Egypt and the Treaty of Westphalia
This is a bit of a free-flowing thought at the moment, but I wanted to strike while the massacre was hot. Lets assume for a moment that the majority of Egyptians like the Muslim Brotherhood but their ideas about Shariah Law and religious intolerance do not sit well with the democratic minded minority. If these were separate ethnic groups who had traditional territorial claims we could separate them and the Brotherhood would form the Islamic State of Egypt and the democrats would form the Democratic State of Egypt. However, there is no such territorial divide.
Prior to the Treaty of Westphalia the Holy Roman See had representative in territories controlled by dukes or princes. It existed concurrent to the laws of the prince. Territory meant little and there was often "frontiers" between princely states that were not under the control of anyone. After Westphalia the globe was split up and states were created based on geography, not political identity. A historic leftover of this period is the distinction in English common law and American law between law and equity. Equity was originally the province of the church - a separate court where certain remedies could be had that weren't available at law.
My question is: was that a mistake? Should we consider the possibility of two peoples sharing the same territory but with differing political alliances?
Bookmarks