polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 28^th, 2014 at 11:00am:


gandalf,

If [as you yourself assert] "Egypt is over 90% muslim", then if [as moslems] 90% of the population of Egypt are [religiously entitled to, and are] prepared to lie [and say that they are NOT moslems], to protect their life, then logically, the converse is also true.

And then that 90% of the population of Egypt [the people who i say, are the filthy, DECEITFUL, LYING moslems!] would be prepared to lie [and pretend that they ARE moslems], to protect their life !

So in such a circumstance, all we can know for certain is that 90% of the population of Egypt are moslems, and we know that that 100% of all of those persons prepared to lie, if it is to their advantage to do so !

So Egypt is in a BIG, BIG, mess.

And 100% of the reason and 100% of the cause of the BIG, BIG, mess which Egypt is in, is ISLAM and its doctrines of deception, lies, and vicious intimidation and violence against those who would speak truthfully [e.g. those who live in Egypt, and would like to say;

"I live in Egypt, and i am not a moslem."

....but can't, because they are filthy, DECEITFUL, LYING moslems!].








polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 28^th, 2014 at 11:00am:


Silly boy gandalf!

Morsi betrayed/mislead ANYONE and EVERYONE who heard him speaking, as a deceitful, lying, moslem.

Q.
If moslems will lie so profusely, as they are want do, then who can know, when a moslem is not lying ?

A.
God knows.






google




Google;
taqiyya - the muslim doctrine of deceit







+++


Now, when it comes to democracy [in Egypt, or anywhere else].

The [in a democracy] individuals who make up a government [the ministers of a government], of themselves have no authority to govern others.

And even 'a government', of itself has no authority to govern others.

i.e.
Morsi and the Moslem Brotherhood have no 'innate' authority [of themselves] to govern other Egyptians.

The authority to govern [in a democracy], comes from the amalgamated/collective authority of all of the people who elect the government.

In a democratic system, only the people can give another group of people the authority [that is derived from the people] to govern with their permission, and on their behalf.

But a major problem is, that democracy can't work function, in a community made up wholly [or with a majority] of moslems.

Why not ?

Because democracy as a system of government, relies upon the honesty of those persons who wish to avail themselves of its 'democratic' purpose.

So Morsi and the Moslem Brotherhood automatically disqualify themselves, being moslems, and would only abuse a democratic system of government - and try to govern [in their own interests] without any proper authority from the people who would being governed.  [....as per the example of the post election MB/Morsi government!!]



So what Morsi and the Moslem Brotherhood should do, is to employ local Christians to run a democratic system of government in Egypt, for all Egyptians.

Because the Christians can be trusted to properly administer a democracy.

BUT MOSLEMS CAN NOT!

After all, it was Christians who developed the democratic governing system.




So again, i say;
Quote:

Pete Waldo wrote on Jan 28^th, 2014 at 7:51pm:


Quite the human rights beacon here Pete.  i know the early church was communist but I didn't expect even you to go full Stalin on them

Pete Waldo wrote on Jan 28^th, 2014 at 8:02pm:


That's OK, I'm sure many people believe you have been yourself deceived.  After all what member of a religion based on loving your neighbour could support killing babies?

Lord Herbert wrote on Jan 28^th, 2014 at 8:10pm:


Well is there anything suggest otherwise sans tinfoil hat?

Lord Herbert wrote on Jan 28^th, 2014 at 8:10pm:


maybe *shock* not all Muslims fit your hilarious caricature?

Lord Herbert wrote on Jan 28^th, 2014 at 8:10pm:


You can't really get LESS democratic than a coup Herbert.  They want peace for Egypt.  The answer isn't Morsi or a coup.  It's something else.

Pete Waldo wrote on Jan 28^th, 2014 at 9:09pm:


Falsely accuse? what?

Do you deny you think it is acceptable under certain circumstance to kill babies?  The fact you think their health is even relevant is frankly disgusting (not to mention victim blaming and entirely unprovable.)

Pete Waldo wrote on Jan 28^th, 2014 at 9:28pm:


Sorry, I believe that killing babies is wrong.  You seem to have a different opinion.

Lord Herbert wrote on Jan 28^th, 2014 at 10:41am:


Yes, Herbie, but we are free to vote for One Nation, you have to admit that.

We are a demokracy, no?

Pete Waldo wrote on Jan 28^th, 2014 at 11:14pm:


You raise a very interesting point, Pete. Dermokracy is undergoing a transformation as we speak. The same thing is happening in Thailand, where the Yellow Shirts are protesting against elections. Their argument is that people (rural villagers) don't understand demokracy - they don't know who they're voting for. According to the Yellow Shirts, their' political nemesis is merely voting in its own self-interest. Can this be democracy?

When the Arab Spring happened, I thought it would all end quickly with the generals hitting back. In most cases I was wrong - I was surprised. Mind you, In Egypt, it took them a year to do just that.

Morsi was not popularly elected. He pasted together a minority coalition. But according to commentators like Robert Fisk, deposing Morsi was more risky to an emerging demokracy than leaving him in. In Egypt, the Arab Spring is over. The generals are back in power.

I believe this will also happen in Thailand, who've had 18 coups since they became a constitutional monarchy in the 1930s. The thing that's different around the world now is that people in emerging demokracies are questioning the nature of democracy. When demokracy doesn't give them what they want, they want power returned to the generals.

Prior to Putin in Russia, there was also a push to return to communism. These are the teething pains of emerging demokracies. It's an issue Machiavelli identified with the emergence of the modern nation state: In the Discourses, Machiavelli said that it is much harder for people in republics to accept dictatorships than it is for dictatorships to become republics. In stating this, however, Machiavelli articulated the groups and interests that shape this dynamic. Democracy is never as simple as simply giving a majority of the people a vote (or in Machiavelli's time, it's landholders).

We don't have this debate in Australia. Instead, we just move from leader to leader, Labor to Liberal, in the vain but passive hope the next one won't be as bad as the last. There is, of course, no risk of the army seizing power, but there is a definite sense that demokracy is not democracy, which explains the popularity of independents and minor parties in the last two elections.

I think you're overdoing the Muslim influence in this. In Egypt, people want a stable government that delivers services. Questions of Muslim identity politics are secondary to this. If I'm not mistaken, the "Muslim" vote in Egypt is around 30%. Within this, however, are a range of social and political opinions.

The paradox is that we have Muslim fundamentalists advocating demokracy and secular liberals advocating a popular coup, but there is by no means a clear line in the sand here. It is a very complex debate, and I doubt even the main protagonists are able to articulate their positions with much clarity.

This is certainly the case in Thailand, just as it is in Egypt. I'll bet that among the Egyptian demonstration in Sydney, there were very different motives and many heated debates.

Political debate in Australia generally ignores the dimension of class. In the emerging (perhaps) demokracies of Egypt and Thailand, the question of class is crucial to understanding the political dynamic. In Thailand, western debate pitches the rural poor against the urban elites and middle classes. Both Thailand and Egypt are countries that have developed economically before they have given demokracy a chance to work. In Australia, it was the reverse, but as we developed economically, class was a crucial issue in Australian politics.  From Federation to the 1980s, your class defined the way you worked, lived and voted.

So before framing this issue in terms of religion, which is important, I'd be looking at the question of class, and how it influences religion and religious fundamentalism. I'd be framing this discussion in terms of political and economic development, and how social and religious concerns express these phenomena.

The developing world is now coming into its own. Within this century, we will see a transition in global hegemony from the US and Western Europe to East Asia. The question of demokracy is crucial. It is very unlikely that global power will ape the current US model. It is very unlikely that "emerging" demokracies will emerge as a reflection of the US and Western powers.

The US, of course, has been influential is this. By propagating puppet dictatorships in countries like Egypt, the US has cultivated the power of the generals. Demokracies like Indonesia have emerged despite the influence of the US in domestic politics, not because of it.

The generals, of course, are always waiting. As Max Weber said, speaking of reason and religious fundamentalism, "the gates to the church will always remain open".