered to be the ‘religious’ camp, or those who believe that this decision should be a religious one and not a governmental one.
The other perspective held by very few is that the government must force the school to admit this “Jewish” boy because his father is a Jew and his mother is an officially converted Jew. They believe that because both parents are officially Jewish, that the government should have no problem telling the school to allow him to attend. However, the school states that the boy is not Jewish because his mother is not Jewish as seen through the eyes of the Orthodox. Because the mother was not converted in an orthodox manner, she is still considered to be Christian.
The British High Court has failed to even remotely consider the possible implications that come along with this case. If Britain forces this school to admit this child, the Jewish population around the world will be outraged. They will reiterate the fact that Britain has no authority in this manner and that is a decision for the Rabbis, not the Parliamentarians. Britain risks not only their relationship with the Jewish populace around the world, but also with Israel, the only friendly democratic nation in the Middle East.
It is important though to step back and consider the underlying assumptions in this case so that one is able to make an informed decision. The family of the child who was declined admittance to the Jewish day school was operating under the assumption that the child’s mother was viewed as Jewish by the Jewish faith. However, this was not the case as illustrated by the Orthodox Jewish day school’s assertions that she was in fact, still Christian because she had not gone through an Orthodox conversion to Judaism. The British High Court is listening to the trial between the family and the school, and their ruling will determine whether or not the child is “Jewish” or not as well as determine his admittance to the school.
In my opinion, honestly, I feel as though the British High Court’s decision will not be a determining factor for Judaism. If this decision results in further debate regarding the religion leading to subsequent trials, the British government will be pressured by the international community to remove itself from the situation to preserve whatever is left of its dignity.
In the end, I do not believe that governments, regardless of their power, military backing, or influence, have the right or the authority to make decisions such as these. However, governments continue to restrict religious practices in order to promote their own national agendas, resulting in tensions and consequences.