> a military pledged to the maintenance of a purely secular state that will overthrow any overtly religious government
That's an idea with a very bad history and no political legitimacy: What grounds does a general have to tell their neighbors what to do? Nobody voted for them. What stops the general from arbitrarily wielding that power?
Why vest that power in the military? A civilian institution could make the decision, such as a court interpreting a constitution.
I think you're being naive because the military always has that power, regardless of what people want to pretend. What would make it legitmate is that the people agreed to it ahead of time.
> the military always has that power, regardless of what people want to pretend
Maybe in your fantasies, but not in advanced democracies. Nobody would follow those orders; there's no evidence of it ever happening, in centuries. Technically, the people of Washington DC have the power to overthrow the government if they all rush the seats of power at the same time, but really they don't.
There have been hundreds of coup d'etat and attempts at such in "advanced democracies." And if you're trying to claim they aren't advanced if they haven't had a coup d'etat then there's just no true Scotsman, is there?
When? Where? I suppose it could depend on definitions of 'advanced' democracies, but it ain't happening in the modern US, UK, Germany, France, Japan, S. Korea, Canada, Australia, etc. etc.
That's an idea with a very bad history and no political legitimacy: What grounds does a general have to tell their neighbors what to do? Nobody voted for them. What stops the general from arbitrarily wielding that power?
Why vest that power in the military? A civilian institution could make the decision, such as a court interpreting a constitution.