Religious persecution in Ireland

Fratton Fred

CDfm wrote: »

Medieval king wakes up one morning and decides to take on the Pope 'cept it wasn't Henry it was Philop VI of France - kills a Pope and installs his own Pope Clement in Avignon and disolves the Knights Templars a very rich order of monastic knights who had a banking system and Phil being short of a few bob needed the cash.- that was all in the first decade of the 1300's .

It was all about money -no matter how it was dressed up.

http://www.medievaltimes.info/military-orders/knights-templar.html

Henry was the same




The system was called surrender and regrant



The Church in Gaelic Ireland was not loyal to Rome.

The Anglo Norman Church was ,so, the reformation in Ireland was an English construct based on what it created to collect in money for Rome.

It had nothing to do with the Gaelic Irish Chierftains.

The Diosecean system was also a way of conducting civil administration etc legitimacy heirs etc under Salic Law - primogeniture etc. It was also a way of establishing a foothold in the country.

The catholic church in Gaelic Ireland had no such system , lands or authority.



I disagree fred, because the English Diosecean system was central to their rule and claim on Ireland and I am from an Anglo Norman family.

Being Irish was a sufficient motive or excuse.



In Ireland ,being catholic was only significant if you were anglo/norman but being Irish was the deciding factor elsewhere.

How could the British Crown grant land and estates to people without taking it from the Irish. Not possible .

I'm posting from a phone, so quoting isn't as easy as I'd like.

Ok, the spat with Rome was about money, or power, or politics. The point is that it certainly wasn't about some great theological disagreement.

I'll respond to the rest at a later time, but I think we need to look closer at the nine years war and the flight of the Earls and the role that played.

sensibleken

Fratton Fred wrote: »

The class system treated only those with titles as equal. It didn't matter what your nationality, if you were poor you were there to be exploited.

Hugh O'Neil (as one example) was treated as an equal.

I'd question that. Shane O'Neill was laughed out of court due to his unruly appearance (cloak and Glib haircut) when before Elizabeth to plead against primogeniture amongst other policies.

KeithAFC

CDfm wrote: »

Explain please.
So the Catholic Church will claim authority over matters of worship and not over civil/political issues.

The British involvement in Ireland owes itself and derives its legal authority from the Popes.

So on what matters does/did catholic civil allegience differ from say Presbyterian or Methodist.

http://www.ncccusa.org/faithandorder/authority.small.htm

And historical examples would be great.

I think the question was what did Catholics find more important to them and i put down Rome as you would think the Pope and their faith would be more important to them but perhaps not?

R.Dub.Fusilier

owenc wrote: »

A ya I do sunshine.. No history book will tell me what's wrong and what's right... Those history books are mot based on county Londonderry they are based on the whole of northern Ireland and as you should know was planted differently we are a unique experience.. The best history book is a local one only locals know what truly went on.. Also Irish catholic don't Gimmi that tripe I'm sick of this nonsense there's a such thing as conversions not every Protestant or Catholic is native you know.. Goodday bye

maybe i am wrong about your views. i have just realised that its everybody else that is wrong and its you who is right. we bow to you and tug our forelocks.

Catholics were never persecuited or starved or murdered or thrown off their own land. we just have to ask your 400 year old neighbours to find that out.

getz

CDfm wrote: »

+1

I dont think in Ireland that you had an anti-semetic culture.The conditions were not there for it.

The Limerick even was a local issue.

must disagree with you there,jewish doctors found it impossible to get beds for their sick in catholic run hospitals,one member of the irish goverment who later became mayor of dublin twice,urged the republicans to burn down the shops of jewish money lenders in dublin,jewish refugee children were first refused asylum in ireland,yet wanted catholic war criminals were welcomed,on the earlier post that quakers were anti catholic is very strange although it is a protestant sect their worship stresses meditation and the freedom of all to take a active part in the service,they have no priests or ministers,and members consists of christians,muslims budists and hindo.

Monty Burnz

getz wrote: »

must disagree with you there,jewish doctors found it impossible to get beds for their sick in catholic run hospitals,one member of the irish goverment who later became mayor of dublin twice,urged the republicans to burn down the shops of jewish money lenders in dublin,jewish refugee children were first refused asylum in ireland,yet wanted catholic war criminals were welcomed,on the earlier post that quakers were anti catholic is very strange although it is a protestant sect their worship stresses meditation and the freedom of all to take a active part in the service,they have no priests or ministers,and members consists of christians,muslims budists and hindo.

And we had the great Oliver Flanagan in the Dail.

He used his maiden speech in the Dáil to urge the government to "rout the Jews out of this country":
"How is it that we do not see any of these [Emergency Powers] Acts directed against the Jews, who crucified Our Saviour nineteen hundred years ago, and who are crucifying us every day in the week? How is it that we do not see them directed against the Masonic Order? How is it that the I.R.A. is considered an illegal organisation while the Masonic Order is not considered an illegal organisation? [...] There is one thing that Germany did, and that was to rout the Jews out of their country. Until we rout the Jews out of this country it does not matter a hair's breadth what orders you make. Where the bees are there is the honey, and where the Jews are there is the money.”

getz

26 jan 2005,justice minister micheal mcdowell openly apoligized for irish wartime policy that was inspired by;a culture of muted antisemitism in ireland which discouraged immergration by europes shattered jews,he said at an official level the irish state was at best coldly polite,and behind closed doors antipathic hostile and unfeeling towards jews. oliver j flanigan in the dail,in 1943 said ;i doubt that very much they are human. j j walsh TD described jews as a gang of parasites. do i need to go on ?

sensibleken

getz wrote: »

26 jan 2005,justice minister micheal mcdowell openly apoligized for irish wartime policy that was inspired by;a culture of muted antisemitism in ireland which discouraged immergration by europes shattered jews,he said at an official level the irish state was at best coldly polite,and behind closed doors antipathic hostile and unfeeling towards jews. oliver j flanigan in the dail,in 1943 said ;i doubt that very much they are human. j j walsh TD described jews as a gang of parasites. do i need to go on ?

anecdotaly, my dad will often speak about the hostility faced by some of dublins Jews. My his account it was mainly due to the Jewish moneylenders who would charge extorshonate rates of interest on what was an extremely poor populace. Of course many in inner city Dublin were employed by Jews who comparitively speaking had a tendency to offer favourable working conditions.

Also, you have to laugh at a politician accusing Jews of being parasites.

JustinDee

getz wrote: »

must disagree with you there,jewish doctors found it impossible to get beds for their sick in catholic run hospitals,one member of the irish goverment who later became mayor of dublin twice,urged the republicans to burn down the shops of jewish money lenders in dublin,jewish refugee children were first refused asylum in ireland

Some of this is actually true. Jewish refugees, not just refugee children were prohibited from disembarking onto Irish soil during the early 40s.
Yes, there were movements seeking a prohibition on Jewish immigrants behind the corridors of government buildings also. 66 refugees were officially let in to the country despite what certain officials thought of their worth to the country.

Nobody has researched better Ireland's treatment of its own and other Jews than Prof. Dermot Keogh. If you're interested in the subject, he has two books published in particular. One on the general subject of Jews in Ireland and the other, specifically about the Creagh pogrom/burnout and how far it spread.

Monty Burnz

sensibleken wrote: »

Also, you have to laugh at a politician accusing Jews of being parasites.

Indeed. And there's heavy irony here...

"Where the bees are there is the honey, and where the Jews are there is the money."

What this moronic rhyme misses is that the honey is there because it's created by the bees, much like the wealth that Jewish entrepreneurs had was created by their own work and ingenuity.

HellsAngel

Fratton Fred wrote: »

The class system treated only those with titles as equal. It didn't matter what your nationality, if you were poor you were there to be exploited.

Hugh O'Neil (as one example) was treated as an equal.

Nationality did very much count when it came to persecution and mistreatment as we Irish are far too aware -

HellsAngel

JustinDee wrote: »

Some of this is actually true. Jewish refugees, not just refugee children were prohibited from disembarking onto Irish soil during the early 40s.
Yes, there were movements seeking a prohibition on Jewish immigrants behind the corridors of government buildings also. 66 refugees were officially let in to the country despite what certain officials thought of their worth to the country.

Nobody has researched better Ireland's treatment of its own and other Jews than Prof. Dermot Keogh. If you're interested in the subject, he has two books published in particular. One on the general subject of Jews in Ireland and the other, specifically about the Creagh pogrom/burnout and how far it spread.

I don't think it was neccessarily Jewish immigrants who got hassle. For example some of the Germans who were POW's in the Curragh and who wanted to stay on in Ireland after the war got the same. Backwardness I'm afraid rather than institutionalised bigotry.

MarchDub

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Being Irish wasn't a reason to persecute someone though.

Even during the plantations the Irish that had demonstrated loyalty to the crown were allowed to keep their land. Even Irish Catholics.

Well actually the record shows us something different. The issue was Irish culture, customs, law and language. And the Irish or Gaelic way of life was for centuries the target of the English authorities. This idea was there from the initial invasion in the twelfth century and didn't materialise with the Reformation. Ultimately what the Westminster Parliament and Crown wanted was to stamp out any sense of separateness, of Irish 'identity' and create in Ireland another loyal population that would faithfully serve the crown. Long before the Reformation they pursued this by outlawing any aspect of Irish culture that they thought would give a sense of separateness or national identity.

If you trace the laws passed from the start you can see this - the most obvious of course are the Statutes of Kilkenny in 1366 which directly attacked and outlawed all aspects of the Irish way of life. This was some 200 years prior to the Reformation.

It was all about power, control and money flowing to the crown.

That's what the dissolution of the monasteries was about in Tudor times. Cromwell [Thomas not Oliver] showed Henry VIII the money that could be had from dissolving the monasteries in England and breaking with Rome. The break with Rome had a lot to do with revenue that would now flow to the Crown. Henry was always broke - and he needed a son. A perfect storm.

As regards Hugh Ui Neill in the 1590s - his published "Articles Intended to be stood upon by Ui Neill/Tyrone" spelled out the cultural aspirations that he and the other Gaelic Lords held - the desire to remain Gaelic and Catholic and explained his reasons for going to war with the crown. Catholicism by then had got into the mix of separation - anglicism was seen as just another attempt at reigning in the Irish to an Anglo culture. Ui Neill and other Gaelic Lords of the Kinsale Battle openly expressed their hostility to being vassals of the crown. They went to war on that issue.

MarchDub

JustinDee wrote: »

Some of this is actually true. Jewish refugees, not just refugee children were prohibited from disembarking onto Irish soil during the early 40s.
Yes, there were movements seeking a prohibition on Jewish immigrants behind the corridors of government buildings also. 66 refugees were officially let in to the country despite what certain officials thought of their worth to the country.

This has to be seen in its historic context. Hardly any nation did the Jews a favour prior to and during WWII. Even the United States - which probably has the best record on the Jewish experience and still is the strongest supporter of Israel refused many Jews entry during WWII. A good source for this is:

David S. Wyman, The Abandonment of the Jews: America and the Holocaust, 1941-1945

According to Wyman, who places all the allies in the same boat - says, "The United States and its Allies were willing to attempt almost nothing to save the Jews."

The US for example admitted far fewer Jews than Switzerland during WWII and Britain did little in that regard also. From 1939 the British blockaded Palestine to fleeing Jews.

The Evian Conference of 1938 did nothing for Jews under the Nazis. Both the US and Britain refused to increase their immigration quotas/policy as regard Jews. Ultimately the conference was a failure from the Jewish perspective. Ronnie Landau who wrote about the conference that it was "an exercise in Anglo-American collaborative hypocrisy".

JustinDee

HellsAngel wrote: »

I don't think it was neccessarily Jewish immigrants who got hassle. For example some of the Germans who were POW's in the Curragh and who wanted to stay on in Ireland after the war got the same. Backwardness I'm afraid rather than institutionalised bigotry.

It was Jewish immigrants. They were not considered to be suitable to a Roman Catholic Ireland. Call it what you like but the minister who was quoted by historian Brian Girvin as saying this on party memos was not alone.
Hence a paltry shameful number of refugees allowed in to the country.

JustinDee

MarchDub wrote: »

This has to be seen in its historic context. Hardly any nation did the Jews a favour prior to and during WWII. Even the United States - which probably has the best record on the Jewish experience and still is the strongest supporter of Israel refused many Jews entry during WWII. A good source for this is:

David S. Wyman, The Abandonment of the Jews: America and the Holocaust, 1941-1945

According to Wyman, who places all the allies in the same boat - says, "The United States and its Allies were willing to attempt almost nothing to save the Jews."

The US for example admitted far fewer Jews than Switzerland during WWII and Britain did little in that regard also. From 1939 the British blockaded Palestine to fleeing Jews.

The Evian Conference of 1938 did nothing for Jews under the Nazis. Both the US and Britain refused to increase their immigration quotas/policy as regard Jews. Ultimately the conference was a failure from the Jewish perspective. Ronnie Landau who wrote about the conference that it was "an exercise in Anglo-American collaborative hypocrisy".

The above reads like a wikipedia chop-up. With the benefit of hindsight, its all very easy nowadays to pick something that happened before the war in Europe broke out to illustrate a point.
For example, when the two German fronts were broken and the actual presence of Allied troops and personnel was possible on the camp system, for example, the refugee numbers increased and were permitted accordingly.
The reason why the British govt restricted the number of Jews fleeing to the British Mandate in Palestine was not because of an apparent bigotry or antisemitism. It was because of the Jewish/Arab ratio in the region being in danger of an irreversible tilt.
There is a substantial difference between that and the restriction of Jewish refugees to Ireland.

More than an historical context required.

MarchDub

JustinDee wrote: »

its all very easy nowadays to pick something that happened before the war in Europe broke out to illustrate a point.
For example, when the two German fronts were broken and the actual presence of Allied troops and personnel was possible on the camp system, for example, the refugee numbers increased and were permitted accordingly.
The reason why the British govt restricted the number of Jews fleeing to the British Mandate in Palestine was not because of an apparent bigotry or antisemitism. It was because of the Jewish/Arab ratio in the region being in danger of an irreversible tilt.
There is a substantial difference between that and the restriction of Jewish refugees to Ireland.

More than an historical context required.

I actually lived in the States for some years and a Jewish friend used to point out the inadequacies of the American response during that period in spite of the usual record that the US has. She had some relatives who were refused entry - or had go on a waiting list for visas- during the war and gave me a copy of the Wyman book for Christmas of all occasions!

The British blockade is well known - you must realise that. I worked with a Jewish historian once who specialised in that period - and he blamed antisemitism on the decision. So it's not an uncommon response.

BTW another interesting book just published is "The Colors of Zion, Blacks Jews and Irish 1845-1945 " by George Bornstein. I haven't yet read it but have read some of his papers on the same comparative subject.


I do think that context is important.

paddyandy

R.Dub.Fusilier wrote: »

it was hardly a "pogrom" , it was a boycott of Jewish businesses and very little , if any , violence was used.

Was it not a very serious matter that they were driven from their homes and likelihoods and did they not fear that bloodshed was imminent.You treat the matter very lightly.They were very vulnerable and it's a story that will forever come back to haunt us.The Catholic Church which i was brought up in has a lot of guilt and a lot of blood on it's hands and there are many stories around the world with similar marks.The fILM INDUSTRY will have loads of material to draw from.The Present Pope has some answering to do.

CDfm

KeithAFC wrote: »

I think the question was what did Catholics find more important to them and i put down Rome as you would think the Pope and their faith would be more important to them but perhaps not?

But it wasn't -the Home Rule/Rome Rule was a relatively modern concept as post famine emigration and education went hand in hand.

Shane O'Neill could have taught Henry VIII a thing or two about disolving marriages and ignoring the roman catholic church.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=71405982

I would really like to know the history of presbyterians ,quakers, methodists and other non-conformist churches in Ireland during the penal laws and pre disestablishment of the Church of Ireland in 1871.

http://dublin.anglican.org/dioceses/a_brief_history_disestablishment_1871__modern_times.php

A bit off topic here

Did Northern Irish protestants look more to Scotland or England , what was their famine and emigration experience , education. etc .

And did the experience of the different denomination's differ. Who were their leaders.

The rebellions in Ireland had been led by members of the Ascendency but these guys were not from the ascendency.

Fratton Fred

HellsAngel wrote: »

Nationality did very much count when it came to persecution and mistreatment as we Irish are far too aware -

People get ridiculed on here for using Wikipedia to prove their point, so using a 19th century version of the news of the world isn't exactly a great idea.

Fratton Fred

MarchDub wrote: »

Well actually the record shows us something different. The issue was Irish culture, customs, law and language. And the Irish or Gaelic way of life was for centuries the target of the English authorities. This idea was there from the initial invasion in the twelfth century and didn't materialise with the Reformation. Ultimately what the Westminster Parliament and Crown wanted was to stamp out any sense of separateness, of Irish 'identity' and create in Ireland another loyal population that would faithfully serve the crown. Long before the Reformation they pursued this by outlawing any aspect of Irish culture that they thought would give a sense of separateness or national identity.

If you trace the laws passed from the start you can see this - the most obvious of course are the Statutes of Kilkenny in 1366 which directly attacked and outlawed all aspects of the Irish way of life. This was some 200 years prior to the Reformation.

It was all about power, control and money flowing to the crown.

That's what the dissolution of the monasteries was about in Tudor times. Cromwell [Thomas not Oliver] showed Henry VIII the money that could be had from dissolving the monasteries in England and breaking with Rome. The break with Rome had a lot to do with revenue that would now flow to the Crown. Henry was always broke - and he needed a son. A perfect storm.

As regards Hugh Ui Neill in the 1590s - his published "Articles Intended to be stood upon by Ui Neill/Tyrone" spelled out the cultural aspirations that he and the other Gaelic Lords held - the desire to remain Gaelic and Catholic and explained his reasons for going to war with the crown. Catholicism by then had got into the mix of separation - anglicism was seen as just another attempt at reigning in the Irish to an Anglo culture. Ui Neill and other Gaelic Lords of the Kinsale Battle openly expressed their hostility to being vassals of the crown. They went to war on that issue.

history shows us that conquering or colonising nations enforce their laws, religions and language on people. The french, Spanish and Portuguese did the same. Brian Boru did the same thing in Scotland. It was all part of the colonising process. I wonder if people in Brazil moor around beginning the fact they were forced to speak Portuguese and convert to catholicism?

Putting it down to being persecuted for simply being Irish just smacks of self pity tbh.

CDfm

Fratton Fred wrote: »

People get ridiculed on here for using Wikipedia to prove their point, so using a 19th century version of the news of the world isn't exactly a great idea.

A picture tells a thousand words

MarchDub

Fratton Fred wrote: »

history shows us that conquering or colonising nations enforce their laws, religions and language on people. The french, Spanish and Portuguese did the same. Brian Boru did the same thing in Scotland. It was all part of the colonising process. I wonder if people in Brazil moor around beginning the fact they were forced to speak Portuguese and convert to catholicism?

Putting it down to being persecuted for simply being Irish just smacks of self pity tbh.

I agree that all the European imperialist countries did similar. No doubt about that. You forgot the Belgiums of 'poor little' WWI fame - what a shower they were in Africa.

As for "self pity' I disagree entirely on that point and it reads as a way of trying to silence historic fact - not saying from you but generally when it is used. We are taking about history here and the record shows what it shows and there is no shame in referring to that. I showed the record of laws passed to eradicate the Irish culture. This happened.

The Irish nor anyone else have to find excuses for their own history or be cowed by some charge of "self pity".

[BRIAN BORU in SCOTLAND ?? What are you talking about?]

Monty Burnz

Fratton Fred wrote: »

People get ridiculed on here for using Wikipedia to prove their point, so using a 19th century version of the news of the world isn't exactly a great idea.

Do you think that a recent issue of News of the World would give the historian in 200 years time a useful insight into the prejudices, attitudes and preoccupations of present-day Britain?

MarchDub

Fratton Fred wrote: »

People get ridiculed on here for using Wikipedia to prove their point, so using a 19th century version of the news of the world isn't exactly a great idea.

Not meaning to pick on you but this type of caricature was fairly mainstream in the British press in the nineteenth century. You should read "Apes and Angels" by L Perry Curtis for the full story of how the Irish were depicted with simian features. The magazine Punch was full of offensive ape-like Irish and so also were 'history' books written for a British readership.

JustinDee

MarchDub wrote: »

I actually lived in the States for some years and a Jewish friend used to point out the inadequacies of the American response during that period in spite of the usual record that the US has. She had some relatives who were refused entry - or had go on a waiting list for visas- during the war and gave me a copy of the Wyman book for Christmas of all occasions!

The British blockade is well known - you must realise that. I worked with a Jewish historian once who specialised in that period - and he blamed antisemitism on the decision. So it's not an uncommon response.

BTW another interesting book just published is "The Colors of Zion, Blacks Jews and Irish 1845-1945 " by George Bornstein. I haven't yet read it but have read some of his papers on the same comparative subject.


I do think that context is important.

Like your buddy, I too have an opinion on why the blockade on British Mandate Palestine took place. Its different to what he/she opines. Sånn er livet.

Edit: Changed mind on divulging my family's story on this internet forum.

JustinDee

Fratton Fred wrote: »

People get ridiculed on here for using Wikipedia to prove their point, so using a 19th century version of the news of the world isn't exactly a great idea.

One is edited at will by any old duffer in the general public. The other is an example of petty stereotyping on an entire demograph. There's a difference, I would say.

Fratton Fred

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Do you think that a recent issue of News of the World would give the historian in 200 years time a useful insight into the prejudices, attitudes and preoccupations of present-day Britain?

I hope not.

If a historian opened boards.ie in 200 years would they be right in thinking Ireland is vehemently anti Nigerian?

MarchDub

JustinDee wrote: »

Like your buddy, I too have an opinion on why the blockade on British Mandate Palestine took place. Its different to what he/she opines. Sånn er livet.
.

Why not start a thread on the history of the Jewish experience worldwide? I've been thinking about this for awhile and think it would very much add to the knowledge of why Israel is central to all that. I've sort of side studied the issue myself over the years - I am of the generation who actually knew holocaust survivors and attended their lectures any time I had the chance. But I would welcome someone with the background to begin a discussion.

Edit: I edited out your personal stuff from the quote as I see you had deleted it.

Monty Burnz

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I hope not.

If a historian opened boards.ie in 200 years would they be right in thinking Ireland is vehemently anti Nigerian?

That's a disingenous reply IMO. Print publications are an excellent primary source as we all know. You can afford to be wrong once in a while, you know.