Loyalty
Our world is imperfect and even chaotic, politically-socially-ethically.
There is certain to be conflicts of loyalty at all levels, and not only of people to their country.
That conflict is derived from there being unavoidable levels and priorities for personal and group loyalty.
The easiest situation is where a person has loyalty to his country or state and its ethic. He will accept and trust whatever this authority proclaims. This may be made more subtle, with religious conformity ensuring that individuals are loyal to a religion but as a tool of the state. In modern times philosophies have been used as if they are state religions. Modern democracy can be confused, in having an actual or virtual state religion, and claiming this to be a manifestation of democratic choice. Anyone with a different religion is essentially disloyal, and a potential traitor.
For states or countries and societies that are anti-authoritarian. Religion is more correctly ethical philosophy. That is to say, a degree of rational thought and decision is employed by individuals autonomously or within society. A society or state with maximised personal autonomy, only raises problems for the individual and group, where they act so as to infringe on that autonomy. There is ‘freedom of religion’ so long as it does not identify with a state, country, or territory.
For the anti-authoritarian ‘altruist’ democracy, such as the UK may approximate or have intend. That ethic has primacy. It is an outright contradiction for an altruist to support the ‘state’ or government, where it sees the UK acting against that democratic principle internationally or internally. Albeit, pragmatism is an essential value, and passive disagreement should usually be all that can altruistically be employed. Altruist society is tolerant of dissent which is not the same as outright freedom. For those in ‘altruist’ UK, who identify with religion that is not tolerably altruist, or who identify in some degree with another country or state, there is inbuilt conflict.
[It may be mentioned that the term anti-semite is foolish. It can cause confusion by being inclusive of Arab and other peoples. Nor is it sensible to be anti-Jewish. Judaism has its cuture which many Jews embrace, and which has no ethical content. Where there is ethical content it is not culture but philosophy, and there is potential conflict. Any and all racial law should be Universal and applicable to all so called ‘races’]
Loyalty
Re: Loyalty
What is your idea of a perfect "world"?
Re: Loyalty
Altruism is a fine idea in some contexts, where there is plenty to give but no reason to give but it's not currently underpinning western society or governments and nor should it. People should act out of self-interest but with an understanding that it's in all of our best interests to work together and avoid needless conflict. When peoples' intentions start become characterised by something other than self-interest, whether it be altruism or anything else, that's where the trouble starts. This same mistake will be repeated for all eternity and there's nothing we can do about it. Self-interest with reciprocity can't be corrupted like altruism can, we've seen altruism descend into madness more than enough times. Sadly though, it seems we will soon see it again. The left's altruism has already been twisted into madness and it won't be long until that madness lends itself to tragedy.