Normally, when there is a new democracy with a democratically-elected President and the military removes him and replaces him with someone more to their liking, it's a bad thing.
However, many people feel that this the removal of President Morsi may actually save Egyptian democracy from being taken over by Islamists wanting to turn Egypt into an officially Muslim state with administration and justice coming in the form of Sharia law.
Clearly the majority of people in Egypt want a secular state, and even some of those who voted for Morsi see him as breaking his promise to create a religiously tolerant state.
Is this a case of Egyptians not "getting" democracy. After all, here in the US, if we don't like our President, we wait until the next election to vote him or his party out of office.
Now, the military is pledging that this isn't a permanent takeover, and they have even appointed a respected jurist, Adly Monsour, as the temporary President with a new democratic election to be held in 9-12 montlhs. In the press conference where they introduced Monsour they had leaders of various factions on hand, including representatives of Coptic Christians, various Muslim sects, and secular leaders. They also announced that there would be a new, improved Constitution.
They were certainly putting on a good show of being even handed and only wanting to establish a true democracy.
As an interesting sidebar, this places the US government in an odd position. There is a law calling for cutting off aid to any country undergoing a coup. Egypt needs aid right now. So, the administration is at pains not to refer to the events as a coup. Presumably, they want to take a wait and see approach.
How do you feel? Is this a case of "the end justifies the means?