Not really. As we're looking at this through the prism of western society abortion is legal throughout the uber-religious US, Australia and the vast majority of Europe with the exceptions of Poland, Malta and Ireland. So we've already won on that issue. Marriage equality has been achieved throughout Western Europe, NZ and parts of the United States and within probably twenty years it will have been won everywhere in the Western World with the exception of the Deep South of the US. Euthanasia is a bit of a tougher one and I don't that is as strongly affiliated with religion and a couple of holidays and burial rites is a non issue.
The fact that they had to be 'beaten' shows that religion still does play a powerful political role. I can't foresee that changing anytime soon in the west, and certainly not anytime soon in nations like Israel or India, or regions like the Middle East.
I disagree with your concept that religion does good. Ultimately all religion is a constraining influence on already bad people. I don't need an antiquated book to tell me basic morals like not to murder and quite frankly if you do need that, as I said you must be a tremendously bad person.
We've discussed religion in this thread before. You've completely overlooking the community aspect of religion which, if anything, your concept of a global government will only reinforce the need for as society becomes too big for people as individuals to feel a part of something.
Religion is not
solely a moral code. You're overlooking the aforementioned community aspect, as well as the good work religious organisations all over the world have done and continue to do in the form of charitable donations, volunteer work etc.
Yes, atheists and agnostics also do this work, but the world would be a poorer place if religious charitable organisations ceased to exist. There's no guarantee non-secular ones would just spring up to fill the hole.
A capitalist economic system will remain, albeit a well-regulated one.
Because capitalism has proven to be such a fantastic and egalitarian system so far?
That feeds into my point that the nationstate encourages the persecution of minority groups by treating them as an other instead of as a human being. That will be prevented by a global government.
I see what you're aiming for idealistically, but how does making government even farther removed from the people achieve this? Essentially, you'd do away with smaller ethnic biases in favour of larger ethnic ones. How many Caucasians are going to feel their interests are adequately represented by Asian or African leadership and vice versa?
You say there would ideally be a council of some sort, but ultimately, people are inherently mistrusting of differences. If you somehow manage to homogenize humanity to the point that we're all a uniform gray, we'll only find other things to differentiate ourselves through. Social hierarchies will form and persecution will continue.
It's human nature to aspire to be better than somebody else. It's human nature to want to be around like minded (and like cultured) people, and it's human nature to be uncomfortable with that which is different. This discomfort most often manifests as racism/sexism/homophobia in the less educated, and more subtle political maneuvering in those smart enough to hide their discomfort behind policy.
