Northern Protestants

Tim Robbins

Hello!
Just reading Susan McKay's "Northern Protestants". It's not bad. A collection of anecdotes from Northern Protestants. I am just wondering though how skewed and biased it is.

For example, most of the people she interviews are loyalists, involved with the Orange Order and would veer towards the hardline of the spectrum. I would guess at least 3 / 4 of the people she interviews are like this. I would have thought only about 1 / 4 of Northern Protestants were that extreme and hence this book, like every other book on the North is biased and skewed.

Anybody like to comment?

Fratton Fred

I hate the term "Protestant". IMHO, the term "Protestant" is something which has been created to form an anti Catholic alliance in NI.

there is a difference between Presbytarian, Anglican, Methodist etc. I think you will find that most "Protestants" in NI are Presbytarian which is as different to Anglicanism as Catholicism is.

Technically speaking, everyone who is not Catholic or Orthodox is a Protestant.

(Sorry, I didn't mean to have a rant on you thread, I have a couple of anecdotes from a friend who was a reverend in South Belfast for a while. I'll post them up when i remember them fully)

marco murphy

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I hate the term "Protestant". IMHO, the term "Protestant" is something which has been created to form an anti Catholic alliance in NI.

there is a difference between Presbytarian, Anglican, Methodist etc. I think you will find that most "Protestants" in NI are Presbytarian which is as different to Anglicanism as Catholicism is.

Technically speaking, everyone who is not Catholic or Orthodox is a Protestant.

(Sorry, I didn't mean to have a rant on you thread, I have a couple of anecdotes from a friend who was a reverend in South Belfast for a while. I'll post them up when i remember them fully)

You are correct. Another generalisation.

irish_bob

presbyterianism would be regarded as more rigid and conservative than anglicanism , those of that denomination would be seen as more anti catholic than anglicans also

this is of course another genralisation

Fratton Fred

irish_bob wrote: »

presbyterianism would be regarded as more rigid and conservative than anglicanism , those of that denomination would be seen as more anti catholic than anglicans also

this is of course another genralisation

True, but one of the anecdotes is this.

A CoI minister who was a colleague of my friend was unfortunate to lose a young son, a innocent victim to an IRA bomb. The minister, being a better man than I, took it upon himself to use his sons tragic death as an opportunity to build bridges, to forgive rather than seek vengance.

He actually worked very hard starting up youth clubs where Catholics and Protestants could mix and worked hard to break down some of the barriers in the local community.

The Bishop told him that all this peace and reconciliation was fine, but not to let it get in the way of the day job :rolleyes:

That is tragic in my mind, what the heck is the Chuch about if its not peace and reconciliation. I believe the guy moved to Canada not longer after that.

Tim Robbins

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I hate the term "Protestant". IMHO, the term "Protestant" is something which has been created to form an anti Catholic alliance in NI.

there is a difference between Presbytarian, Anglican, Methodist etc. I think you will find that most "Protestants" in NI are Presbytarian which is as different to Anglicanism as Catholicism is.

Technically speaking, everyone who is not Catholic or Orthodox is a Protestant.

(Sorry, I didn't mean to have a rant on you thread, I have a couple of anecdotes from a friend who was a reverend in South Belfast for a while. I'll post them up when i remember them fully)

Completly agree. It's the most obvious example of the media dumbing it down. The Anglicans are also technically Catholic but not Roman Catholic.

The Presbyterians were also harshly treated by the Anglicans in the Penal laws and were originally regarded as the most liberal Christian sect of all because the didn't even have Bishops and favour a lot of local autonomy and people making their own decisions.

The Free Presbyterians who split from the Presbyterians are hyper conservative. Important to remember this as a lot of the time the media brush the FPs with Ps, as if they were both the same. Patsy McGarry in the Times is always doing it. Right now, I think it's difficult to say if the Presbyterians are less or more liberal than the Anglicans. The Anglicans and Presbyterians in the South differ hugely from those in the North.

Anyway back to the OP. Not sure if anyone else is read this book, it is called "Northern Protestants" which is why I called the thread that.

I think she is simplfying and I am wondering does anyone agree with me?

Personally I would have called the book "Northern Loyalists" as that is all she is mainly interested in.

LordSutch

Tim Robbins wrote: »

I would have thought only about 1 / 4 of Northern Protestants were that extreme and hence this book, like every other book on the North is biased and skewed.

Anybody like to comment?

You are correct in your conclusions Tim.

guinnessdrinker

I read the book a year or so ago. It's a good read alright with some interesting interviews.

Some of the things that stood out for me are the fact that some of the younger people interviewed had no problem with a United Ireland happening and how they felt differently about Northern Ireland once they moved away from it. Also one person mentions that there was I think it was a Norman fort near her house but she never knew what it was growing up because nobody spoke about history prior to the plantations. An elderly lady tells a story about something that happened during the War of Independnce that went something like this; the Tans would stop their truck and tell the people on the road to run, if they ran they were shot but if they stood still they were not shot. She explained this by saying something like, "our side were told not to run!"

I think the fact that the author herself is protestant helped her in getting a lot of the interviews. I would recomend it to anyone interested in the subject.

LordSutch

Yeah right, but as the author of this thread has already suggested, maybe it is a good read, but only if you want a biased & skewed view of all Northern Protestants?

Fratton Fred

guinnessdrinker wrote: »

and how they felt differently about Northern Ireland once they moved away from it.

I used to drink in an Irish pub in my younger days with some friends and their Dad(The Rose in Maidenhead). You would quite often hear about a fight in the pub in the local rag and not being able to recall it happening.

Typically, there would be 10 or 12 lads from NI in there, enjoying a lock in from the landlord. Someone would knock over a pint, or a "Rebal" song would come on the jukebox. then the words "Prody" or "Fenian" would get mentioned and all hell would break loose, usually ending up with 4 or 5 of them speding the night in a cell.

The next day the same guys would be in there, propping up the bar the very best of friends.

But yeah, most of them would say the same thing, away from NI none of it seemed to matter anymore, until they wanted a good fight.

guinnessdrinker

ArthurF wrote: »

Yeah right, but as the author of this thread has already suggested, maybe it is a good read, but only if you want a biased & skewed view of all Northern Protestants?

Perhaps, but how much is biased and skewed? Here is a quote from the cover of the book by the late David Ervine; "The problem that I had with this book was that it was true and frightening and painful ... I wish that every Protestant and every unionist would read it."

Also, another quote by him from the inside page; "Essentially a book like this, if it can be widely read - and I hope that it is - [will allow] people to begin to recognise the degrees of denial that we have and the sense of perception that we have of ourselves which is not shared by others"

I for one, respected David Ervine and took notice when he had something to say. It's true that the book may be difficult reading in parts for some unionists but nevertheless it is in my opinion interesting if read with an open mind.

LordSutch

I always looked upon Ervine as the Loyalist version of Adams, and for that reason I respected his counter arguments over the Provo analysis of the troubles. It was the Title of this thread that drew my attention in the first place > Hello! Just reading Susan McKay's "Northern Protestants". It's not bad. A collection of anecdotes from Northern Protestants. I am just wondering though how skewed and biased it is.

For example, most of the people she interviews are loyalists, involved with the Orange Order and would veer towards the hardline of the spectrum. I would guess at least 3 / 4 of the people she interviews are like this. I would have thought only about 1 / 4 of Northern Protestants were that extreme and hence this book, like every other book on the North is biased and skewed.

Anybody like to comment?

I have not read the book myself, but the author of the Thread says that "Most of the people she interviews are Loyalists" and I say thats fair enough (Ervine being one himself) but Loyalists are Loyalists & they do not represent the majority of Protastants or Unionists North or South, so (on that basis) I would expect the book to be biased & skewed, for it does not represent 'Middle Ground Unionism' . . . .

I just wanted to make that point on behalf of 'Non Loyalists'.

guinnessdrinker

I know where you are coming from Arthur. I, like the op have read the book but I disagree with the comment that "most of the people she interviews are loyalists". She interviewed a wide cross section of "Northern Protestants". I don't have the statistics but I would guess that only a quarter of those interviewed were loyalists. The rest included people like ordinary housewifes, business people, students, members of unionist parties and so on.

Yes, some loyalists were also interviewed as were members of the orange order and ex prisoners however, for me it was the opinion of the ordinary people with no ties to loyalisim that interested me the most.

LordSutch

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I hate the term "Protestant". IMHO, the term "Protestant" is something which has been created to form an anti Catholic alliance in NI.

Technically speaking, everyone who is not Catholic or Orthodox is a Protestant.

Technically speaking Protestants are also Catholic, but this is not to be confused with being Roman Catholic

Tim Robbins

guinnessdrinker wrote: »

I know where you are coming from Arthur. I, like the op have read the book but I disagree with the comment that "most of the people she interviews are loyalists". She interviewed a wide cross section of "Northern Protestants". I don't have the statistics but I would guess that only a quarter of those interviewed were loyalists. The rest included people like ordinary housewifes, business people, students, members of unionist parties and so on.

Yes, some loyalists were also interviewed as were members of the orange order and ex prisoners however, for me it was the opinion of the ordinary people with no ties to loyalisim that interested me the most.

I am guessing 3/4 she interviews are staunch, loyalist, Free Presbyterian or hardline presbyterian and 1/4 aren't. That's impression I am getting with two chapters to go. She also seems to go to great lengths to illustrate the blase reactions to the Quinn murders in '98. Surely there's filtering going on.

I think it would have been better to split the chapters up by religion e.g. one for Prebyterians, one for C.o.I., one for Free Presbyterian etc. etc. Each chapter explain their background, their Churches position and then give a range of analysis of some of its members.

She also could have also gone through some statistics or empiracle analysis. Anecdotes can be unreliable.

Overheal

was it not originally called Calvinism or do i have my wires crossed?

ArthurF wrote: »

Yeah right, but as the author of this thread has already suggested, maybe it is a good read, but only if you want a biased & skewed view of all Northern Protestants?

kind of like the PULSE website does for its take on Republican Irish? :rolleyes:

Tim Robbins

Overheal wrote: »

was it not originally called Calvinism or do i have my wires crossed?

The Theology is Calvinism.
Basically A French man by the name of John Calvin set up his own reformed Church with his own ideas. A Scottish man by the name of John Knox took it back to Scotland and ran it on Presbyterian principles. Which meant no Bishops and local autonomy. It started off as a very liberal branch of Christianity and then the North came along :-)

Fratton Fred

Tim Robbins wrote: »

The Theology is Calvinism.
Basically A French man by the name of John Calvin set up his own reformed Church with his own ideas. A Scottish man by the name of John Knox took it back to Scotland and ran it on Presbyterian principles. Which meant no Bishops and local autonomy. It started off as a very liberal branch of Christianity and then the North came along :-)

A liberal branch of Christianity that was persecuted and massacred by Catholic mobs.

when you trace the history back, it is easy to see where the hatred of Catholicism originated from, but most "Protestants" have moved on. That seems to be a problem for some though.

Tim Robbins

Fratton Fred wrote: »

A liberal branch of Christianity that was persecuted and massacred by Catholic mobs.

when you trace the history back, it is easy to see where the hatred of Catholicism originated from, but most "Protestants" have moved on. That seems to be a problem for some though.

And all Protestants were descrimated by in the state of Republic of Ireland until the removal of the special position of the Roman Catholic church in our constitution.

One could also argue that the Orange Order hatred of Roman Catholic's was just as bad as the G.A.A.'s outright banning of the RUC or British Army members from playing it's sports and of its own members not being allowed to play Soccer or Rugby.

It's really a futile excercise to see "which side" is more at fault.

Bring on atheism or else lower religious and ethnic extremism please!

turgon

Tim Robbins wrote: »

It's really a futile excercise to see "which side" is more at fault.

Too true.

Was in a pub the other weekend, and for some reason this old man started naming off people he thinks should be convicted for war crimes - Margaret Thatcher, John Major etc. So I threw in Gerry Adams (mainly just to see what would happen). Of course I got the age old rant. He couldn't accept than the IRA was also wrong. He was against the Brighton bombings though.

Fratton Fred

Tim Robbins wrote: »

And all Protestants were descrimated by in the state of Republic of Ireland until the removal of the special position of the Roman Catholic church in our constitution.

One could also argue that the Orange Order hatred of Roman Catholic's was just as bad as the G.A.A.'s outright banning of the RUC or British Army members from playing it's sports and of its own members not being allowed to play Soccer or Rugby.

It's really a futile excercise to see "which side" is more at fault.

Bring on atheism or else lower religious and ethnic extremism please!

I would not try and say which side is right, becuase I don't believe either are. I find it interesting to see why the hatred started in the first place though.

What it appears to boil down to though, is the various monarchys around europe either being pro Rome or anti Rome and the subsequent infighting between them. Rome was always only to happy to poke its oar in as well which didn't help. Unfortunately poor old Joe Soap got caught up in it all and ended up choosing sides which divided communties.

Tim Robbins

turgon wrote: »

Too true.

Was in a pub the other weekend, and for some reason this old man started naming off people he thinks should be convicted for war crimes - Margaret Thatcher, John Major etc. So I threw in Gerry Adams (mainly just to see what would happen). Of course I got the age old rant. He couldn't accept than the IRA was also wrong. He was against the Brighton bombings though.

Brilliant. We are incapable of seeing our own biases. A bloke went crazy with me because I told him I thought Martin Dillon was biased and sensationalist.

Overheal

turgon wrote: »

Too true.

Was in a pub the other weekend, and for some reason this old man started naming off people he thinks should be convicted for war crimes - Margaret Thatcher, John Major etc. So I threw in Gerry Adams (mainly just to see what would happen). Of course I got the age old rant. He couldn't accept than the IRA was also wrong. He was against the Brighton bombings though.

my dad still wont let me say bad stuff about Nixon - because despite the watergate scandal, he stopped the draft. people will stand behind whoever suits them, its simply the way of things.

guinnessdrinker

Tim Robbins wrote: »

I am guessing 3/4 she interviews are staunch, loyalist, Free Presbyterian or hardline presbyterian and 1/4 aren't. That's impression I am getting with two chapters to go.

That is not the impression I got from reading the book but we will have to agree to disagree.

Tim Robbins wrote: »

I think it would have been better to split the chapters up by religion e.g. one for Prebyterians, one for C.o.I., one for Free Presbyterian etc. etc. Each chapter explain their background, their Churches position and then give a range of analysis of some of its members.

Possibly, although it would probably have turned into a different book altogether if done in that way.

Tim Robbins wrote: »

She also could have also gone through some statistics or empiracle analysis. Anecdotes can be unreliable.

I don't think she set out to prove anything by compiling a list of statistics, again, the idea might have been good but it's for another book imo.

Of course anecdotes are unreliable but they make for intersting reading. Sometimes it is a lot more interesting reading about indivdual people's stories and views than it is to look at countless statistics and that is one of the reasons for me that made the book a good read.

Tim Robbins

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I would not try and say which side is right, becuase I don't believe either are. I find it interesting to see why the hatred started in the first place though.

What it appears to boil down to though, is the various monarchys around europe either being pro Rome or anti Rome and the subsequent infighting between them. Rome was always only to happy to poke its oar in as well which didn't help. Unfortunately poor old Joe Soap got caught up in it all and ended up choosing sides which divided communties.

The tribalism is certainly very obvious. It's easy to see what's wrong with it standing from afar. But I think there must be something appealing to the human condition about it as well. That's the hard part to understand. I think our brain's are hardwired to compete and fight as well as to love and be altruistic. So when you are caught up in it all, there can be something appealing and naturalistic about it.

I think Paisely's DNA enjoys rabble rousing and even if working in IT is much more civil, I think more serotonin is released for him and that type of person in his type of environment.

Tim Robbins

guinnessdrinker wrote: »

That is not the impression I got from reading the book but we will have to agree to disagree.

No problem. The reviews on Amazon seem to split. Presumably based on what people's bias's are.

McArmalite

Tim Robbins wrote: »

And all Protestants were descrimated by in the state of Republic of Ireland until the removal of the special position of the Roman Catholic church in our constitution.

One could also argue that the Orange Order hatred of Roman Catholic's was just as bad as the G.A.A.'s outright banning of the RUC or British Army members from playing it's sports and of its own members not being allowed to play Soccer or Rugby.

It's really a futile excercise to see "which side" is more at fault.

Bring on atheism or else lower religious and ethnic extremism please!

Totally agree with you there regarding special position of the Roman Catholic church in our constitution. Dev has a lot to answer for. Though it shouldn't be forgot that the head of state of britian still in written law cannot be a Catholic ( or is it correct, married to one ?? )

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I used to drink in an Irish pub in my younger days with some friends and their Dad(The Rose in Maidenhead). You would quite often hear about a fight in the pub in the local rag and not being able to recall it happening.

Typically, there would be 10 or 12 lads from NI in there, enjoying a lock in from the landlord. Someone would knock over a pint, or a "Rebal" song would come on the jukebox. then the words "Prody" or "Fenian" would get mentioned and all hell would break loose, usually ending up with 4 or 5 of them speding the night in a cell.

The next day the same guys would be in there, propping up the bar the very best of friends.

But yeah, most of them would say the same thing, away from NI none of it seemed to matter anymore, until they wanted a good fight.

Funny enough I remember reading a similair posting by you several months ago where you stated you seen the same thing but it was in a pub in your home town of Portsmouth ?? Your telling porkies Fred, just like a scene out of muck like the Irish RM* where the sterotypical Paddy's are uncouth, illogical , drunk and brawling while a bemused but benign English man tries to make sense of it all. Yeah, right.

I've been to London a few times, brother was a foreman for Laing and had a girlfirend from Crouch End. Drank in Kilburn, Cricklewood, Holloway Rd etc where you'd see Irish men in Celtic, GAA tops etc. Even An Phoblacht was sold in some of the pubs. Their's about as much chance as of a bunch of nationalists having a punch up with some unionists and being buddies the next day having a laugh about it as Palestian's and Isreali's or Georgian's and a Russian's for that matter. It's not the Portsmouth and Southampton rivalry we're talking about.

Drop the sterotypical porkie's Fred.

*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Irish_R.M.

Fratton Fred

McArmalite wrote: »

Totally agree with you there regarding special position of the Roman Catholic church in our constitution. Dev has a lot to answer for. Though it shouldn't be forgot that the head of state of britian still in written law cannot be a Catholic ( or is it correct, married to one ?? )

is it true the head of the Vatican must be a Catholic? do we win prozes for stating the bleeding obvious.

McArmalite wrote: »

Funny enough I remember reading a similair posting by you several months ago where you stated you seen the same thing but it was in a pub in your home town of Portsmouth ?? Your telling porkies Fred, just like a scene out of muck like the Irish RM* where the sterotypical Paddy's are uncouth, illogical , drunk and brawling while a bemused but benign English man tries to make sense of it all. Yeah, right.

I've been to London a few times, brother was a foreman for Laing and had a girlfirend from Crouch End. Drank in Kilburn, Cricklewood, Holloway Rd etc where you'd see Irish men in Celtic, GAA tops etc. Even An Phoblacht was sold in some of the pubs. Their's about as much chance as of a bunch of nationalists having a punch up with some unionists and being buddies the next day having a laugh about it as Palestian's and Isreali's or Georgian's and a Russian's for that matter. It's not the Portsmouth and Southampton rivalry we're talking about.

Drop the sterotypical porkie's Fred.

*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Irish_R.M.

Sorry, you seem to be obsessed with my posts so maybe you could run along and find that for me, in fact, come along to the Rose one evening and I'll introduce you to the lads in there. nice decent irishmen who don't try and play the race card. I hate people that do that.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055318541

In fact What's your opinions folks. As I said, those who play the race card undermine the real victims of rascism in society. It could be said to be indulging in a form of racism themselves, and if so, surely their should be a legal form of punishment for those playing the race card ?

Now, do you mind, this was a civil conversation before you came along.

stovelid

I'm currently reading Bear in Mind These Dead actually.

Have to say OP, I read Northern Protestants quite a while ago and (so I'm going on memory here) and I can't say I remember it being biased.

Zambia

I picked up this book and pretty much dropped it like a redback spider. I dont need to read about this as every July I get to see the movie. :mad:

McArmalite

Fratton Fred wrote: »

is it true the head of the Vatican must be a Catholic? do we win prozes for stating the bleeding obvious.

Just pointing out that it wasn't just the Irish constitution that has institutional secterianism in it. Imagine if the Irish state had in it's constitution that the head of the country must be a Catholic ?? I agreed totally with Tim regarding the discrimination against Protestants regarding the "Special position of the Catholic Church" ( BTW, I'm not a Catholic).

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Sorry, you seem to be obsessed with my posts so maybe you could run along and find that for me, in fact, come along to the Rose one evening and I'll introduce you to the lads in there. nice decent irishmen who don't try and play the race card. I hate people that do that.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055318541

Now, do you mind, this was a civil conversation before you came along.

Calm down Fred, just pointing out you posted a porkie :cool:.

Belfast

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I hate the term "Protestant". IMHO, the term "Protestant" is something which has been created to form an anti Catholic alliance in NI.

there is a difference between Presbytarian, Anglican, Methodist etc. I think you will find that most "Protestants" in NI are Presbytarian which is as different to Anglicanism as Catholicism is.

Technically speaking, everyone who is not Catholic or Orthodox is a Protestant.

(Sorry, I didn't mean to have a rant on you thread, I have a couple of anecdotes from a friend who was a reverend in South Belfast for a while. I'll post them up when i remember them fully)

I agree.

Fratton Fred

McArmalite wrote: »

Just pointing out that it wasn't just the Irish constitution that has institutional secterianism in it. Imagine if the Irish state had in it's constitution that the head of the country must be a Catholic ?? I agreed totally with Tim regarding the discrimination against Protestants regarding the "Special position of the Catholic Church" ( BTW, I'm not a Catholic).



Calm down Fred, just pointing out you posted a porkie :cool:.

Sigh,

The Queen has a dual role, she is also the head of the Church of England, hence my reference to the Vatican.

The religious orientation is only, it seems, an issue in Ireland. If it becomes an issue in Britain it will be adressed, just like the issue of a future monarch marrying a divorcee has been.

btw, if i referred to "My home town" in a previous thread, its because I lived in Maidenhead most of my life. Don't for a minute think that Kilburn is indicative of Irish life in England, because it is/was not. It's a bit like seeing the sectarian divide that existed in Londonderry and thinking Dublin is the same.

Even my ex father in law, a staunch republican from Downpatrick, regularly drank with unionists from the North in his local social club. they had something far more important in common than politics and/or religion...George Best and Desert Orchid:D

Belfast

Tim Robbins wrote: »

And all Protestants were descrimated by in the state of Republic of Ireland until the removal of the special position of the Roman Catholic church in our constitution.

Not sure how the special position of the Roman Catholic church in our constitution discriminated against anyone as it did not confer a special rights on the Roman Catholic church. beyond being mentioned it did nothing for the Roman Catholic church.
the Roman Catholic church wanted to be named as the state religion as it was in Spain and elsewhere.
The special position of the Roman Catholic church was a fudge that Dev put in to to avoid this.(The Irish solution to a Irish problem of its day)


The first President after the 1937 constitution was a Protestants Douglas Hyde.

The single transferable vote system in the south of Ireland was brought in to insure the protestant minority in the south of Ireland would get a fair share of seats in the Oireachtas.

When we are talking about discrimination in the south of Ireland lets not forget about the discrimination against the Rastafarian church where Cannabis has a Sacramental use and the Native American Church and it use of peyote in religious faith.

McArmalite

Belfast wrote: »

Not sure how the special position of the Roman Catholic church in our constitution discriminated against anyone as it did not confer a special rights on the Roman Catholic church. beyond being mentioned it did nothing for the Roman Catholic church.
the Roman Catholic church wanted to be named as the state religion as it was in Spain and elsewhere.
The special position of the Roman Catholic church was a fudge that Dev up in to to avoid this.(this Irish solution to a Irish problem of its day)


The first President after the 1937 constitution was a Protestants Douglas Hyde.

The single transferable vote system in the south of Ireland was brought in to insure the protestant minority in the south of Ireland would get a fair share of seats in the Oireachtas.

When we are talking about discrimination in the south of Ireland lets not forget about the discrimination against the Rastafarian church where Cannabis has a Sacramental use and the Native American Church and it use of peyote in religious faith.

True enough it was a fudge and typical of Dev.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Sigh,

The Queen has a dual role, she is also the head of the Church of England, hence my reference to the Vatican.

The religious orientation is only, it seems, an issue in Ireland. If it becomes an issue in Britain it will be adressed, just like the issue of a future monarch marrying a divorcee has been.

btw, if i referred to "My home town" in a previous thread, its because I lived in Maidenhead most of my life. Don't for a minute think that Kilburn is indicative of Irish life in England, because it is/was not. It's a bit like seeing the sectarian divide that existed in Londonderry and thinking Dublin is the same.

Even my ex father in law, a staunch republican from Downpatrick, regularly drank with unionists from the North in his local social club. they had something far more important in common than politics and/or religion...George Best and Desert Orchid:D

I don't doubt that a staunch republican would drank with unionists from the North and discuss matters like George Best, Desert Orchid etc. Even at this moment on both sides of the border knowningly or unknownly a unionist and a nationalist could be talking about football or horse racing etc in a pub.
Point is, in your words " if the words "Prody" or "Fenian" would get mentioned and all hell could indeed break loose depending on the situation. The taigs and prods in the altercation wouldn't " The next day the same guys would be in there, propping up the bar the very best of friends. " That's just porkies.

Fratton Fred

McArmalite wrote: »

if the words "Prody" or "Fenian" would get mentioned [/I] and all hell could indeed break loose depending on the situation. The taigs and prods in the altercation wouldn't " The next day the same guys would be in there, propping up the bar the very best of friends. " That's just porkies.

ok, fine.:rolleyes:

Tim Robbins

Belfast wrote: »

Not sure how the special position of the Roman Catholic church in our constitution discriminated against anyone as it did not confer a special rights on the Roman Catholic church. beyond being mentioned it did nothing for the Roman Catholic church.

It ended up driving a lot of legislation e.g. Divorce.
It also gave the RC church a huge amount of political gravitas. The Church could lecture from the pulpit and Irish politicians were afraid of them. How else do you explain the ban on contraceptives which not only prevented against unplanned pregnacies but STDs? And crazy RC policy such as not allowing its members attend Trinity?

You have to also remember the ne temere was still in full effect as was the existing legislation whereby education authorities could discriminate on religious grounds.

The special position of the Roman Catholic church was a fudge that Dev up in to to avoid this.(this Irish solution to a Irish problem of its day)

It was a fudge. It was explictly put in our constitution. I suspect the only reason why Dev did was to solidify his politcal base and standing. I doubt he was that interested in transubstantiation.

The single transferable vote system in the south of Ireland was brought in to insure the protestant minority in the south of Ireland would get a fair share of seats in the Oireachtas.

Are you sure about that?

thehighground

I'd imagine that Dev was not very fond of the institution of the Catholic Church (as distinct to having faith) - wasn't he excumunicated twice by said institution or is that a myth?

I would be of the opinion that it was amazing that unlike most other European countries, church and state were actually kept separate to the extent they were in Ireland at that time bearing in mind the poverty in Ireland at the time and the role the Catholic Church played in education, hospitals etc.

thehighground

Tim Robbins wrote: »

It ended up driving a lot of legislation e.g. Divorce.
It also gave the RC church a huge amount of political gravitas. The Church could lecture from the pulpit and Irish politicians were afraid of them. How else do you explain the ban on contraceptives which not only prevented against unplanned pregnacies but STDs? And crazy RC policy such as not allowing its members attend Trinity?

The politicians were mostly roman catholic themselves and even if they were not RC, they were legislating for predominantly RCs. Are you surprised that they would vote with their conscience. Of course it was going to be difficult. As for the ban on Trinity - worth noting the background:

Elizabeth I founded Trinity in 1592 so that students in Ireland could be 'free from papish influence'. The college has allowed Catholics to study there only since the nineteenth century but the Roman Catholic Church continued to ban Catholic students from Trinity until 1971.

John Charles McQuaid, Archbishop of Dublin from 1940 to 1972, deemed it a mortal sin to attend Trinity because of 'pagan' influences at the college.

I have two (RC) relatives who got permission to attend Trinity in the mid-1960s.

You have to also remember the ne temere was still in full effect as was the existing legislation whereby education authorities could discriminate on religious grounds.

As far as I know, protestant schools could also discriminate on religious grounds and it wasn't confined to RC schools. A friend of mine who is CofI and married to an RC is bringing her children up as CofI purely because of the access to CofI national schools and their much smaller classes.

It was a fudge. It was explictly put in our constitution. I suspect the only reason why Dev did was to solidify his politcal base and standing. I doubt he was that interested in transubstantiation.

It was in 1937! And Dev did avoid making the RC church the established church bearing in mind that at least 80% of the voting public were RC.

Amazing isn't it, that the UK hasn't had a Catholic Prime Minister yet and even at this stage, Tony Blair is afraid to admit that he has converted.

Hotblack Desiato

Tim Robbins wrote: »

as was the existing legislation whereby education authorities could discriminate on religious grounds.

They still can, and do, when selecting teachers to 'employ' (the State pays their salaries, but washes their hands of this institutionalised discrimination) and of course, pupils to enrol.

Tim Robbins

thehighground wrote: »

Amazing isn't it, that the UK hasn't had a Catholic Prime Minister yet and even at this stage, Tony Blair is afraid to admit that he has converted.

ninja900 wrote:

They still can, and do, when selecting teachers to 'employ' (the State pays their salaries, but washes their hands of this institutionalised discrimination) and of course, pupils to enrol.

I know all that. I think all religion is nothing more than circular logic on metaphysical issues without any objective evidence. It's only there to help people deal with death, uncertainty and fill ethnocentricity voids. It serves some postive purposes such as reminding people about simple morals and humanistic values.

foxhoundone

without coming across as padantic, i was brought up to believe as a protestant i was part of the luther religion and in that the main policy was that we protest{protestant}
against the main RC church {jesuit,s}and our religion was established in the AD1600,s as i i,ve been taught that the RC church was to draconian in it,s teaching,s indeed when at my neice,s enrolment the preist put out his hand to shake mine {stiched up or what} and i refused on the ground,s that i,m a luther. i had to be escorted from the mass cause every one turned on me {not physical} is that not mind control {indoctronation}
or what.

Fratton Fred

thehighground wrote: »

Amazing isn't it, that the UK hasn't had a Catholic Prime Minister yet and even at this stage, Tony Blair is afraid to admit that he has converted.

I'm not sure that is really relevant. there has been no Muslim or Sikh prime ministers either. Tony Blair becoming a Roman Catholic when he did probably had more to do with him wanting to do it with more privacy he would have had as Prime Minister. In the UK your faith is considered to be no one else's business but your own, it is not worn as a badge like it is in Ireland.

foxhoundone wrote: »

without coming across as padantic, i was brought up to believe as a protestant i was part of the luther religion and in that the main policy was that we protest{protestant}
against the main RC church {jesuit,s}and our religion was established in the AD1600,s as i i,ve been taught that the RC church was to draconian in it,s teaching,s indeed when at my neice,s enrolment the preist put out his hand to shake mine {stiched up or what} and i refused on the ground,s that i,m a luther. i had to be escorted from the mass cause every one turned on me {not physical} is that not mind control {indoctronation}
or what.

that is some pretty heavy stuff. What sort of Protestant church were you brought up in? I have heard of some pretty bigoted people in the CoI up north, but that is pretty extreme.

Most protestants don't give a monkey's about the Roman catholic church, I have been brought up an Anglican and the relationship between the Anglican Church and the Catholic Church was never mentioned.

As i say, the word Protestant seems to be more politically motivated than religious.

foxhoundone

you see mind control, i was brought up on sink housing estate we were quite poor so every sunday me and mate,s would get colected by the local church bus and shipped to the church. on the premise we would get a free hot meal .in exchange we had to lison to some old geezer talking about god an stuff. al i,m saying is i,m an end product,

Tim Robbins

foxhoundone wrote: »

without coming across as padantic, i was brought up to believe as a protestant i was part of the luther religion and in that the main policy was that we protest{protestant}
against the main RC church {jesuit,s}and our religion was established in the AD1600,s as i i,ve been taught that the RC church was to draconian in it,s teaching,s indeed when at my neice,s enrolment the preist put out his hand to shake mine {stiched up or what} and i refused on the ground,s that i,m a luther. i had to be escorted from the mass cause every one turned on me {not physical} is that not mind control {indoctronation}
or what.

Well Luther was an abject racist and biggot, you should read the Jews and their Lies, written by Mr. Luther or check out his fondness of witch burning. Seems ironic such a man could call another Church draconian.

I think it's shocking refusing to shake the Priest's hand. Looks like you've had a lot of mind control imparted on you, but there's absolutely nothing stopping you do a bit of research or being somewhat civil.

Tim Robbins

that is some pretty heavy stuff. What sort of Protestant church were you brought up in? I have heard of some pretty bigoted people in the CoI up north, but that is pretty extreme.

My non-expert research tells me C.o.I. are the least biggotted of all the Protestant Churches up the North. In terms of the Orange Order, painting your curb stones, flying the Jacks, or just being staunch, it would be FP's, followed by the Presbyterians, followed by the C.o.I.

Not sure about Methodists and Baptists. Suspect Methodist veer towards the C.o.I. and the Baptists about the same as the Presbyterians.

Historically it may not have been this way, with the Presbyterians being the most liberal since they had no Bishops, and hence more local autonomy but since the establishment of the Orange Order and increase in tribal rivalary it seems that's all changed. I think one reason for this is a cultural deficient in that some Nordy's don't know what their culture is. C.o.I. folk may not feel they need to argue equal rights for Ulster - Scots as much as Presbyterians and FPs. I would suspect they are happier considering their roots Anglo - Irish rather than Ulster - Scots.

I am open to correction on all this, it's not the easiet thing to get objective information on.

foxhoundone

ya see religion again causing divide,s . well your right that,s why i,m on here researhing i know i was brought up inbalanced, but that,s the 30 odd year,s of religious war for ya {AKA the trouble,s}

foxhoundone

yep fp only just worked it out, free prest, was writon on the side of the bus. and we all know who,s the head of that

Tim Robbins

foxhoundone wrote: »

ya see religion again causing divide,s . well your right that,s why i,m on here researhing i know i was brought up inbalanced, but that,s the 30 odd year,s of religious war for ya {AKA the trouble,s}

400 years. I see the North as the end of the reformation wars.
Yes, it's easy to sit back and cast judgement, which it sounds like I was doing. We were on a cycling trip recently, 4 dubs up the North and we stayed in Bushmills. Now, it would be unsual for anyone South of the Border to stay there as it's rather loyalist. It was easy to make comments about how freaky the place was, but we agreed if we from that place, we'd probably be just the same. So I see where you are coming from.

Tim Robbins

foxhoundone wrote: »

yep fp only just worked it out, free prest, was writon on the side of the bus. and we all know who,s the head of that

Mate, are you doing text speak deliberately?

foxhoundone

well i could give it cause of all the trouble,s i didnt get a good education routine. but i,m just alazy writer u thought speel check would be on this sight lol[laughing out loud not loyal orange lodge}LMAO i,m a keen cycilist to got me self a claud butler under the cycile to work scheme been at it a few year,s now done me a world of good{i can know smoke 40 aday insead of twenty lol