To reply properly to the OP, I pull a quotation out of the dialogue I just linked.
Quote:
|
Without commenting on the usefulness of considering the ideas raised by the world’s great religions, which I grant are often sources of utility and deep fascination, I have frankly never respected the concrete rules and laws laid out for mankind by these religions, because all of them cut off human curiosity in some integral capacity. A religion cannot function amongst curious people, because religions rely upon absolute truths while humanity has a penchant for discovering new “absolute” truths to replace the old ones with the passing of every generation. In order to keep pace with the times, the religion must be reformed, and in my estimation that removes a great deal of its right to claim a monopoly on the truth.
|
Take this, and then take another basic truth: dead men tell no tales. The strength, therefore, of traditional religions lies ultimately in their means to wage war in order to implement their disagreements lethally. Every major religion in the world today has shed blood. Most religions have a kernel of organizational identity: if this were changed, then our entire belief system is invalidated. Such statements, which can be as simple as "God exists", are rarely verifiable. But if they were verifiable, you are suddenly greeted with the need to fundamentally change your identity. This is a difficult enough task for an individual; it is nigh impossible for a religion. Thus, you either fight or die.
Neither option is acceptable. The conclusion I would draw from this is to deny religion altogether: never claim a monopoly on the truth.
To reply properly to the
poll, which I really don't see how it relates to the OP or to the question in the thread title...
It depends on your definition of a nation.
Identity is a very, very troublesome topic. If we were to bring about some Pan-Galactic Civilization, people would still say, "I'm a farmer from Tatoonine." Is that one nation? I mean, let's say we did have an Empire or Republic: immediately, you divide space into sectors, sectors into star systems, star systems into planets, planets into nations, nations into states, states into counties, counties into cities, cities into neighborhoods, neighborhoods into streets, streets into housing complexes, complexes into rooms.
So what I have to assume is meant by "one nation" is "one government". Can we live on Earth where we are all answerable to the same government? The answer, perhaps surprisingly, is no.
You will always have anti-governmental radicals, I believe. But I don't see these people as problems, because the benevolence of the government will necessarily minimize their numbers; at which point, their dissent because negligible.
World government is one of those things I want to happen. The United Nations is a great idea, but I cannot help but see major flaws in its structure. One of my favorite depictions of this possibility is the Shadow Saga, by Orson Scott Card, from Ender's Shadow to Shadow of the Giant (4 books).