I'm sincerely curious about the oft repeated phrase that "religion" controls the masses.
It seems to me that, while perhaps, in the history of religion (not just Christianity) there have been periods when the authoritarian nature of the dominate belief system may have had that opportunity, the over-all effect has not been very successful.
Here in the west (I live in the U.S.) to include almost all of Europe and certainly the U.K. and the U.S., religion can and does have a proper place. It has largely been supplanted by secular humanism in most of Europe with only historical remnants remaining. Here in the U.S. the majority of citizens profess Christianity, but since 1964, the practise of the faith has been eliminated from many public places, such as schools. I would hasten to add that, at least with Christianity, the influence and impact of the faith still produces positive effects where it's practiced in accordance within the teachings of Yeshua..
I think, not unlike other areas of science and philosophy, that a worldview is often judged by the behavior of tits adherents, rather than the underpinnings of it's Teacher.
One has to look no farther than the largest populated country on earth; China, to see that the biggest, by far, population of Bhuddists resides there, yet those "controlling the masses" do so with a government based on Marx, no on the Bhudda..
As to your question; one is constantly "juggling" the teachings of any philosophy with the realities of a changing world, no? I mean, if you have the opportunity to cheat on your taxes, as an example, knowing full well that you're not carrying your appointed part of the social burden, you'll do so (as long as there's a reasonable chance of success) won't you? Same holds with religion or any other morally based philosophy... somewhat as Octavius has expressed. Sometimes one does better with it than other times, no?