Agreed. I never said the church should receive funding. I simply said it should be the moral guide of a nation. If you will, the official "here's what you gotta do if you don't want to be a dick - idiot edition " guide provided by the state.
So for you the don't be a dick for dummies guide should include... what exactly ? Most religions and religious authorities want to spread plenty of things that I personally consider good such as forgiveness and solidarity. But this is very different than what is actually written in the whole reference material when it exists. Not to forget monotheisms are by definition mutually exclusive. Which religion would you choose ? And if you choose one, you are making a serious moral error anyway, since they are all just as valid.
The idea of absolute morality is imo another thing that did extensive damage in the past. See the Inquisition. Not only is it impossible to apply in practice, but also because morality cannot be summarized as a set of rules. It is very far from being only a matter of culture, it is hardcoded among many other things such as altruism in our neurological reward mechanisms.
Finally, and for the same reasons, you cannot "enforce" a specific morality to someone. They already have one.
Of course laws are needed, but a guide to morality is both impossible to write and useless.
How on earth does centralization and an EXTREMELY bloated bureucracy lead to more efficiency and less corruption? Since the begining of time, empirical evidence shows the exact opposite happens.
It's the point I'm the least sure about tbh. But I believe a more centralised government will use less ressources (that's almost certain considering the scale economies) and be more efficient because many decisions are required to be taken everywhere at the same time to be effective. Such as tax changes, global warming stuff... It also pushes towards cooperation rather than conflict between local authorities.
I won't discuss whether the concept of nation is a valid one as this is not politics but philosophy (but to note: I believe the nation to be the most important structure of society except for family)
The importance of the family is evident and is very far from being a new concept. It's older than our sentience and has stayed so there's probably something right about it. But I fail to see why I should be more emotionally linked to my "nation" than with the rest of the world. I find it quite hypocritical when I hear 94 person died in an accident, 3 of which were of my country and the journalist only cares about those 3.
Plenty of non-capitalistic economic systems throughout history have kept people fed. There's also plenty of capitalistic countries today that have millions of people starving every single day.
This is just a note, not an ideological perspective 
Very few economic systems that were truly non-capitalistic were ever used throughout history. Money is a little more than two millenias old iirc, and before that people used bartering. This is the essence, together with technological progress, of what actually allowed an increasing fraction of the population not to devote 100% of their working time to their own survival.
Food is probably a bad example because you could have a "system" with everyone living in autarky and a very small population, but that is not a dream either. How are we going to conquer space if everybody has to work for food ?
Btw berenger how do you managed to get a forum title ? Constant trolling ?
Poll