Civilization is really more of a process. (So is Anarchism, incidentally.) I'm sure you're familiar with Ghandi's commentary on Western civilization; 'sounds like a good idea.' I wouldn't say we've gotten there, yet, but we're groping towards it. The process of civilization, or the progress towards civilization, involves technological and scientific advancement, pluralism, democracy, diplomacy, etc. Religion, on the whole, is generally speaking, fundamentally antithetical to this process. It is divisive, authoritarian, irrational, etc. Nation-States (Which should be distinguished from the broader 'government', which is really any model of social organization.) are similarly corrosive to society. Part of the philosophical basis of the Nation-State is that it's borders are lines of magical power, that seperate human beings into opposing teams. Every Nation-State asserts it's people are uniquely benevolent, virtuous, etc., and that theyir interests are fundamentally different from, and in conflict with, the interests of other peoples. Even something as large and complex as the Cold War was essentially a scaled-up version of tribal warfare. As long as humans are divided into competing tribes like this, again, there is going to be a cap on human progress. There's really no possibility of a thriving, technologically advanced, interplanetary civilization where these forces still hold sway. Ultimately, we will have to shrug off the vestiges of the dark ages, and step forward into the future.
You're essentially saying the same thing three different ways. This is the 'Human Nature' argument against Anarchism, which tends to be one of the most common. This is a big thorny issue, so I'm just going to adress it in the simplest and broadest terms, for these purposes. First, does such a thing as human nature exist? The theory that we come into this world as a tabula rasa seems to be fairly clearly debunked. We definitely come into this world pre-loaded with some rudimentary software. Aggression, and territoriality are, no doubt, wired into us, but equally so is compassion, creativity, etc. Neurology and evolutionary biology are giving us more and more evidence that humans indeed are endowed with an innate moral sense. Clearly, there is a substantial range of human existence; from the sublime to the thoroughly debased, from the Albert Einstein's and the Martin Luther King's to the Ted Bundy's, and the Osama bin Laden's. The question is what model of social organization is most ideal to complement and foster those attributes that are most beneficial for the individual, and for society at large. Clearly, just as there is a significant difference between the range of possibilities in terms of individuals, we can look at the cumulative effects of different models on the macro scale. We can look at Pinochet's Chile, or Afghanistan under the Taliban regime, and contrast that with modern day Sweden, or Canada. In general, in the west, as we have become increasingly secular, democratic, technologically advanced, etc., violence, as a part of everyday life, has, generally, plummeted precipitously. That isn't to say we don't live with horrific violence, or that it can't be drastically reduced further, I'm just speaking in comparison with preindustrial existence. In a nutshell, I would argue that it is precisely the monolithic social institutions, and the belief systems propogated to justify their existence, that create the majority of the ills that afflict modern society.