AREEBBBBAAAA , kds ji lives!

good to hear from you as well.


Well there are two solutions;

Economical and practical
Or
Philosophical and imaginary

Hypothetically we should all build rocket ships and launch every welfare-collecting citizen, to different corners of our galaxy to hunt for aliens.
Economically, we should just use all those rockets as high-speed crop dusters.

I fail to see how dissolving religious boundaries or for that matter national boundaries will have any impact in achieving any sort of sustainability (that is the operating word).

The question is about achieving equilibrium…dissolving the borders would just shift the equilibrium and not abolish it considering the world itself is a finite entity.




Now, onto your second manifesto, which seems to be a grudge against humanists and their particular ways of wretched critique. READ ON…


As to why humanists reject religious division and not so much nationality is because most humanists are idiots. Some may fail to realize that every institution kills or at least has the capacity to do (maybe that the reason they call marriage an institution… ). They moan and bemoan when it is religion more often than the state.
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/general-discussion/21145-world-food-crisis.html

However, how naïve and wrong it is to say that humanists don’t oppose the nation state? Read anything by Noam Chosmky and you will feel differently. Humanism is an outskirt of Libertarianism...they literally go hand in hand. A true humanist will be a libertarian at heart or the other extreme (a communist) or someone completely confused such myself who likes to jump on a bandwagon, cause its cool.
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=21145

However, where there is bias, there may be a rational explanation to explain why the bias exists.

Nationality mostly kills for money, profit and natural resources. Religious institutions kill for power but not on the basis of materialism (which they openly denounce) but dogma. One is a self-confessed criminal, the other, a psychopath, so humanists choose to give an easier time to the lesser of two evils. At least that’s how I see it.
And it doesn’t really matter if nationality kills more or less, what matters is; they kill for the right reasons (or they kill for reasons which are far less sinister than what religion kills for).

Also, most free states protect your beliefs no matter what they are; they are allowable as long as you don’t physically harm another citizen with those beliefs. This freedom is seldom seen under the confines of a religious institution. So, humanists, being anarchist, see this clear distinction. Thus, choose to elevate a secular institution, such as a state, over a religious institution… because it involves more freedom (many people of faith also prefer this as well… not just humanists).

Humanists may also see national pride as a counterweight to religious bravado…and because most humanists are atheists they see it within their interests to have the two separated and opposed.


Summary:
A state is more secular than a religious institution.

Hope that answered something