Civil unrest around the world

[Lamplighter]

From the beginning of the uprising in Egypt, I could not figure out how
the US could decide who to support.
I was surprised when Obama first came out early on saying Mubarik should resign.

Now, a couple of years later he is in the same situation,
and doesn't seem to have a good reason for supporting one side or the other.
His TV announcement a few minutes ago seemed pretty "vanilla".
"Stop the fighting" is about all he could convey.

For now, it seems to me the US position can only be to do nothing different.
By that I mean, the $1B in foreign aide will continue because to discontinue
it would probably have far reaching effects later when a new government is formed.

I suspect the US will sit back and wait to see how things work out,
rather than trying to enter the fray on one side or the other.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Lamplighter

I suspect the US will sit back and wait to see how things work out, rather than trying to enter the fray on one side or the other.

US has a problem. A blunt honest US position is religion has no place in any government. But that causes problems with other 'friendly' governments that really are not democracies because religion is fully embedded into their governments. Israel being a perfect example. Due to religion, then overt and intentional double standards (also called racism) is justified. That must not exist in any true democracy.

If you did not learn about General Sisi, then you did not yet understand other wild cards in Egypt. Many players are at that poker table. Each with completely different ideas about what is democracy, if democracy really works, and what kind of power they crave.

General Sisi was even educated in Pennsylvania. One of the first things he did was purge the Army of supporters of the previous supreme commander. We may now be seeing why he did that.

[BigV]

Originally Posted by tw

snip--

Meanwhile arguing of a tiny point averts what is relevant. Democracy requires separation of church and state. What is your opinion? Yes or No? Please stick to what is relevant.

--snip

Ok, let's talk about what's relevant.

Does democracy require the separation of church and state?

I say no. Democracy is a form of government where the decisions about how the state will act are made by the people. What are the laws, how will the state conduct itself, how will the group function; if those decisions are made by the members of the group, then that's a democracy. It neither includes nor precludes religion. Democracy is an idea. How it is applied varies greatly through time and across populations. It is helpful to observe democracy (and its varieties) in contrast to similar ideas and applications that aren't democracy, like monarchies or dictatorships or other forms of government.


Now, back to your post that started this part of the discussion; let's talk about what's relevant in that post.

Originally Posted by tw

US has a problem. A blunt honest US position is religion has no place in any government.

I agree with these two statements.

Originally Posted by tw

But that causes problems with other 'friendly' governments that really are not democracies because religion is fully embedded into their governments. Israel being a perfect example.

We have lots of problems with lots of other governments for lots of reasons, some of which are rooted in the difference between the tradition in the United States of separating church and state and the tradition in other governments that are less inimical to that idea. Israel being a perfect example. However. As I indicated, by itself, religion integrated into government doesn't mean the government can't be democratic. How things are decided is the defining characteristic of democracy, and that *can* include decisions about religion.

Originally Posted by tw

Due to religion, then overt and intentional double standards (also called racism) is justified. That must not exist in any true democracy.

Yeah... this is where you go off the rails and just mashup definitions and words, oblivious to what the words really mean. You have spoken in the past about how talking heads on the right use words disingenuously. This is plain misuse and I called you on it, others called you on it, why you persist is your business. But if you base your arguments on it, they're faulty. Meanwhile, I'll just overlook it.

Originally Posted by tw

If you did not learn about General Sisi, then you did not yet understand other wild cards in Egypt. Many players are at that poker table. Each with completely different ideas about what is democracy, if democracy really works, and what kind of power they crave.

General Sisi was even educated in Pennsylvania. One of the first things he did was purge the Army of supporters of the previous supreme commander. We may now be seeing why he did that.

There certainly are lots of players, wild cards, ideas about what democracy is, etc. Your truest remark here is about power. Everyone craves power, even the simple citizens, and they want "democracy", the power of self-determination. Those that might represent them, or lead them, or rule them, they have and want power too. And how much they are willing to share that power is the biggest unanswered question, that's what this struggle is about. For many, it is a matter of life and death. Some fight and die for their personal power, others are fighting for the chance that the sovereign power will reside with the people.

Originally Posted by tw

Racism was always about judging people only on first impressions. Racism was never only about race.

A white skinned and black skinned man can be of similar race. And still racism says they are different. Racism (as so many use the term) foolishly says two white men with major race differences are same. Again, judging only based upon first impressions rather than first learning the facts (ie DNA analysis).

Racism is any judgement based upon first impressions. Israel is an example. For example learn how they treat Eritrean refugees and other non-Jews from torture camps on Israel's border.

Hate based upon religion is only another example of racism. Democracies have no business associating religion with government. A democracy cannot exist when government and religion are same. Democracy demands that the emotional concept called religion be separate from the pragmatic concept called government. Unfortunately, the US government does not make that distinction when discussing democracies elsewhere.

.... Y'know, I've already held forth on this and so have others. I think sexobon gave the most generous answer, and I am reading the situation using the kinds of interpretations he discusses. I don't really care to twist your arm until you cry uncle, I know better than to try to extract some kind of retraction from you. As you said, let's focus on what's relevant.