Time to abolish Nations and Religion

[TheDude]

Does anyone else believe that it is far time we abolish all borders and religions? The majority of conflict in this world is caused by people seeing others as some sort of threat based on nationality or beliefs; but, deep down, all people share the basics of humanity. It is things like religion and nationality that make us demonize our fellow man and see them as some sort of threat. So, does anyone else hold the belief that its time we did away with the things that separate humanity and begin focusing on the things that will bring us together? /rant

 

[unozero]

religion yes,nations no.

if you try to this with North America I believe there would be civil war.
people are not happy in europe if you haven't noticed, being ruled from Brussels.



Not to mention what would happen to Socal ......All the problems they have in Mexico would spill over to here.


Thx but no thx.

 

[Raziaar]

Neither will work.

I abhor many of the terrible things religions breed in people, but I also don't believe in forcibly stripping them of their religion.

That's impossible to do anyway.

 

[gFrohman]

I said let's keep things the way they are.

People should be free to choose whatever they want to believe in. If they want to worship the same invisible man in the sky that millions of other people believe in, that's fine. If they want to worship the sun, that's fine too. Organized religion can be dangerous, but it can also be helpful (worldwide charities, etc.) and it's what some people are looking for - a large group to conform to (let's face it, most people are conformists whether they admit it or not; I know I've unintentionally conformed to the music nerd clique).

As for nations - I think a global society (or global government) seems like a noble idea, but I just don't think we're ready for it yet. There are too many under-developed societies that need time to grow and there are too many nations that are too nationalistic (the USA would probably never go for something like that, unless they were in control).

 

[TheDude]

Well idealistically what would be the best option? From my standpoint I think that the world would be much happier if we could see any human being on earth as the same we see ourselves. Ideally that would be the best option. Logistically how could we make that happen?

 

[gFrohman]

You can't. People will agree to disagree.

Plus if everyone was the same, it'd be boring imo.

Unless we revive JC Denton so that he can merge all humans with Helios.

 

[Mr Stabby]

Most culture is based on religious or national identities.

 

[Eejit]

Nationalism and Religion have caused more wars and claimed more lives than any other ideas or ideologies in human history.
They need to go, as soon as may be practically possible.

 

[Viperidae]

**** yeah! I don't want to be able to choose! NEW WORLD ORDER!

 

[Mr Stabby]

religion and nationalism may be used by the ruling class to get the plebs to support war but rarely do countries fight for purely nationalistic or religious reasons

 

[Escaep]

Nationalism and Religion have caused more wars and claimed more lives than any other ideas or ideologies in human history.
They need to go, as soon as may be practically possible.

Interesting, can I see some statistics please? Just curious.

 

[Krynn72]

How is being born into a religion and nationality a choice?

 

[alpha incipiens]

I am not at all a religious person, and I'm well aware of the damage that organized religion has caused for society. However, I think that abolishing religion is a scary concept; it's essentially regulation of what a person can and cannot believe.

On the other hand, I'd like to see nations go, but well that will never happen.

 

[Eejit]

Interesting, can I see some statistics please? Just curious.

You can have a non-comprehensive list. Nationalism also plays a part in some of course.

The Crusades, Cromwell's invasion of ireland, the French Hugenots and Catholic wars, Thirty Years War, the Reconquista, Jihads between Muslim factions and against Hindus, etc.

Plus other deaths to religion not because of war; the Inquisition, death penalty for breaking laws of religion (e.g. in Islamic states), human sacrifice e.g. by the Aztecs, Ancient Egyptians - among many other older religions.

 

[Sulkdodds]

To be fair, religion in the medieval times constitutes the entire framework of worldview in which everything else is conceived of as happening - it doesn't quite make as much sense then to talk of 'religion' causing wars as it might nowadays when 'religion' is a more distinct and discrete entity.

Practically speaking, the 'abolishment' of religion and nationalism - certainly desirable - will only become possible when they have already died out. At the point where nation has ceased to be a relevant concern, only then, perhaps, will communities vote to formally renounce their claim to nationhood.

 

[Eejit]

Not all I listed were in Medieval times. Enlightenment and Renaissance there too, and the list is hardly exhaustive for those periods either.

 

[Sulkdodds]

Yeah, I know, but it was worth saying; I should have (cautiously) included the Renaissance because secularisation is still in early stages and not comprehensive at that point.

Personally I'm of the belief that these things are just as often symptoms as they are causes of what's wrong with the world. But as with all ill symptoms, it would be nice to be rid of them.

 

[Viperidae]

To be fair, religion in the medieval times constitutes the entire framework of worldview in which everything else is conceived of as happening - it doesn't quite make as much sense then to talk of 'religion' causing wars as it might nowadays when 'religion' is a more distinct and discrete entity.

QFT. For those of you who still don't get it: Christianity for a person in the Middle Ages was treated then as we treat science now.

 

[Eejit]

Oh I assumed you knew, just making sure other people were clear too.


And not really Viper. More people had faith in Christianity then than they do in Science now.

 

[Farrowlesparrow]

It seems inherent in human nature for people to associate themselves with things, i.e. religions and nations. Doing away with the both of them just seems, as Sulk said, something that will only happen when they've died out anyway; when people prefer to simply associate themselves with something else.

I'd like to be rid of nations in the sense that I would have freedom to move about. But without nations what do we have? A single 'World nation'? I don't think a one world government is really the way to go. At least not in the sense that we have governments now. It's already messy and horribly inefficient having national governments. Having that on a world scale just seems like a horrible idea.

I like the idea of a regulator I suppose. Something which enforces human rights, but essentially leaves full governance to local peoples.

Of course the reality of that would really be fantastically more complex than my simplistic little post. But the idea is, I want to live in a free world where I don't need a passport.

I think we need to define what religion actually is. I mean, if I stretch the word I could speak about religion in the same what I speak about culture or social norms. Essentially a set of ideas that influence the way people think and act. This isn't inherently a Bad Thing.

 

[DEATHMASTER]

ignoring what's possible, I vote for A.

 

[Eejit]

Good poll though, it'll be interesting to see how many people consider religion to be a greater evil than nationalism, or vice versa.

 

[Saturos]

Neither.

Enforcing "human rights" by banning religion and nationalism is a contradiction in itself and doing so would only cause more wars and make the world a much shittier place than it already is.

Not having a belief in a higher deity is just as much a human right as believing. How would atheists like it if they were forced to worship a god as opposed to banning religion? Point is, people don't like it when others step on their toes and all that would happen is more wars.

Same goes for nationalism. I don't think Americans or English would like it if the women were forced to wear hoods and veils like in the middle east and the men were made to have facial hair at all times. Cultural diversity is here to stay like it or not. (In the first worlds anyways)

I agree with Sulk too. The only thing that can do away with cultures we don't like or agree with without worldwide bloodshed and anarchy is time.

DISCLAIMER!!

Before anyone else says nationalism and religion should be banned, consider that saying so would make you a self-righteous hypocrite, and nobody wants to be these things ammirite?
The very things many of you claim religious people to be. (although true for many)

OP, choose your topics more wisely.

 

[gFrohman]

I personally don't think we need to necessarily abolish religion (I am assuming we're talking about worldwide organized religions, correct?), but we need to reevaluate the whether the current religions really apply to society today. Most religions were started with a much more primitive society & mindset, including the ideas of tribalism and revenge (some of the Eastern religions, such as some sects of Buddhism & Hinduism I don't think apply here) - I think this is where the problems & violence are coming from. Back then, it used to be normal to see outsiders and say, "oh, they're not part of our tribe and they don't believe in OUR God. Kill the infidels!" We can't afford to do this anymore.

 

[jet_porkins]

Nationalism and Religion have caused more wars and claimed more lives than any other ideas or ideologies in human history.
They need to go, as soon as may be practically possible.

You could argue that once those two are gone, something else will take their place. It's not as though the erasing of these two matters in question would suddenly bring a halt to murder and genocide in the world.

That being the case, if you seek to eliminate murder, take away all possessions from all people in the world. All money, vehicles, homes, luxuries, musical instruments, computers, watches, cell phones, iPods (and all music for that matter). Give every individual in the world the same food in the same food-to-body-mass ratio every single day, the same clothes. Remove all people of power from office, get rid of all jobs and sources of income - everywhere between truck drivers to music teachers to prostitution to elected positions. Only when all of humanity loses all of its material/immaterial possessions that would fuel even the slightest bit of selfish desire would the remote possibility of "complete peace on earth" occur.

Case in point, the statement you made is all relative.

 

[Robert-]

Things are fine. No point in changing anything, or caring.

 

[Warped]

Abolish Material goods!!

 

[repiV]

Abolish nations? Just think about that one for a minute. Really think about it.

How can democracy possibly work on a global scale? It's woefully substandard as it is on a national scale.

How will there ever be checks and balances on state power when there is only one state and it rules the entire world? It can't be challenged from within, as it would be or become far too powerful, and it can't be brought down by external forces as there are none. You have far too much faith in government - a self-perpetuating, self-serving power structure - where none is deserved.

Isn't it arrogant to presume that one system of government is going to work for all the diverse cultures of the earth, let alone represent them properly?

And all for some vague idealistic notion of "unity". People always split into groups, it's human nature. It doesn't matter if they're divided by nations or not. Just look at the political and cultural divides within nations around the world. As it stands, nations work relatively well at being a representation of the culture and belief system of the people within that nation. If you abolished them the divisions would only return in another form.

Being divided is not a bad thing. Unity only has meaning when there is something to unite against. The only people to profit from one world government would be the rich, powerful and well connected.

 

[CptStern]

"absolve nations? hell no, I wouldnt them to co-mingle with us!!!" (this is the problem with humanity in general)

absolve religion? ...man, I'm really really trying to come up for a reason as to why we shouldnt ..but it just sounds so gosh darn it awesome that I cant get the words out ...at least can we abolish religious meddling in anything except their stupid religions? really they should have NO say, just like those that openly admit to believing in the tooth fairy have no say (mostly because they're in padded cells wearing shirts with sleeves that tie in the back)

 

[Sledgehammer]

In my opinion, nationalism and religion should be abolished through education. That is, force everyone to think about it (and hopefully come to the conclusion that they are unnecessary or even evil).

 

[The Monkey]

I'm fairly certain that the nation-state will be gone within 50 years, and it's not a moment too soon. People try to stop the process, but thankfully it is (according to most political scientists I know) a more or less inevitable process, where the people will identify primarily on a regional, continental and/or global level rather than on a national.

Religion will be tougher to remove, though, as it's tens of thousand of years old, compared to the 150 years of the nation-state.

 

[Sulkdodds]

snip.

Are many people in the thread suggesting the total eradication of all divides and boundaries? Or, for that matter, a world government? The thread is specifically about two forms of social organisation: the religion, and the nation-state. The question of 'abolishment' should be addressed specifically to these constructs/organisations, with their concommitant ideals of arbitrary boundary and groundless faith.

I mean personally I think that like anarchism it's desirable but not currently attainable.

 

[Mr Stabby]

Nations aren't arbitrary boundries in Europe or the far east. It makes perfect sense to form a country around ethno-lingusitic groups. French speaking people will want to run their government in French, Germans in German etc.

 

[Eejit]

As if it's that sharp a divide. There were problems with the post-WW1 divisions for a reason - there are lots of areas with mixed populations, regions with high numbers of bi-lingual people. A few hundred years ago people would have laughed in your face if you were to say Germany and Italy should have their current boundaries based solely on their ethno-linguistic groups.

 

[Mr Stabby]

Just because it's not clear where exactly France stops and Germany begins doesn't change the fact there are very significant differerences between the French and the Germans which would render a single franco-german state unworkable.

Nationalism is a recent invention and a product of the enlightenment.

 

[The Monkey]

^ Charlemagne did it.

And nationalism is just as much a child of romanticism as of the Enlightenment.

 

[Asknoone]

I think the dissolution of both is inevitable, conceivable, and beneficial; as Sledge said, you can root out both through education – it’s your variable for social change. Religion is the first and foremost evil in the ratio of it to the Nation-state, and would be a little less problematic in fracturing than the latter.

 

[Mr Stabby]

Charlemagne was a brutal warlord. Hitler and Napoleon also did it. I still think the current arrangement is better.

Romantacism is itself a product of the enlightenment. I wasn't arguing that it's enlightenment roots necessarily legitimises nationalism, I was just pointing out why nationalism is a fairly recent invention.

How about the UK and Ireland they even speak the same language, surely that's the place to start in joining nations togethor.

 

[Eejit]

It's not necessarily about joining nations together to create superstates, but doing away with the concept of nation-states.

 

[Mr Stabby]

What's your defintion of a state?

Surely if the nation state were to go it would either be replaced by one world government or no government at all.