"Where is our warrant to take the side of a minority secularist splinter group against a majority-Muslim but tolerant democracy, should that choice arise? I'm not saying it has, but it's easy to imagine it could."

'In fact, I think this is *exactly* what's happening in Egypt and this is *exactly* what we should be debating. There's a small majority (52%) of people who want the country governed by (moderate - extreme) islamists and 48% that don't. I'm with the 48% that don't; the large secular minority that I feel will be repressed by what I'll gladly admit to be a fair and square majority. '

It's not exactly what's happening in Egypt, as you point out yourself in your response. I put "but tolerant" for a reason, in my original; as you point out, at least a sizeable portion of the 52% Muslim majority in Egypt would not be tolerant at all.

Imagine for me that they were actually going to be tolerant, and had elected a tolerant Muslim government that would not oppress the secular minority. Imagine also that the military had still committed a coup, and was secular. Would you still say we should support the military?

Redhouse, how can a self-proclaimed conservative argue that the USSR wasn't that bad.

The Soviet Union, and Soviet backed regimes are responsible for at least 165 million deaths in various famines and masscres during the 20th century.

No sane person can honestly say they support the Soviet Union just because under Stalin the literacy rate went from around 25% to around 70% and continued to increase later on.

TLDR

I think we should seriously start to study what the consequences are of a muslim in Egypt to convert to the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster under hypothetical future governments and use that information to guide with whom we want to do business.

In fact if the Egyptian government - as they did under Morsi - wants to create a list of "allowed" religions in Egypt, I think we should make them add the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster to the list to get subsidies from our countries.

"It's not exactly what's happening in Egypt, as you point out yourself in your response. I put "but tolerant" for a reason, in my original; as you point out, at least a sizeable portion of the 52% Muslim majority in Egypt would not be tolerant at all.

Imagine for me that they were actually going to be tolerant, and had elected a tolerant Muslim government that would not oppress the secular minority. Imagine also that the military had still committed a coup, and was secular. Would you still say we should support the military?"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PcnK3Kiw1Eg

@Fasces
Stop twisting my words TY.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=47i2-eOX6kE

To those who claim that the "secular west" is bringing peace to the world I propose to look for the list of war and conflicts of the western century. I'll post a non full list here (I'll add * to any war that involved at least one side who was democratic by the western criterias of his time). The death toll is assembled from various sources via the net.

1873-1914: Kaesar Germany vs India, 7,700 deaths vs 63,000 deaths
*1886-1908: Belgium vs Free Congo, 25,000 deaths vs 10 million (yes, you read right.)
*1899-1901: Boxer revolt in China, Japan, Britain, France, Russia, USA vs China: 115,000 deaths.
*1899-1902: Boer war, Britain vs South Africa, 5,774 deaths vs 68,000 deaths.
*1899-1902 USA takes the philippines: 4,500 deaths vs around 200,000 deaths.
1899-1902: Civil war in Columbia. roughly 100,000 deaths.
*1899-1920: Somalia: Britain vs Muhammad Abdul Hassan's kingdom: roughly 150,000 deaths.
1900-1917: Russia - deaths during Czar Romanov's regime:100,000
1900-1990: Brazil - decimating the indians: roughly 1,000,000 deaths.
1904-1905: Russia vs Japan: 45,000 deaths vs 85,000 deaths
1911-1931: Italy conqueres Lybia: 125,000 deaths
1912-1913: Balkan wars, many countires had participated: roughly 150,000 deaths.
*1914-1918: First world war: roughly 13,000,000 deaths.
1915: Armenian massacre: roughly 1,500,000 deaths.
1917-1922: Russian civil war - communists against the "white armies": roughly 9,000,000 deaths. At least half died of hunger.
1917-1928: China's civil wars: 6,800,000 deaths, most of hunger.
1918: Civil war in Finland: 20,000 deaths
1918-1920: Bolsheviks vs Poland: 60,000 deaths vs 40,000 deaths.
1924-1953: Stalin's reign in the USSR: at least 20,000,000 deaths.
1925-1928: Turkey vs Kurdistan: rouhgly 200,000 deaths.
1931 - 1945: Japan vs China: roughly 350,000 deaths, not including "the rape of nanking" incident.
*1939-1940: USSR vs Finland: roughly 100,000 deaths.
*1939-1945: 2nd world war: 66,000,000 deaths
1939-1975: Franko's reign in Sain: 100,000 deaths.
*1943-1949: Revolt against the communists in Greece: 158,000 deaths.
1945-1947: 2,100,000 Germans were deported from poland and Czechoslovakia
*1946-1950: France vs Vietnam and the Indo-Chinese borders: roughly 800,000 deaths, less then 100,000 are french soldiers.
*1947-1948: Turmoils after the British divided India and Pakistan: 750,000 deaths.
*1948: Israel's independance war: Israel 5,000 deaths and the arab states 8,500 - 15,000 deaths.
*1948-1949: Communist revolts in Korea: 60,000 deaths
1949-1975: Mao DzeDung rules China. Roughly 40,000,000 deaths. But hey, at least he practically eliminated illiteracy!!!
*1950-1953: Korean civil war, south vs north. Many countries were involved and the death toll was roughly 3,000,000 million
1950-1959: Revolt in Indonesia. Muslim movements fight each other. 40,000 deaths.
1950-2011: Tibet vs. China: more then 600,000 deaths.
*1954-1962: Algirean war of independance, against France: 537,000 deaths.
*1954-1975: Vietnam war. Many countries were involved. Death toll is roughly 2,500,000. Many civilians were crippled due to USA's use of chemical weapons such as "Agent Orange".
*1955-1972: Sudan war of independance: 500,000 deaths.
*1956: Sinai war: Israel vs. Egypt. 3,500 deaths.
*1957-1986: uprising against the government: 60,000 were killed.
*1960-1964: Congo crisis. Belgium vs. Congo: 150,000 deaths.
1960-1996: Guatemala uprisings: 200,000 deaths.
*1961-1975: Angola and Mozambique against Portugal: 140,000 deaths.
*1962-1992: Ethiopean civil wars.
...
... (I'm jumping a bit closer to our time)
...
1983-2005: Uprisings and militia wars in sudan. Over 1 million deaths.
1987-2007: Uganda war against militia: 300,000 deaths
*1999-2004: Czechen wars: 100,000 deaths to Russia and Militia.

I have posted about 25% of the entire wars of the 20th-21st centuries.
But roughly 41 million were killed due to man made hunger,
29 million were killed by executions\slavery
Wars inspired by communism: 17 million deaths including civilians.
Total amount of people killed in Communist regimes including both war and peace times: 87 million.
Deaths in non communist regimes (in most of which western countires were involved either directly or indirectly) - 116 million.

"Deaths in non communist regimes (in most of which western countires were involved either directly or indirectly) - 116 million."

I was involved (even driving) in a ccar accident in which someone died. That someone was in the other car. The other car ran a red light, side swiped me, and sent the passenger in the front seat through the windshield. Does that somehow make the accideent my fault? I didn't get drunki. I didn't run the red light. I didn't make the passenger ride without a seat belt. I was the victim. but by the logic above, if a Western nation gets incolved in a conflict (even after it's started) they are somehow to blame for the deaths from that conflict. I call bullshit!

You are right Draugnar. The French army was just taking an evening stroll in Algir, when suddenly a vicious horde of aborigins who didn't care about the international laws attacked them and then (accidently, no doubt!) died by the hundreds of thousands.

Seriously though. Take a look at Guatemala as an example: the USA is involved in coups, supporting arms and sending instructors to it's favorable sides from the very beginning of the turmoils in the late 40s to the 90s. Same goes for Afganistan against the soviets, Korea, Sudan and pretty much everyone else.

I count no less then 60 wars that the USA was involved in during the last 100 years.
France was involved in no less then 40 wars and military incidents during the last 100 years.
Britain was involved in 33 conflicts during the last 100 years.
Belgium was involved in 12 wars during the last 100 years.
Denmark was involved in 8 wars.

Please make note - these are the conflicts that the western armies were fighting physically! We are not talking about arming guerillas, drug lords and creating dictators such as Saddam Hussein and his friends.

But even so, none of these wars were fought on neither northern america nor europe. So what the fuck was the reason for them to fight...? By choosing which side to take, arm and train the western powers are taking direct responsibility of the outcome of these wars.
We all take sides in wars due to our ideology, ethnic identity e.t.c. I don't mind that. But you can't just close your eyes and compare hundreds of wars that were fought due to pure economic and diplomatic interest to your personal driving accident. Because you know, it sounds like bullshit.

@rh,

"'Imagine for me that they were actually going to be tolerant, and had elected a tolerant Muslim government that would not oppress the secular minority. Imagine also that the military had still committed a coup, and was secular. Would you still say we should support the military?"

"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PcnK3Kiw1Eg"

So thought experiments aren't in your repertoire?

I do but to have a government that is islamic but supports religious freedom, does not oppress the minority etc. in my book is a *secular* government, not an *islamic* government.

"I do but to have a government that is islamic but supports religious freedom, does not oppress the minority etc. in my book is a *secular* government, not an *islamic* government."

What if it is called "The Most Glorious Islamic State of Egypt," and it has state-sponsored mosques and requires Islam of its highest-level government officials?

I find that to conflict with what you said earlier about the hypothetical government being tolerant. If its highest level government officials execute policy correctly it shouldn't matter what religion he or she is. And it's not very tolerant to steal money from the minority to pay a mosque only the majority enjoys. What about you semck, would you like such a government?

"And it's not very tolerant to steal money from the minority to pay a mosque only the majority enjoys."

So is the UK a religious state that should be opposed by US military interests?

"What about you semck, would you like such a government?"

No. But I don't think that "would I like it?" is a very good criterion for answering the question, "Should I support its opponents militarily when it is a democratically elected government?"

So let me repeat my question more precisely.

Suppose (hypothetically) that Egypt is "The Most Glorious Islamic State of Egypt," which has state-sponsored mosques and requires Islam of government ministers (though not of legislators). Suppose also that is Democratic, and the regime that put this in place received 52% of the vote. Suppose there is no penalty (other than not serving as a government minister and not being able to use your state-sponsored religious institutions) for being a member of any other religion, or of no religion. And suppose there are moderately broad economic and personal freedoms, no thoughts of Sharia law, etc.

Now suppose a secular minority rises up militarily. Would you pull the trigger to lend them support?

"So is the UK a religious state that should be opposed by US military interests?"

Where is this conversation going? I said from the start that this was about treating dilemmas in the arab "spring" that may arise when having to choose sides, for example in Egypt, and so far I've been debating the merits of communism and now I'm debating whether the English government is sufficiently secular... (it is, and we both know it)

I definitely feel it would be a good idea for these remaining ties between western governments and churches to be severed, so as to set the right example.

I already stated earlier that I believe that secularism comes in degrees. Like you point out, the English government still has ties to the Anglican church and the English queen I believe is still the head of that church. That is fundamentally wrong, but doesn't have any practical consequences that make England a theocracy as far as i know.

OK. Forgive me for the question -- it seemed you were using that factor as justification for going to war with the hypothetical regime.

So what about the hypothetical question in my most recent post?

i would not pull the trigger

OK, cool, thanks.

On that we agree.

'I believe the Mubarak government was not the worst government imaginable for Egypt,' - considering Mubarak's former prime minister got 23% of the vote (2nd place) in the presidential elections last year; yeah, either the old regime wasn't so bad, or the one political party which had a base to campaign went out and did really well.

It is possible that consensus building and 'democratic' politics takes some time to put together. Instead of rushing things and getting it wrong.

Also, by the same rules applied to the Democratic Republic of Congo, chances are the "The Most Glorious Islamic State of Egypt", is not Most Glorious, and not very Islamic..

bump, no?