... about the bandits (part 2) ...

To be able to define a society as "civilized" it is required the same level of civilization to apply both ways.

As anybody would think is a madness to give an ecclesiastical authority position to each government member, as it was at the times of the "Pharaons", just because of his status, so it is to permit appointing of people who claim to believe in higher authorities than the legitimate governments. The conflict of interest is clear, and so is the basic violation of requirements of unicity of rules and command, making this type of people "unfit" to represent common law interest. I am sure most of the very few religious spirits who are not religious just because of the power and social advantage of being so, may probably agree on this issue. It is quite simple. if you don't believe in a republic because you want a monarchy, don't seek public office and go open the political party for a poll to establish a monarchy, and if you don't believe in the authority of governments because you believe in the highest authority of god, don't seek public office and go open a church.

The second part of this problem, is the misuse of governments funds to finance churches, and the lack of collection of taxes for such institutions, which should technically considered a form of racketeering. Obviously, if anybody should be equal in front of law, in a "real" state of law, churches should equally pay taxes as corporations.

The third part of the problem are the basic human rights of birth, poverty, death, marriage and health, whereas strongly governments and churches are allied with the organized crime racket, to squeeze whatever they can from their citizens. A "civilized" country, one in the future, because nothing as such exists to our days, would nationalize and provide free this services to their citizens. Also a "civilized" country would not stick it's nose in a discriminatory way into contracts such as marriages, that should regarded the same way as business contracts. It is not the business of governments to indicate or to determine "morals". So it should be an argument left to the snake oil salesmen to discuss on sundays on their altars.

may you all live interesting times

... taking care of the bandits ...

The late 20Th century has replaced the colonialism of the countries with the colonialism of the multinationals and the currency. The dismiss of Bretton Woods agreements forced unilaterally by one country to the whole world, for its selfish benefit, has created a system of new colonialism, the colonialism of the currency.

My friend time ago asked me what was my suggestion, and I indicated the solution to the problem in consolidation of larger continental currencies. The independent choice of a pan-Arabic currency, a pan-Asian currency and a pan-Latin-American currency, would exactly sort this effect and set back the united states and the dollar where it belongs.

Unfortunately we are a long way from this, because people are easy to corrupt and most of world countries are ruled by puppets at the service of the American finance. Only when the people will start setting aside their personal dirty interest, justice will be served.