Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Cowen calls on unionist leaders to mark 1916

  • 21-05-2010 6:20pm
    #1
    trapsagenius
    Closed Accounts Posts: 410 ✭✭


    As the title says.

    Link- http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2010/0521/1224270804241.html

    It actually occurred to me that while this obviously isn't a massive deal, it would be a nice gesture from the unionists in the North to agree to commerate 1916. An agreement from the UUP would be especially helpful, and would go some in making up for their disgraceful foot-dragging over the policing and justice powers. A DUP backing would also help seal how far we have come over since the Troubles started. I think unionist backing for this commemoration would be nothing but helpful.


«1

Comments

  • #2
    Winty
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,033 ✭✭✭Winty


    They will mark it as its an important part of shared history


  • #3
    SlabMurphy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 462 ✭✭SlabMurphy


    trapsagenius wrote: »
    As the title says.

    Link- http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2010/0521/1224270804241.html

    It actually occurred to me that while this obviously isn't a massive deal, it would be a nice gesture from the unionists in the North to agree to commerate 1916. An agreement from the UUP would be especially helpful, and would go some in making up for their disgraceful foot-dragging over the policing and justice powers. A DUP backing would also help seal how far we have come over since the Troubles started. I think unionist backing for this commemoration would be nothing but helpful.
    Well your intentions are well meaning and I'm not trying to belittle you but I have a better chance of getting a date with Cameron Diaz than the unionists honouring 1916.

    I remember reading a book about Terence McSweeney's daughter Máire who was actually married to Cathal Brugha's son Ruairí. Anyway they were at a discussion in some university in England on some aspect of Irish history back in the 70's. John Hume was there along with ' moderate ' unionist David Trimble. Hume tried to introduce Máire and Ruairí Brugha to Trimble. But Trimble refused to shake Ruairí Brugha's hand saying he would not shake hands with the son of a murderer :mad:. THAT is the real face of unionism.


  • #4
    maynooth_rules
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,505 ✭✭✭maynooth_rules


    Detest everything about Cowen and his shambolic government, but I agree 100% with this.


  • #5
    FlutterinBantam
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,575 ✭✭✭✭FlutterinBantam


    The Unionists are dead right.

    1916 has nothing to do with them.

    Why would they get involved.


  • #6
    mike65
    Closed Accounts Posts: 88,972 ✭✭✭✭mike65


    Did Unionists call on Bertie et al to join in the 200th anniversary of the 1801 Act of Union on New Years Day 2001?

    I can't remember....


  • Advertisement
  • #7
    trapsagenius
    Closed Accounts Posts: 410 ✭✭trapsagenius


    SlabMurphy wrote: »
    Well your intentions are well meaning and I'm not trying to belittle you but I have a better chance of getting a date with Cameron Diaz than the unionists honouring 1916.

    I remember reading a book about Terence McSweeney's daughter Máire who was actually married to Cathal Brugha's son Ruairí. Anyway they were at a discussion in some university in England on some aspect of Irish history back in the 70's. John Hume was there along with ' moderate ' unionist David Trimble. Hume tried to Máire and Ruairí Brugha to Trimble. But Trimble refused to shake Ruairí Brugha's hand saying he would not shake hands with the son of a murderer :mad:. THAT is the real face of unionism.

    In fairness, Trimble was always re-knowned for his unbelievable, and often ridiculous, pettiness, so I wouldn't pay him or his actions too much heed.

    FlutterinBantam wrote: »
    The Unionists are dead right.

    1916 has nothing to do with them.

    Why would they get involved.

    First of all the unionists haven't said anything either way so how can you say that they're "dead right" when they haven't even responded?

    They should get involved because it would be a good gesture to the nationalist community and it would show that they've grown up a bit.


  • #8
    SlabMurphy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 462 ✭✭SlabMurphy


    trapsagenius wrote: »
    In fairness, Trimble was always re-knowned for his unbelievable, and often ridiculous, pettiness, so I wouldn't pay him or his actions too much heed.
    The ' moderate ' Trimble was an bigoted insulting little c*nt - just like all the rest of the unionists.


  • #9
    FlutterinBantam
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,575 ✭✭✭✭FlutterinBantam


    trapsagenius wrote: »
    In fairness, Trimble was always re-knowned for his unbelievable, and often ridiculous, pettiness, so I wouldn't pay him or his actions too much heed.




    First of all the unionists haven't said anything either way so how can you say that they're "dead right" when they haven't even responded?

    They should get involved because it would be a good gesture to the nationalist community and it would show that they've grown up a bit.


    I was referring to Trimble's actions.

    Grown up? I think both extreme sides of the idiocy up there should perhaps grow up.

    The people who have 'grown up' are the people who get on with their daily lives and ignore this kind of stupid stuff.


  • #10
    trapsagenius
    Closed Accounts Posts: 410 ✭✭trapsagenius


    FlutterinBantam wrote: »
    I was referring to Trimble's actions.

    No, you weren't. Stop backtracking. Why did you put the sentence in plural and present tense then?
    FlutterinBantam wrote: »

    Grown up? I think both extreme sides of the idiocy up there should perhaps grow up.

    The people who have 'grown up' are the people who get on with their daily lives and ignore this kind of stupid stuff.

    No, the guys who have grown up are the guys who, like Winty says, can commemorate such events as part of our shared history.

    And I don't think goodwill from unionists to nationalists or commemorating the past is "stupid stuff".


  • #11
    FlutterinBantam
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,575 ✭✭✭✭FlutterinBantam


    trapsagenius wrote: »
    No, you weren't. Stop backtracking. Why did you put the sentence in plural and present tense then?



    No, the guys who have grown up are the guys who, like Winty says, can commemorate such events as part of our shared history.

    And I don't think goodwill from unionists to nationalists or commemorating the past is "stupid stuff".


    I was referring to the real face of unionism comment pal.

    So you are in favour of nationalists commemorating 1690?


  • Advertisement
  • #12
    trapsagenius
    Closed Accounts Posts: 410 ✭✭trapsagenius


    FlutterinBantam wrote: »
    I was referring to the real face of unionism comment pal.

    That's even worse so.Let me get this straight-you think Trimble was correct not to shake hands with Ruairi Brugha just because he was the son of what Trimble viewed as a "murderer"?
    FlutterinBantam wrote: »
    So you are in favour of nationalists commemorating 1690?

    Come back to me in 80 years and I'll have an answer for you.;)

    This thread is just about unionists and 1916 anyway.


  • #13
    Blazer
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,452 ✭✭✭✭Blazer


    Honestly with the present state of the country does anyone really care who celebrates it?
    As for Cowen I wouldn't piss on him if he was on fire..as far as I'm concerned he's a traitor to this country.


  • #14
    trapsagenius
    Closed Accounts Posts: 410 ✭✭trapsagenius


    Berkut wrote: »
    Honestly with the present state of the country does anyone really care who celebrates it?
    As for Cowen I wouldn't piss on him if he was on fire..as far as I'm concerned he's a traitor to this country.

    I think it's always important to remember the past.Just my POV.

    And no matter how much you might hate Cowen, surely you accept that this is a good idea?


  • #15
    FlutterinBantam
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,575 ✭✭✭✭FlutterinBantam


    trapsagenius wrote: »
    That's even worse so.Let me get this straight-you think Trimble was correct not to shake hands with Ruairi Brugha just because he was the son of what Trimble viewed as a "murderer"?



    Come back to me in 80 years and I'll have an answer for you.;)

    This thread is just about unionists and 1916 anyway.

    What do you mean even worse?

    Trimble is right to stand by HIS beliefs in a non violent way.

    Unionists are right to ignore 1916 if that is their beliefs.

    What you people need to understand is that not everyone holds the same views as you do.

    And you are perfectly entitled to hold those views, but don't expect everyone to agree or take the same outlook;)


  • #16
    trapsagenius
    Closed Accounts Posts: 410 ✭✭trapsagenius


    FlutterinBantam wrote: »
    What do you mean even worse?
    I meant that that's even worse than what I thought you originally meant re the unionist being "dead right".
    FlutterinBantam wrote: »

    Trimble is right to stand by HIS beliefs in a non violent way.
    I'll ask you again-do you think Trimble was correct not to shake hands with Ruairi Brugha just because he was the son of what Trimble viewed as a "murderer"?If you don't mind me saying, what a ridiculous "belief" to have!

    FlutterinBantam wrote: »

    Unionists are right to ignore 1916 if that is their beliefs.

    Do you not agree that it would be a helpful gesture of goodwill to make?


  • #17
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    FlutterinBantam wrote: »
    I was referring to the real face of unionism comment pal.

    So you are in favour of nationalists commemorating 1690?

    I believe that there was a joint commemoration there some years ago with the then Taoiseach and Ian paisley.


  • #18
    FlutterinBantam
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,575 ✭✭✭✭FlutterinBantam


    I think I have been plain enough to be honest.

    Up to you to interpret my posts, but I can't put it any plainer.


  • #19
    Blazer
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,452 ✭✭✭✭Blazer


    trapsagenius wrote: »
    I think it's always important to remember the past.Just my POV.

    And no matter how much you might hate Cowen, surely you accept that this is a good idea?

    A good idea? Trying to get unionists to celebrate 1916? How many ppl were on here when the Love Ulster parade was mooted and were saying to hell with them.
    And what's wrong with just ourselves celebrating it?


  • #20
    trapsagenius
    Closed Accounts Posts: 410 ✭✭trapsagenius


    FlutterinBantam wrote: »
    I think I have been plain enough to be honest.

    Up to you to interpret my posts, but I can't put it any plainer.

    You haven't really been "plain enough" in all fairness.You've sidestepped all my questions.


  • #21
    trapsagenius
    Closed Accounts Posts: 410 ✭✭trapsagenius


    Berkut wrote: »
    A good idea? Trying to get unionists to celebrate 1916? How many ppl were on here when the Love Ulster parade was mooted and were saying to hell with them.

    Just think it would be a gesture of goodwill and would show that they've grown up a bit.

    And I find it hard to bear grudges against any men who disagree with Willie Frazer, tbh.That said, What happened that day was not representative of my beliefs.


  • Advertisement
  • #22
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    Berkut wrote: »
    A good idea? Trying to get unionists to celebrate 1916? How many ppl were on here when the Love Ulster parade was mooted and were saying to hell with them.

    The people behind the "love ulster" parade would not be representative of the Unionist community in general.


  • #23
    owenc
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 5,524 ✭✭✭owenc


    Nodin wrote: »
    The people behind the "love ulster" parade would not be representative of the Unionist community in general.

    Yes they are just bigots out of the uda in the orange order. They should not be involved only civilised people


  • #24
    Blazer
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,452 ✭✭✭✭Blazer


    trapsagenius wrote: »
    Just think it would be a gesture of goodwill and would show that they've grown up a bit.

    And I find it hard to bear grudges against any men who disagree with Willie Frazer, tbh.That said, What happened that day was not representative of my beliefs.

    You see....this is why we have wars/murder etc...
    Because someone wants someone else to do something against their will.
    If the unionists don't want to celebrate let them off. It's not going to hurt anyone is it? But no..someone will make a big deal out of it...come closer to the time then and someone will get hurt over this..whether it's a unionist or one of us...makes no difference in the end.


  • #25
    LordSutch
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,078 ✭✭✭✭LordSutch


    trapsagenius wrote: »
    Just think it would be a gesture of goodwill and would show that they've grown up a bit.

    The whole idea of celebrating 'Easter 1916' is an athema to Unionists, for in their eyes (and many others), the events of that week did nothing to bring them into the fold, and indeed, many would argue that what Cowan & Co plan to celebrate in Easter 2016 actually copper fastened a lasting division on this island, that stands to this day!

    The 1916 rising flew in the face of Unionism, (it was also very unpopular in Dublin), so I see no reason why today's Unionists should celebrate it :cool:

    No suprise, I won't be celebrating it either.


  • #26
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    owenc wrote: »
    Yes they are just bigots out of the uda in the orange order. They should not be involved only civilised people

    Not quite sure what thats meant to mean. I was referring to the rather notorious Willie Frazer.


  • #27
    owenc
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 5,524 ✭✭✭owenc


    Nodin wrote: »
    Not quite sure what thats meant to mean. I was referring to the rather notorious Willie Frazer.

    so your saying the orange order aint bigoted?


  • #28
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    owenc wrote: »
    so your saying the orange order aint bigoted?

    The whole Orange order all over the world? No, it isn't.

    The north certainly has a fair few in its ranks, but we can't throw out the good with the bad.


  • #29
    oppenheimer1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,084 ✭✭✭oppenheimer1


    I don't think anyone expects unionists to start extolling the virtues of Pearse and co. What Cowen meant I think, that is in the run up to 1916 anniversary, statements from prominent unionists perhaps referring to the rebels as bood-thirsty terrorists might be perhaps seen as unhelpful.

    Not would many down here consider the Ulster Covenant a great thing either. That said our ministers will attend the commemoration should there be one in the North. They will keep their views on those people to themselves should they hold them.

    Its a case of being polite and being seen to be polite is what's important.


  • #30
    trapsagenius
    Closed Accounts Posts: 410 ✭✭trapsagenius


    Camelot wrote: »
    many would argue that what Cowan & Co plan to celebrate in Easter 2016 actually copper fastened a lasting division on this island, that stands to this day!

    I'd say what copper-fastened the divisions was the discriminatory and gerrymandered statelet set up in NI.


  • Advertisement
  • #31
    Riddle101
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,441 ✭✭✭Riddle101


    I think Cowen should shut up and leave the unionist alone. The unionist don't have to do anything about 1916 since they didn't have anything to do with it. Not to mention the unionists back in 1916 were against the rising and opponents to the Irish Volunteers


  • #32
    loldog
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 634 ✭✭✭loldog


    This is a stupid idea. It's like asking the FF to help commemorate the Ulster Covenant.

    .


  • #33
    Victor
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 78,491 ✭✭✭✭Victor


    celebrates
    I think "celebrate" is very much the wrong word. While there are certain people* I will not mourn, neither can I celebrate death. I think the 1916 leaders and their peers were wrong to subject the country to what ultimately led to 9 years of war (1914-1923). While one might be tempted to blame the British and other foreign powers, it takes two to tango. One cannot condemn the blood on Kitchener's hand and celebrate that on Pearse's. The volunteer's war cry was no more acceptable than "Blood and Steel" or any other rallying cry, just not as catchy or (temporarily) successful.

    However, these events eventually led to the dividing of the island and the foundation of the state, so I suppose they do need to be commemorated. To encourage unionist participation, we must also commemorate events that they feel are important.


    * http://www.rte.ie/news/2009/0323/collopyp.html


  • #34
    owenc
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 5,524 ✭✭✭owenc


    loldog wrote: »
    This is a stupid idea. It's like asking the FF to help commemorate the Ulster Covenant.

    .

    What's so bad about the ulster covenant no one was killed


  • #35
    Mr. SS
    Registered Users Posts: 283 ✭✭Mr. SS


    owenc wrote: »
    What's so bad about the ulster covenant no one was killed
    Maybe because it was the basis of a sectarian dependency, which put the minority Catholic community through decades of second class treatment.

    1916 provided for religious freedom free from discrimination.


  • #36
    owenc
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 5,524 ✭✭✭owenc


    Mr. SS wrote: »
    Maybe because it was the basis of a sectarian dependency, which put the minority Catholic community through decades of second class treatment.

    1916 provided for religious freedom free from discrimination.

    How was it sectarian it was just like a survey to show who wanted no home rule. The Catholics couldve done the same if they wanted to. Why do yous always blame Protestants for everything. See all that nonscenxe such as catholic land being taken it's all a pile of rubbish only parts of land was taken.


  • Advertisement
  • #37
    Mr. SS
    Registered Users Posts: 283 ✭✭Mr. SS


    owenc wrote: »
    How was it sectarian it was just like a survey to show who wanted no home rule. The Catholics couldve done the same if they wanted to.
    When your the minority, against the majority, who have an empire behind them, it just doesnt work like that.

    "perilous to the unity of the Empire"

    "using all means which may be found necessary to defeat the present conspiracy to set up a Home Rule Parliament in Ireland."

    No mention of "all the people" or for "every creed" or anything remotely inclusive.
    Not only did they want to enforce their beliefs on the people of Ulster, but on the whole island. And the Catholics did try, the result was the Belfast riots no?
    owenc wrote: »
    Why do yous always blame Protestants for everything. See all that nonscenxe such as catholic land being taken it's all a pile of rubbish only parts of land was taken.
    Nonsense? Please look around you. I live in Wicklow and cannot go three miles of any direction of my house without bumping into a country estate, which would have been land taken off locals, they certainly didnt buy it. Humewood Castle, Glen of Imaall, Grangecon Demense, Stratford Lodge. All hugely expansive estates and thats just my tiny corner of Wicklow, I can't even think what it must be like in the north!


  • #38
    owenc
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 5,524 ✭✭✭owenc


    There's a difference the people down south were english the peple here were scottish, very little of the land was taken here it's all a pile of crap. The planters down south stole all the land the ones here came to look after the English from Irish . That's why my family came here. The nearest estate to here us like 10-15miles away and after that there ain't one till another 50 mile http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_country_estates_in_Northern_Ireland only two estates in my county and antrim. I bet you there's that many down south they canny make a list


  • #39
    Sand
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,609 ✭✭✭✭Sand


    Whole idea seems a little foolish. As Mike65 said, it would be like inviting Gerry Adams to commemorate the Act of Union. And with 1916, its not so much a historical commemoration of the events but an attempt to rehabilitate militant republicanism and place it at the centre of Irish civic identity, with the highlights enhanced and the lowlights washed out of the historical record. Ulster Unionists would have to become party to a process whereby a narrative they utterly disagree with is praised and revised.

    At best it would be awkward, at worst it betrays a disbelief that Ulster Unionism has any creditable alternative narrative of their own, which is patronising. Friends dont put friends in awkward situations. If the idea was to be raised at all, it should have been done privately to see what the reaction would be before it was blabbed to the media. However, you cant expect much better from the likes of Cowen.


  • #40
    Mr. SS
    Registered Users Posts: 283 ✭✭Mr. SS


    owenc wrote: »
    There's a difference the people down south were english the peple here were scottish, very little of the land was taken here it's all a pile of crap. The planters down south stole all the land the ones here came to look after the English from Irish . That's why my family came here. The nearest estate to here us like 10-15miles away and after that there ain't one till another 50 mile http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_country_estates_in_Northern_Ireland only two estates in my county and antrim. I bet you there's that many down south they canny make a list
    Then how do you explain 1: the dominance of unionism in the north and 2: the difference in opinion towards the union between Scottish people and NIers, if as you say, most planters were scots? Scotland seems to be pushing ever closer to independence.


  • #41
    Sand
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,609 ✭✭✭✭Sand


    Then how do you explain 1: the dominance of unionism in the north and 2: the difference in opinion towards the union between Scottish people and NIers, if as you say, most planters were scots? Scotland seems to be pushing ever closer to independence.

    Seriously? Scotland and Ireland, particularly Northern Ireland, have experienced fairly different political and economic paths in history. Hence, different results. Ulster Unionists have traditionally (i.e. since at least 1798, and even earlier) seen their interests aligned with the union with Britain.


  • Advertisement
  • #42
    Mr. SS
    Registered Users Posts: 283 ✭✭Mr. SS


    Sand wrote: »
    Seriously? Scotland and Ireland, particularly Northern Ireland, have experienced fairly different political and economic paths in history. Hence, different results. Ulster Unionists have traditionally (i.e. since at least 1798, and even earlier) seen their interests aligned with the union with Britain.
    It was he who made the distinction between the Scots and English, that the scots didnt take land, as in we have all been duped into thinking Catholics had land taken off them.

    I didn't say Scotland and Ireland, I said Scots and NI who he said were mostly Scots, so the difference in opinion between Scots themselves.


  • #43
    owenc
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 5,524 ✭✭✭owenc


    Mr. SS wrote: »
    Then how do you explain 1: the dominance of unionism in the north and 2: the difference in opinion towards the union between Scottish people and NIers, if as you say, most planters were scots? Scotland seems to be pushing ever closer to independence.

    That's obvious the main domination is Presbyterianism which means that thhey would be unionists! No matter what Scotland does they will still want the union


  • #44
    owenc
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 5,524 ✭✭✭owenc


    Mr. SS wrote: »
    It was he who made the distinction between the Scots and English, that the scots didnt take land, as in we have all been duped into thinking Catholics had land taken off them.

    I didn't say Scotland and Ireland, I said Scots and NI who he said were mostly Scots, so the difference in opinion between Scots themselves.

    No I said the main planters here were Scottish and English down south


  • #45
    Mr. SS
    Registered Users Posts: 283 ✭✭Mr. SS


    owenc wrote: »
    No I said the main planters here were Scottish and English down south
    I cant see where I denied that.

    Anyway, wont drag it off topic anymore, suffice to say we will see the UK break up in our lifetime without a shadow of a doubt.


  • #46
    owenc
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 5,524 ✭✭✭owenc


    Mr. SS wrote: »
    I cant see where I denied that.

    Anyway, wont drag it off topic anymore, suffice to say we will see the UK break up in our lifetime without a shadow of a doubt.

    Not in mines anyway. You all forget the catholic church is decreasing here I was in a catholic church in coleraine and there was only 50 people in a church that could hold 600 people. There is only one priest for coleraine and ballymoney. He said numbers were decreasing very quickly, there's only one church for 35,000 people aswell


  • #47
    Mr. SS
    Registered Users Posts: 283 ✭✭Mr. SS


    owenc wrote: »
    Not in mines anyway. You all forget the catholic church is decreasing here I was in a catholic church in coleraine and there was only 50 people in a church that could hold 600 people. There is only one priest for coleraine and ballymoney. He said numbers were decreasing very quickly, there's only one church for 35,000 people aswell
    The break up of the UK will ironically most likely come from Scotland and Wales!


  • #48
    dlofnep
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,759 ✭✭✭✭dlofnep


    owenc wrote: »
    Not in mines anyway. You all forget the catholic church is decreasing here

    The sooner the Catholic church, and every other religion for that matter decreases - the better the world will be.
    owenc wrote: »
    I was in a catholic church in coleraine and there was only 50 people in a church that could hold 600 people.

    Great. Although, if you're attempting to correlate the poor attendance of catholic churches - with the nationalist population, you're incorrect.


  • #49
    FlutterinBantam
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,575 ✭✭✭✭FlutterinBantam


    dlofnep wrote: »
    The sooner the Catholic church, and every other religion for that matter decreases - the better the world will be.



    Great. Although, if you're attempting to correlate the poor attendance of catholic churches - with the nationalist population, you're incorrect.

    Any chance of expanding on that 'theory'


  • #50
    dlofnep
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,759 ✭✭✭✭dlofnep


    FlutterinBantam wrote: »
    Any chance of expanding on that 'theory'

    I thought it was pretty explanatory. What exactly is it you are having difficulties with?


  • #51
    FlutterinBantam
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,575 ✭✭✭✭FlutterinBantam


    dlofnep wrote: »
    The sooner the Catholic church, and every other religion for that matter decreases - the better the world will be.

    Other than your opinion, not much substance to that?



    Great. Although, if you're attempting to correlate the poor attendance of catholic churches - with the nationalist population, you're incorrect.[/QUOTE]
    dlofnep wrote: »
    I thought it was pretty explanatory. What exactly is it you are having difficulties with?

    My main difficulty is that you seem to expect me and other reasonable people to accept your rhetoric as total fact;)


  • Advertisement
Advertisement