I'd like to hear from the Copts but is this analysis accurate or overly naive?

http://blogs.ft.com/the-a-list/2011/10/1...t#axzz1aktW01mQ

Dan,

Any chance of a brief summary? I even tried to register (much as I hate doing that and assuring myself more junk e-mail), but the registration option just will not load.

I was talking to an Egyptian Muslim friend on Wednesday who told me that the radical Muslim factions there are using the Copts to promote a state of unrest that they hope will bring more of the mainline society to their side and benefit their cause in the near long run. He's very much afraid that the Copts and some of the non-militant Muslims are getting sucked into it.

Many years,

Neil

The real irony is that under King Farouk they had everything that they currently said they want, and peace was maintained. Yet in todays eorld we have made a god out of Democracy and see it as the only good form of Government, as if Democracy aurtomatically produces Rights and freedoms. But if the Majority side with the Muslim Brotherhood, then how does that contradict Democracy?

While I do not think all Muslims are evil or oppressive, I do think that the modern model that assumes Democracy is always a virtue in itsown right and is inexoably linked to an increase in personal freedom is absurd. We don't even dee that happenign in America or Europe,which have Cultures directly tied to those ideals, much less in places liek the Palistinian Authority.

Demopcracy is not about Freedom or individual rights, its about Majority Rule, and hwoever can stir the biggest mob wins.

what did we really expect would happen in Egypt?

I suggest that you try living in a country that lacks democracy before you decry its shortcomings.

You mean like Sark prior to 2007? Seemed a nice place. People actually got on better than they do now that Democracy was forced on them. Or what about Bhutan? It was, prior to the Kings "Gift" of Democracy to his People, the Happiest Nation on Earth. You also have the United Arab Emirates.


I'm sorry but I don't see how not being a Democracy makes a place automatically oppressive, and can name nation that exist now or did exist in current memory that were not Democratic and were also not dictatorships in which people lived in sorrowful oppression. Meanwhile, Democracy has a track record that includes the Soviet Union, the Peoples Republic of China, and NAZI Germany.

Spare me the usual rhetoric of how those places weren't Democratic, thats a No true Scotsman fallacy. Of course hey were, read their Constitutions, or in the case of Nazi Germany look how Hitler came to power via parliamentary Elections.

My own native UK has striped the power away from the Aristocratic Lords and Evil Monarchy and given it to the People where it rightly belongs with more reforms on the way. The result was suppose to be more Freedom, and instead we see people fired from their jobs for offering to pray for someone, high taxation, and the Government dictating how we should live and think to a far greater capacity than any Hereditary Lords ever even dreamed of.

The more Democratic Britain becomes the less freedom she enjoys.



Democracy is not Freedom. Individual Rights do not always exist in Democracy. Democracy is simply not all its cracked up to be.

It's beyond absurd to call the Soviet Union or the People's Republic of Chinas democracies, in spite of what their constitutions claim, and it's beyond absurd to call Nazi Germany a democracy, in spite of the way in which Hitler first became chancellor. You destroy any credibility you might otherwise have by using such ridiculous examples.

Our founders were skeptical of democracy and so am I. I am partial to a Constitutional Republic with a small limited central government.


Lets pray for our Coptic Orthodox brothers and sisters in Egypt.

Why are Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, and China not True Democracies and why do I destroy my Credibility by proclaiming them? As a Monarchist every evil Monarch who was a Dictator that ever sat on a Throne is used against me. Literally. Henry the 8th, Caligula, even King Saul, all used to show how bad Monarchy is. No number of Saintly Monarchs matter. But somehow these nations which were clearly designed from the basis of the same Enlightenment ideals as America or modern Western Europe don't count as "Real Democracies".

Well why not?


It seems to me that the only reason they aren't considered Real Democracies is because they were oppressive. But if you consider the form of Government itself, I can't really see why they weren't Democratic.





I will repeat myself: Democracy is not all about Human Rights being respected or specific Freedoms being Granted and never was. Democracy is not Freedom of Speech. Democracy is not Freedom of the Press. Democracy is not Freedom of Religion. Democracy is not the Right to Bare Arms. Democracy is nothing more than Majority Rule.


Meanwhile, Monarchy or other nondemocratic Governments are not all about removing those Rights.


As much as my views are not seen as sensible in the Modern World, Monarchy worked well for thousands of years, produced loads of Free Societies, moreso than tyrannies, and has the Sanction of the Church as the best of all Governmental Systems.

All the "New order" has yielded is a divided society with freefalling Morals constantly making greater progress toward sin and degeneracy.


To Nicholas Chase,

I also like small, limited Government. But I think Republicanism always trends toward larger bureaucracies, not small limits.

Well, it's really quite simple-so simple that young children can usually understand the difference. Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union were authoritarian dictatorships, as is the People' Republic of China. Authoritarian dictatorships are, by definition, not democracies-not even when, in the constitutions, they claim to be. Where were the free elections in these "democracies?" What was the fate of anyone who dared question the ruling party? Yes, democracy, as you claim, is about the rule of the majority. However, in a democracy, the rule of the majority is not to the exclusion of protecting the rights of the majority. Furthermore, the ridiculous examples you use of "democracies" aren't even examples of the rule of the majority. They are examples authoritarian, or even, in the case of Nazi Germany, and at time, in both the Soviet Union and the People's Republic of China, totalitarian dictatorships.

Now, if you prefer monarchies, that's fine. However, don't be surprised when people don't give you the time of day when you make supremely asinine claims such as calling Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, and the People's Republic of China democracies.

An important point.

aTHANASIUS-




By this logic I can say the United States is nto a Democracy, and neither is any nation in Europe. In some ways they are all Authoritarian, and Dictatorship isn't that far off either. In Modern Europe they literally ahave limitatiosn on Free Speech, and the same exists in the USA, for example. Unles you think Free Speech Zones aren't that bad. Lets nto forget the limits you have on yoru own use of yoru own property.







Actually Nazi Germany did hold regular electiosn and even WW2 did not stop them.


As for the Soviet Union and China, whilboth were or are single party Governments, both also hodl elections. Every member of the Sviet Duma was elected. While the Party Chairman had the bulk of the real power, the specific members of the Dumna were duly elected in Open elections. The Supreme Soviet was also elected. The Chair man and Counsil of the COmmunist Party held no more power, I shoudl add, though, than do special interest groups and the CHairmen of the current Political Parties int eh US or UK.


Modern China also holds Free Elections and unliemk the Soviet Union the Politicians do have much greate rpersonal Autonomy.






If we questioned the US or UK's rulign elites, we may not be killed but we won't be given a fair hearign either, and you are deludogn yoruelf if you think the duly elected Politician has no power over them from the Party Chairs and the Special Interest Groups.







I beleiv you mean Minority.

However, why shoudl I beleive Minority Rights will, or must be, protected in a Democracy?








They had duly eleccted Governments. Especially the Soviet Union and the Peopels Republic of China. It is True that the real pwoer lay in those who ran the actual Communist Party and not the seat holdrs, but in Modern America the real power rests in the Special Interest Lobbies and the people who run the two main Political Parties, not the elected Politicians who actually serve.






But I'm suppose to respect them when they say "Off with their heads" as an arugment agaisnt Monarhcy or act as if all Monarhcuies are absolutuist dictatorships.


meanwhile, I have to ignroe the foudnational Philosophy of the COmmunists or the NAZi's and pretend they arent the result of the same Revolutionary thinkign as the rest of the Modern World.

WHy is it so asinien to poitn out that the actual Governemtns of the Communist Nations came from the Enlightenemtns own push for Republicanism and an end t class and King?

The Truth is, the Soviet Union, China, and Nazi Germany while nolt as Free as the US or Western Europe, was still operatign under the same basic Republican Governmental system, and the Politicians were still elected, and had as much power as do as they pelased as modern Politicians.

Uh, no. They were not/are not democracies. Of course, there really aren't pure democracies. However, in the sense in which the term democracy is commonly used, it still doesn't work. Their so-called open elections were not free elections. You have only one party that pre-determined the outcomes of the elections. As much as the United States and other western democracies may have their own problems, it is beyond absurd to compare them to Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, or the People's Republic of China. Furthermore, I'm not buying your claims about their common philosophical basis. Nazi Germany was the dream of a madman. Communism, as it has existed over the last 100 years, is the result of a distortion of the thought of Marx, which was itself, a bad idea, based in what I believe to be Marx's own misapplication of the thought of Hegel, which is not without its own problems.

BTW, if democracy is so abhorrent to you, and monarchy is so wonderful, why don't you go live in one of the few countries left that have real monarchies, uncorrupted by the perversions of Enlightenment thinking, such as Bahrain, Brunei, Jordan, Kuwait, Malaysia, Morocco, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates? Or on the other hand, if communism is really no different than democracy, why not consider one of the few remaining communist countries? After all, since there's no real difference, they possibly couldn't be any worse, and maybe you'll actually like it more there.

Finally, thank you for pointing out my typing error. Yes, I did intend to write, "However, in a democracy, the rule of the majority is not to the exclusion of protecting the rights of the minority." Of course, your response is that you have no reason to believe that minority rights will be protected in a democracy. Why don't you go tell that to the many people who have fled regimes such as Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, or the People's Republic of China exactly because they were in the minority and ask them for their viewpoint on the treatment of minorities in the countries from which they fled, vs. the treatment of minorities in democracies?

Notice I said "free" elections. I'm very well aware that the Soviet Union held elections. It is a farce to suggest that they were in any way free elections. To say that the Chairman of the Communist Pary held no more power than do special interest groups and the chairmen of the current political parties in the US or UK is one of the most absurd statements I've ever heard in my life. Lenin, Stalin, and Kruschev (really, one could add their less powerful successors) were no more powerful than special interest groups and chairmen of the current political parties in the US or the UK? Do you really expect people to take you seriously when you write such insane statements? I really don't intend to be insulting, but I don't see how I can put it any more delicately than I just have.

As to your comments about modern China, I'll grant you that the situation there is in certain respects different from what one found in the Soviet Union. However, I'll be much more open to comparisons between China and the government we have here when China gets rid of its one-child policy, seriously reforms the way it treats the accused, and takes a much more tolerant stance towards dissenters.

Athanasius, your arguments make no sense historically or materially. For one you ask, if Communism really is no different than Democracy why don’t I, as a monarchist, go live in a Communist society. Well, why would I, as a Monarchist, do that? Does this all seem like a sterling support for Communism to you? One of the faults I have with Democracy is how it tends toward Socialism and then Communism, which should tell you I oppose such moves. Why would I go to a place that has embraced Communism then?

Further, trying to create a distinction between Communism and Democracy is itself harder when you examine the primary texts. You may say that the USSR or China were distortions of Marx and even Marx’s vision was a bad idea, but then again I can say modern America with its harsh stand on the Separation of Church and State that forbids school prayers or even nativity Scenes in public and that has erected “Free Speech Zones’ is a perversion of the Original Vision of America’s Founders, which in turn was a perversion of the ideals of John Locke.

In the end though, there would be no Marxism without Hegel, but Hegel built off earlier ideas himself, and Hegel is not the only voice that guided Marx. Do you think Thomas Paine had no impact? Marx did after all use the “Rights of man’ as a template, and many of the ideas found in the “Age of reason’ worked their way into his writings as well, and so did the works of Rousseau and the writings of Deiderot, and his Encyclopaedia. What about Voltaire? Had h no imapct on Young Marx? We also can’t discount Roppispierre and the effects of the Jacobins, or the works of Edward Gibbon in his perspective of how the world worked. Then there is the fact that MARX also read a lot of Thomas Jefferson, and Jefferson’s own Source was a source for Marx as well, John Locke. Hume was influential as well. Marx did not emerge as the sole successor of a singular man who got his ideas form a single man all the way back, and had borrowed heavily from previous Thinkers in order to form his new Thesis, which is nothing more than a synthesis of all the previous ones. Marx’s goal was to give a distillation of the summation of Human history and to frame all of that History in a functional narrative that explained the problems of mankind, and how man has progressed.

Marx envisioned the whole world as a Class struggle between the Rich and powerful, and the Worker. This I doubt will be contested. But he also promoted the creation of a Purely Democratic Society, in which all are Equal and nothing divides anyone else. He saw Communism as the End Stage of human progression, away from the exploitation nature of Human Society of Lords and Kings to the Exploitation of the capitalists, the successors of the Kings, and from them to a Dictatorship of the Proletariat and finally the abolition of all Government structures and equal participation of all.

His Chief inspiration was the idea that All men were Created Equal, that men were born free, but everywhere were in Chains. He wanted to continue the work of the Revolutions of the 18th century and abolish all Lords who held power over other men, and to celebrate the cause of the Common man. To Marx, the revolutions of the 18th century were just the beginning of the glorious new world that would unfold once all the power in every sector of society had been handed to the People.


I don’t see how anyone can read Marx and think his ideas emerged in any other context than that of Modern Democracies. He sought to further the work of the Revolutionaries, and overthrow not just the Kings but all Social Elites, and all on the basis of Equality, fraternity, and Liberty. His Philosophy is deeply rooted in this fundamental intent.

Had there been no John Locke there would be no Karl Marx. John Locke was the grandfather of Marx. Had there been no American revolution there would have been no French revolution and without those revolutions no Revolution of the people to inspire Marx, and no “Rights Of man“ to draw from.

Marx is the natural Child of the Democratic Impulses.



That said, I never condemned America and have even stood up for it in the past. But I am not a blind patriot who thinks that America has no problems or that American Society is somehow operating under the best governance. While I would much rather live in America than Cuba or China, I can’t deny that our Political Structure causes only division amongst the American people. For 8 years I heard how evil bush was and how he ought not be president. For 3 and ½ years I have heard the same of Obama. In Theory “We, the people” elected both, but I know this is a fantasy. Elections are not a gathering of the people to discuss the issues, they are simply Popularity contests whose results are far more important than which is the better book or movie based on sales, but not fundamentally different.

We have a divide between the Liberals and Conservatives, and a further divide inside those groups. Is such Division truly in the best interest of society? Is this how God would have us live? If so, then was Paul truly Divinely Inspired? I ask because Saint Paul write this:

***&&&^^^%%%$$$###


Elections themselves are Fundamentally Divisive, and do not brign about Social Respect and Stability.

Nor do they ensure that things like the One Child policy can never happen, and you once again confuse Human Rights with Governmental Form. If an Absolute Monarchy existed and had the same policy for the same Reason, to restrict overcrowding, you’d not say “Its not a real Monarchy” would you? Further, given that America and Canada and most Nations in Europe allow Abortion, seeing it as “A woman’s Right to choose”, how can I see these Nations awashed in Blood as Democracies whilst saying China, which only took it a step further, is not? Is there a Fundamental difference? And are you honestly suggesting that if a Nation has a Two Party System with both Open and Fair elections that nothing could possibly bring about a One Child Policy? Or harsh treatment for Political Dissenters?

I’m sorry that you think I am insane but, I think its insane to rely on Elections to keep our society Moral and Pure.

Elections would not guarantee that people have Freedom of Speech, nor would they prevent Laws being passed that protect dissenters, neither would they halt an institution of a One Child Policy. In fact, one can have a Pure Democracy in which the people vote open all Issues and still end up with a One Child Policy, punishment for Political Dissent, and poor Treatment of those accused of Crimes.

How does Democracy protect anyone from poor Treatment of accused of a Crime in and of itself? How does Democracy in and of itself Protect Political Dissenters? How does Democracy in and of itself prevent a Government from passing a Law limiting the Number of Children to one?

Are you honestly saying that a Politician elected by 51% of the electorate who turned out at Voting Day must always respect Minority Rights and can never possibly back Tough Law Enforcement measures that aren’t’ fair to the accused? Or can’t possibly see a One Child Policy as a good idea?

Peter Singer disagrees with you, as do many politicians in Europe who in fact think well of China’s Initiatives.

Explain to me how electing officials in open and fair elections in a state that allows multiple parties automatically ensures those things, if you will. Explain how they automatically must guarantee freedom. Or else explain what we should call a State that has open and fair elections with multiple parties that institutes a one Child Policy, and treats you as guilty if accused of a Crime and forces an uphill battle to prove otherwise, and that silences Political dissent.


I see no mechanism in Democracy that would prevent those things.

As a Monarchist I am often accused of thinking that Monarchy alone would end all social Evils, which is not so. I leave open the possibility of a corrupt King or a Tyrannical Government. I do not think Monarchy would ensure Freedom absolutely. I do however think that a monarchy, which always gravitates toward maintaining society and tradition, is less likely to become tyrannical, and is easier to reform is reforms are needed than can Modern Democracies with their elected Officials and their massive social bureaucracies.

I think that Individualism flourishes better in a Monarchy, as does respect for property and for each other, and monarchy has a better chance at instilling Moral Values and Virtues by laying aside selfish Ambition and quarrels for Power that divide society, and have us all under an agreed upon Authority.

Would it work perfectly? No, for men are not perfect, but it does work better historically than does Democracy.

A large part of this is because there are no special interest groups by which hold power.

You say it is insane to think that Lenin, Stalin, and Khrushev held only the same power as today’s special interests. Of course I didn’t say that, I compared them more to the Party heads. In that regard, I mean it. They are the King makers. The chairman of the Democratic party as well as the Democratic Party’s Ruling Counsel have tremendously Power over Democratic Politicians. All one has to do is look at the History and one will see that this is so, and that the real power never rests in our elected officials, but in the party chairmen and boards that run them. The Politicians owe fealty to their party and its creed, er, platform, and must obey its dictates as interpreted by whoever runs it to gain support and thus advance.



When Bill Clinton sought the Presidency back in the early 1990’s, he as pro-Life. He was told, in no uncertain terms, that the Party would not back him in his bid to become President unless he was pro-Choice. Demonstrating how Morality is often compromised in the modern political process, Bill Clinton had a change of Heart and is now Pro-Choice. He was also told to reform a few other stances, or modify them, which I cant recall properly but which is unimportant for the sake of illustration. Suffice to say, Bill Clinton was ordered to change his Moral and Ethical Views, and complied. Had he not, he would be denounced and never have been made President. His power relied solely on the good graces and material resources of the Democratic party. They, not the elected officials, control how things run.

The same is true of the Republicans. Do I need to list examples of how people are Groomed in the Republican party? I will, but this post is getting Long and my Bill Clinton example works for both. Its really no different. The party Chairman has more power than does the elect4ed Representative or Senator.


While one can say that Stalin or Lenin held tremendous power ( not so much Khrushev) this was as much a product of force of Will as anything else. It was not legally so. In theory Stalin was simply the Head of the Communist Party and Chairman. While in practice he yielded the power of a head of State and exhorted tremendous Authority, the legal Reality ( as opposed to the Material reality) is that he held only an advisory and administrative Role to maintain party cohesion, and could be overridden by the Duma.

The fact that the Duma operated under him as a rubber stamp is no different than the American Civil war in which Abraham Lincoln ruled as a near Dictator himself. Lincoln used Congress as a Rubber Stamp and enacted all kinds of things that the Constitution did not allow. He is now remembered as a great American Hero, but it doesn’t change the Legal facts that he was not much different than Stalin in terms of abuse of Power and ability to rule as a near absolute demagogue.

Speaking of America, was America a Democracy when America allowed Slavery? Was AMERICA A Democracy when it refused to allow Sedition in the Seditions and Treason Act? How about when the South wanted to Secede? What about the Tuskegee Experiments? What about when they Drove the Indians off their own land? How about the Internment camps in WW2?

Please do not mistake my meaning. I do not think America is a horrible place in the Modern World, or that it was nothing but a terror in those ages when these acts occurred, but I must point out that America has had near dictatorial presidents who crushed Political Dissent, and this includes the First and Much Respected president George Washington in the Whiskey Rebellion. The Accused have not always been treated fairly in American Courts either.

While, again, I do not think America is a horrible place to Live, nor do I think its as tyrannical as the Soviet Union was, or modern China is, I do not think America’s history is spotless nor do I think its present Situation is without Fault.


Nor do I think that, in terms of Human Rights abuses, any form of Government issues a Guarantee that such will not happen. These sorts of things can happen in a Monarchy as well, and I freely admit this. But the same sorts of actions you say make China or the USSR not real Democracies can find direct parallels in American history. They are not the result of the American governmental Form in and of itself, but are the result of a complex interaction of various ideas and social forces.

Republicanism and Democracy ( now all called Democracy) is no sure way to guarantee Liberty, and doesn’t cease to be Democratic just because it doesn’t live up to our expectations.

Apologies, but I meant to add a quote to St. Paul’s 1 Corinthians, but put a space filler in, as I did not recall the exact quote word for word, intending to replace it later. Someone came to the door and I posted this without replacing the space filler. Here is what Paul said I wanted to mention.

1 Corinthians 1 :10 (Authorised King James Version)

Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.

I do not see this as promoting the divergences we see in Modern Culture. I do not see how we can be of one Mind in an electoral system.