在中國歷史上，確實曾多次出現大規模的「滅佛」行動，最著名的便是北魏太武帝、北周武帝、唐武宗與後周世宗等四次大規模毀佛事件，史稱「三武一宗滅佛」。然而，這樣的現象卻極少針對道教發生，並沒有同樣規模的「滅道」運動。原因並非單純在於宗教信仰的差異，而是涉及到中國傳統文化、政治結構與經濟利益等多方面的考量。

佛教自東漢傳入中國後，逐漸壯大，到了魏晉南北朝乃至隋唐，更是進入鼎盛時期。由於佛教具有龐大的寺院組織與僧侶群體，且寺廟擁有大量土地、僮僕與經濟資源，不僅免除賦稅與徭役，還能吸引信眾捐獻，導致佛寺財富積聚，甚至超越許多世俗豪門。這對於需要維持國庫與控制社會的帝王而言，便構成威脅。帝王一旦認為佛教過度壯大、可能動搖國本，或者當時朝廷因戰爭與財政困難而急需資源時，便會以「清理異端」或「回歸正統」為名，展開滅佛行動。實際上，抄沒寺院財產、迫僧還俗，不僅能消解佛教勢力，還能立刻獲取龐大財富補充國庫。

相比之下，道教的處境完全不同。首先，道教源於中國本土文化，與傳統儒學有千絲萬縷的關聯，尤其在「天人感應」「尊道貴德」等觀念上，與帝王權術有高度契合。歷代帝王往往把自己塑造成「受命於天」的君主，而道教正好能為此提供神聖化的詮釋。例如，漢武帝推崇黃老之學，唐朝更直接以自己是「老子李耳後裔」作為國族正統的神話基礎。這種政治與血脈上的聯繫，使得道教成為帝王合法性的支撐之一。

其次，道教雖然也有宮觀與道士，但整體規模與財富遠不及佛教龐大，對國家經濟與社會秩序的影響較小，並未對帝王形成重大威脅。即便在某些時期佛、道之間競爭激烈，帝王往往也只是偏袒或利用道教來壓制佛教，而不會選擇徹底消滅道教。

最後，從文化心理層面來看，中國古代社會始終存在「華夷之辨」的思維。佛教作為外來宗教，雖然已經中國化，但在某些帝王或士大夫眼中，仍帶有「異端」色彩。當國家面臨外患、內亂或財政危機時，「滅佛」往往被視為一種強調文化純正、彰顯王權的政治手段。道教作為土生土長的信仰，則無法被等同視之，因此沒有必要採取類似的「滅道」行動。

總的來看，歷史上的「滅佛」運動既是政治權術的選擇，也是經濟資源再分配的手段，更帶有文化認同上的對立；而道教因為本土屬性與帝王合法性關聯，並未成為被大規模清算的對象。換言之，「滅佛」反映的是外來宗教在本土化過程中與國家權力的矛盾，而「不滅道」則是因為道教早已與中國王朝的權力結構深度融合。

In Chinese history, there were indeed several large-scale anti-Buddhist campaigns, the most famous being those led by Emperor Taiwu of Northern Wei, Emperor Wudi of Northern Zhou, Emperor Wuzong of Tang, and Emperor Shizong of Later Zhou. Collectively, these events are known as the “Three Wu and One Zong Persecutions of Buddhism.” However, no equivalent “persecution of Daoism” ever occurred. This contrast was not simply about religious differences, but rather about deeper issues of politics, culture, and economics.

Buddhism, which was introduced to China during the Eastern Han, grew tremendously during the Six Dynasties, Sui, and Tang, eventually becoming a dominant religious and social force. Temples held vast tracts of land, accumulated wealth through donations, and enjoyed exemptions from taxes and labor. Over time, monasteries became wealthy institutions that rivaled or even surpassed secular aristocratic clans in economic power. For emperors who needed both to secure revenue and consolidate authority, this was seen as a direct threat. Thus, during periods of financial crisis or political instability, rulers often launched suppression campaigns under the banner of “cleansing heterodoxy” or “returning to orthodoxy.” In reality, seizing temple assets, forcing monks back into lay life, and redistributing wealth replenished depleted state coffers while simultaneously weakening a powerful, independent religious system.

Daoism, on the other hand, was in a very different position. As a native Chinese tradition, Daoism was deeply intertwined with Confucian thought and political ideology. Its doctrines, such as “the unity of Heaven and Man” or “revering Dao and virtue,” aligned closely with imperial rhetoric. Many rulers even claimed legitimacy through Daoist lineage or mythology—for instance, the Tang emperors traced their ancestry to Laozi. Daoism thus often reinforced imperial authority rather than threatening it.

Economically, Daoist institutions were far smaller and less wealthy than Buddhist monasteries. Their presence did not siphon off as many resources or labor from the state, and so they posed no significant fiscal threat. Even when Daoism and Buddhism competed for influence, emperors usually favored Daoism to curb Buddhism, rather than eliminating Daoism outright.

There was also a cultural dimension: traditional Chinese thought always carried the notion of distinguishing “Chinese” from “foreign.” Buddhism, despite centuries of Sinicization, still carried the stigma of being an imported religion. During times of turmoil, “persecuting Buddhism” symbolized a reassertion of native culture and centralized power. Daoism, by contrast, was inherently indigenous and thus seen as part of the cultural and political fabric of the state.

In short, the suppression of Buddhism was as much about politics, economics, and cultural identity as it was about religion. It reflected the tensions between an expanding foreign faith and the state’s need to maintain authority and resources. Daoism, being native and closely tied to imperial legitimacy, never faced the same existential threat.