Sectarianism in Ireland.

alex73

Ok, .. Please no trolling

Sectarianism in Ireland. Is said to be down to religion esp in the north.

But I have always found this hard to understand. I am Catholic,but have many protestant friends. All protestants I have met are decent honest people.

So is Sectarianism more down to a Political divide today, Rather than to a Religious one? Of course I know many Practising protestants in the north want to remain part of Uk. But Practising Protestants that I know are also some of the best people I know and far removed for all Sectarianism. They have their views, its part of their life, but 90% remaining part we share and get along. I would go so far as to say protestants are integral part of Ireland. (the various denominations) .


So what is Sectarianism today built on?


(Please this is a Christian religious thread... NO trollers, no united Ireland add ons.. no "this was our land" etc...etc.. only sensible dialogue please) If you have nothing to add from a Christian Religous point of view on Sectarianism DON't POST.

PDN

In Northern Ireland it's basically tribalism.

alex73

PDN wrote: »

In Northern Ireland it's basically tribalism.

So the tribes in the North today are basically the same thing?

I mean a practising Catholic (as I am) would never ever resort to violence against someone of opposite Faith.

Likewise many Practising Protestants I know (COI) would never dream of harming anyone else.

So the "Catholic" and "Protestant" tribes in the north are people who actually don't practice their faith?

strobe

PDN wrote: »

In Northern Ireland it's basically tribalism.

Agreed, the sectarian Catholics and Protestants in the North may as well be called the Blue team and the Yellow team, or the Wildcats and the Cowboys, or simply Us and Them, it would amount to the same thing. I don't think this is a purely Northern Ireland phenomenon though.

alex73 wrote: »

So the "Catholic" and "Protestant" tribes in the north are people who actually don't practice their faith?

I wouldn't say that. Many of them are very avid practitioners.

Manach

The difference between them and us is that we are them and they are us. ie that power-brokers within a society can easily stir divisions and sectarianism over the most minor of differences in groups as it is basic human nature to perceive divisions - as an example of the creation of Germany under Bismark, with wars against Austria etc, to build unity. I myself don't hold myself in any less guilable to this than the average person, but I believe that as a practicing Catholic that I'm aware of some of the not-so brilliant historical decisions that have occurred involving the Church, so I'd hope that it might make me at least pause to reflect.

AhSureTisGrand

I doubt anyone in Northern Ireland is murdered over transubstantiation. While religion isn't the root of the problem, it does give both sides a strong identity, and makes it easier to identify which side someone is from

Zombrex

alex73 wrote: »

I would go so far as to say protestants are integral part of Ireland. (the various denominations) .

How would you feel if a Protestant tried to force you to be CoI or CoE or another Protestant denomination?

Serious question btw, it is fine to say the Protestants you know are really nice, but this island has been marred with one group attempting to force the other group to follow their ways, including religious ways. If you believed it was a betrayal to your religion and your god to follow this you can see why many refused and fought violently against it.

gigino

Wicknight wrote: »

How would you feel if a Protestant tried to force you to be CoI or CoE or another Protestant denomination?

Good point. In living memory of many people in the country, the NeTemere rules imposed by the RCC on mixed marriages was very much the Catholic church trying to force the other party to be RC. Part of the reason why the Protestant population of the 26 counties declined in the early and mid 20th century ( something in the order of 250,000 to 100,000 I think ) , although I think its increasing slightly now.

In N. Ireland I think at least some of the Protestants there feel "under siege"...they sometimes talk of that anyway...with their percentage of the population being slowly eroded because of the "troubles", mixed marriages etc. To answer the OP's question, "So what is Sectarianism today built on?", its probably built on fear of the "other side" ?

Seaneh

this thread belongs in politics. The problem in Northern Ireland is due to national identity and not religion.

ISAW

Came across an interesting paper the other day on anti catholicism CoI Drumcree and how it relates to Ireland etc. Will get a copy of it from the library hopefully today if I can find the reference.

One part of it referred to the CoI famine commemoration in Mayo where the reading was Patrick Kavanagh's "The Great Hunger" Now I know it is a pseudonym for the famine but if you ever read the poem is it full of anti clerical and sexual repression references and isn't really about the famine at all. Hardly suitable for an ecumenical theme.

gigino

ISAW wrote: »

One part of it referred to the CoI famine commemoration in Mayo where the reading was Patrick Kavanagh's "The Great Hunger" Now I know it is a pseudonym for the famine but if you ever read the poem is it full of anti clerical and sexual repression references and isn't really about the famine at all. .

I do not think many people are aware of, never mind affected by a poetry reading by that great well known Catholic poet, Kavanagh. The famine affected Mayo as much or more so than anywhere else in Ireland, and it was constantly drilled in to us at school. Maybe the history we all endured at school ( about the great heroes of 1916 and about British injustices like the famine ) was very one sided and to quote your phrase, being taught at school phrases like " burn everything British but their coal" was hardly suitable for an ecumenical theme. Sectarianism is ingrained in some of us here in the Republic - go to any pub when England is playing and you will see + hear people making comments about the "auld enemy", or go to a Wolfe Tones concert , or listen to bigots comments about the " black prods".
By contrast, in the UK if Ireland are playing, people there generally wish us well. They are not taught to hate us.
A poetry reading to a limited size audience in Mayo is just that ; it does really affect anyone. On the other hand, the RC ne-temere decreee and other factors ( intimidation etc ) did affect many people here in the Republic in early / mid 2oth century- the reduction of the Protestant people from approx 250,000 to 100,000 in a relatively short time. As I think Eoghan Harris said, or words to that effect, the greatest change in an ethnic group in the 20th century in Europe before the second world war.

gimmebroadband

My parents were a mixed marriage from the 60s. My mother is english, and was a Protestant, but didn't convert until many years later, of her own free will and is a better Catholic than most I know! Her siblings were also baptized protestants, but are agnostic/athiests for the most part!

ISAW

gigino wrote: »

I do not think many people are aware of, never mind affected by a poetry reading by that great well known Catholic poet, Kavanagh.
...
Sectarianism is ingrained in some of us here in the Republic ...
By contrast, in the UK if Ireland are playing, people there generally wish us well. ...
A poetry reading to a limited size audience in Mayo is just that ; it does really affect anyone.

I would disagree with these points given the context. You will have to go to a library to read the paper. Any library can get the book for you
The paper is Pilkingto Originally
Pilkington, L. 2002. Drumcree and the Celtic Tiger: the cultural legacy of anti-Catholicism in Ireland.
But the word Drumcree was changed to Religion in chapter 8 of :
http://www.plutobooks.com/display.asp?K=9780745318240&

Pilkington, Lionel. “Religion and the Celtic Tiger: The cultural Legacies of Anti-
Catholicism in Ireland.” Eds. Peadar Kirby, Luke Gibbons, and Michael Cronin.
Reinventing Ireland: Culture, Society and the Global Economy. London: Pluto Press,
2002. 124-139

Intersting also is http://www.tara.tcd.ie/bitstream/2262/24419/1/Nationalism%20and%20Multiculturalism%20Ch7.doc

who refers to a "Manichaean schema "

On the other hand, the RC ne-temere decreee and other factors ( intimidation etc ) did affect many people here in the Republic in early / mid 2oth century- the reduction of the Protestant people from approx 250,000 to 100,000 in a relatively short time. As I think Eoghan Harris said, or words to that effect, the greatest change in an ethnic group in the 20th century in Europe before the second world war.

Your anti catholic bias is showing itself again. Also, Harris has been involved with Official SF, workers Party, FG, PDs Fianna Fáil even the Unionists so he hardly has a "principled" outlook.

ISAW

Wicknight wrote: »

How would you feel if a Protestant tried to force you to be CoI or CoE or another Protestant denomination?

Serious question btw, it is fine to say the Protestants you know are really nice, but this island has been marred with one group attempting to force the other group to follow their ways, including religious ways. If you believed it was a betrayal to your religion and your god to follow this you can see why many refused and fought violently against it.

Indeed.
Please see my comment above about "Manichean schema".

gigino

ISAW wrote: »

You will have to go to a library to read the paper. Any library can get the book for you .

ISAW wrote: »

Your anti catholic bias is showing itself again. Also, Harris has been involved with Official SF, workers Party, FG, PDs Fianna Fáil even the Unionists so he hardly has a "principled" outlook.

If you disagree with a point or points I make, can you not make your point or show why you disagree without
(a) suggesting I read a book
(b) shooting the messenger ?

I did not know Harris was a member of the Unionist party ? Oh, you have something against him because he spoke to a few unionists or something ? Reminds me of the days in my fathers time when the Priest stood outside a funeral in a Protestant church ( here in the Republic) telling the RC neighbours ( who wanted to pay their respects) "not to go in ". Regarding my "anti catholic bias" as you perceive it, I think the best catholic is one who is fair and who is not bigotted against minorities or other religions.

ISAW

gigino wrote: »

If you disagree with a point or points I make, can you not make your point or show why you disagree without
(a) suggesting I read a book
(b) shooting the messenger ?

Yes but
a) I actually support my point with published sources. I don't intentionally plagerise other peoples research.
b) You have a clear bias in suggesting the RC agenda was to reduce the number of Protestants in any whay other than by conversion.

I did not know Harris was a member of the Unionist party ? Oh, you have something against him because he spoke to a few unionists or something ?

Please stop reading things into what I state!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eoghan_Harris

held posts at various and diverse political parties throughout his career. He was a Marxist ideologue of the Workers' Party and its predecessor, Official Sinn Féin; a short-lived adviser to former Taoiseach John Bruton;[3] an adviser to the Ulster Unionist Party[4] and most recently a supporter of the Fianna Fáil-led government of Bertie Ahern

I don't think any such person has a particular ideology. the only principle he seems to maintain is that he hates Republicans.

Reminds me of the days in my fathers time when the Priest stood outside a funeral in a Protestant church ( here in the Republic) telling the RC neighbours ( who wanted to pay their respects) "not to go in ". Regarding my "anti catholic bias" as you perceive it, I think the best catholic is one who is fair and who is not bigotted against minorities or other religions.

Or one who does not attack RC clergy and tar them all with the mistakes of a few RC clergy or accuse others of being RC clergy as if it was a crime ?

NIMAN

As a non-practising Northern Catholic, I have always said that religion has nothing to do with the sectarianism in the north.

Its political all the way.

By the nature of Christianity, you are meant to be peace loving, and have time for your neighbours, irrespective of their views or religion. This doesn't apply in the North, but then its a very mixed up country.

I know many people from both sides, and the fact that there so few differences between Christian religions makes it even sadder that so many can't get on with each other.

wolfsbane

alex73 wrote: »

Ok, .. Please no trolling

Sectarianism in Ireland. Is said to be down to religion esp in the north.

But I have always found this hard to understand. I am Catholic,but have many protestant friends. All protestants I have met are decent honest people.

So is Sectarianism more down to a Political divide today, Rather than to a Religious one? Of course I know many Practising protestants in the north want to remain part of Uk. But Practising Protestants that I know are also some of the best people I know and far removed for all Sectarianism. They have their views, its part of their life, but 90% remaining part we share and get along. I would go so far as to say protestants are integral part of Ireland. (the various denominations) .


So what is Sectarianism today built on?


(Please this is a Christian religious thread... NO trollers, no united Ireland add ons.. no "this was our land" etc...etc.. only sensible dialogue please) If you have nothing to add from a Christian Religous point of view on Sectarianism DON't POST.

As many of the posters have said, the Troubles in Northern Ireland are not essentially religious. They are ethnic, national divisions - but the ethnic division is paralleled by the religious division. So Protestants mostly are of Ulster Scots ethnic origin; Catholics mostly of Gaelic origin. British/Irish; Planter/Gael. The ethnic division manifested itself in a pro-Union or anti-Union political adherence. The Protestants felt their civil and religious liberty was best protected by remaining in the British Union. The Catholics believed the whole island was theirs (the Irish) by right and the planters must submit to the majority on the island.

No one - to the best of my knowledge - was murdered for his/her view of Justification by Faith or the Real Presence in the Mass. If they were selected for death by religion, it was only because their religion was presumed to reveal their political allegiance. Everyone knew this was not absolutely the case, but communal identity was the practical test. There have been a small number of Unionists/Loyalists who were Catholics, and the same of Nationalists/Republicans who were Protestants.

Having said that, the perceived threat to one's national identity/rights by the opposing religion is a factor. The historical reputation of the Roman Catholic Church strongly influenced the unionist people to reject a United Ireland. They feared any society that was dominated by such clericalism. They thought it would lead to, well, what we saw in the Irish Free State and the later Republic.

I'm not sure how much a desire to have a Catholic Republic motivated Nationalism/Republicanism. It certainly was there - I remember a republican supporter telling me in the late 60s/early 70s that Ireland should be run as a Catholic country. But I assume the Nationalist/Republican desire was more ethnic than religious.

So, sectarianism today is not religious, but ethnic. Most of those involved in 'sectarian' rioting have not a religious thought in their heads. Just ethnic fears and hatred.

Regarding 'sectarian' religious comments, one needs discernment to decide whether it is an expression of ethnic issues or of genuine theological differences. The spirit of the statement may be seen in the end in view - the benefit of all or promotion of one's own side.

***********************************************************************
Acts 17:26 And He has made from one blood every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth, and has determined their preappointed times and the boundaries of their dwellings, 27 so that they should seek the Lord, in the hope that they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us; 28 for in Him we live and move and have our being, as also some of your own poets have said, ‘For we are also His offspring.’

Bob Cratchet

Intresting snippet about the UDA and very relevant to this thread.

In early January 1994, the UDA released a document calling for ethnic cleansing and repartition, with the goal of making Northern Ireland wholly Protestant.[58] The plan was to be implemented should the British Army withdraw from Northern Ireland. The vastly Catholic and nationalist areas would be handed over to the Republic, and those left stranded in the "Protestant state" would be "expelled, nullified, or interned".[58] The story was printed in The Sunday Independent newspaper on 16 January.[59] The "doomsday plan" was based on the work of Dr Liam Kennedy, a lecturer at Queen's University Belfast.[58] In 1986 he had published a book called Two Ulsters: A Case for Repartition; though it did not call for ethnic cleansing. The UDP's Raymond Smallwoods said "I wasn't consulted but the scenario set out is a perfectly plausible one".[58] The DUP's Sammy Wilson stated that the plan "shows that some loyalist paramilitaries are looking ahead and contemplating what needs to be done to maintain our separate Ulster identity" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulster_Defence_Association

Fuinseog

alex73 wrote: »

Ok, .. Please no trolling

Sectarianism in Ireland. Is said to be down to religion esp in the north.

But I have always found this hard to understand. I am Catholic,but have many protestant friends. All protestants I have met are decent honest people.

So is Sectarianism more down to a Political divide today, Rather than to a Religious one? Of course I know many Practising protestants in the north want to remain part of Uk. But Practising Protestants that I know are also some of the best people I know and far removed for all Sectarianism. They have their views, its part of their life, but 90% remaining part we share and get along. I would go so far as to say protestants are integral part of Ireland. (the various denominations) .


So what is Sectarianism today built on?


(Please this is a Christian religious thread... NO trollers, no united Ireland add ons.. no "this was our land" etc...etc.. only sensible dialogue please) If you have nothing to add from a Christian Religous point of view on Sectarianism DON't POST.

anti Catholic bigotry is on the rise here in the Republic and this time it is an attack from within a from 'lapsed' Catholics with chips on their shoulder

alex73

Fuinseog wrote: »

anti Catholic bigotry is on the rise here in the Republic and this time it is an attack from within a from 'lapsed' Catholics with chips on their shoulder

What they are attacking is a spinned view of the catholic church. All the media will report ( and rightly ) is the evil sins of a few. The good works of many go unnoticed.

PatricaMcKay

PDN wrote: »

In Northern Ireland it's basically tribalism.

No its not.

Its two things, the occupation and the fact that a part of the population was bought off along sectarian lines to secure the north for economic reasons and later for idealogical ones.

Lenny Murphy, the most notorious of the Loyalists...Pretty "Gaelic name".

Sands though? Devine though? Even Adams?

PatricaMcKay

wolfsbane wrote: »

No one - to the best of my knowledge - was murdered for his/her view of Justification by Faith or the Real Presence in the Mass. If they were selected for death by religion, it was only because their religion was presumed to reveal their political allegiance. Everyone knew this was not absolutely the case, but communal identity was the practical test. There have been a small number of Unionists/Loyalists who were Catholics, and the same of Nationalists/Republicans who were Protestants.

Not so fast there.

The people at Kingsmill were murdered because of their religious background.

The vast majority of Loyalist victims were murdered because of their religious background.

A lot of Loyalists were pleased at the killing of Stephen Kerr because he was Roman Catholic.

Fuinseog

alex73 wrote: »

What they are attacking is a spinned view of the catholic church. All the media will report ( and rightly ) is the evil sins of a few. The good works of many go unnoticed.

that Donegal caretaker scandal is interesting. He abused boys and until recently nothing was done about it. I wonder will they close the school as a result? maybe the Dept of Ed or who whoever employed him will come out and apologise and pay compensation?

when something like this happens in secular society there is less of a hulaboloo about it as it suits the anti Catholic mind set so omnipresent at the moment.

Fuinseog

a Brendan Behan quote, which may be apt

'A protestant is an Irishman with a horse'

it says a lot on how Protestants are viewed in the Republic.

PDN

PatricaMcKay wrote: »

No its not.

Its two things, the occupation and the fact that a part of the population was bought off along sectarian lines to secure the north for economic reasons and later for idealogical ones.

Lenny Murphy, the most notorious of the Loyalists...Pretty "Gaelic name".

Sands though? Devine though? Even Adams?

The reasons behind the two tribes' dislike of each other is neither here nor there. It's still tribalism. Neither are the names significant - in Nigeria you find Hausa people with Yoruba names and vice versa. Inter-marriage still takes place to some extent in tribal societies.

Although I've lived in the Republic for many years, prior to becoming a Christian I lived for periods in loyalist areas such as Ballyhackamore and Greenisland. I also lived in Nationalist areas such as the lower Antrim Road and the New Lodge. I have met men of violence from both sides of the divide and, while some of them were quite engaging on a personal level, there was a frightening similarity between them.

While bigots and partisans like to trumpet how their side was noble, and everything was the other side's fault, I think they kid themselves. Tribalism is ugly, and the North's troubles were a playground for thugs and psychopaths who wrapped their ignoble criminality in the flag of the tribe they happened to be born into.

torrentum

Fuinseog wrote: »

when something like this happens in secular society there is less of a hulaboloo about it as it suits the anti Catholic mind set so omnipresent at the moment.

Agreed

PatricaMcKay

PDN wrote: »

The reasons behind the two tribes' dislike of each other is neither here nor there. It's still tribalism. Neither are the names significant - in Nigeria you find Hausa people with Yoruba names and vice versa. Inter-marriage still takes place to some extent in tribal societies.

Although I've lived in the Republic for many years, prior to becoming a Christian I lived for periods in loyalist areas such as Ballyhackamore and Greenisland. I also lived in Nationalist areas such as the lower Antrim Road and the New Lodge. I have met men of violence from both sides of the divide and, while some of them were quite engaging on a personal level, there was a frightening similarity between them.

The central issue is and remains the occupation and sectarian issues have been used to divide and rule in order to maintain that occupation. Ignoring that pretending the pink elephant doesnt exist in the room and freaking out about a blue kitten also there. The British government have shown their readiness to maintain sectarianism during the years of the "Peace Process", indeed you could argue that GFA is there to copper fasten sectarianism.

Also comparing Republican volunteers to Loyalist death squad members and the colonial militia in all honesty is strange firstly as Republican partisans focused on military targets as opposed to terrorizing a civilian population, didnt spend their time in prison watching porn and taking drugs, didnt run webs of prositution and drug dealing, didnt have the active support of the British state on all levels (that goes without saying) and in general have been able to get on with productive lives unlike the Loyalists to say the least.

PatricaMcKay

Fuinseog wrote: »

a Brendan Behan quote, which may be apt

'A protestant is an Irishman with a horse'

it says a lot on how Protestants are viewed in the Republic.

No the quote was actually that a Loyalist is a Protestant without horse, pretty big difference there.

PDN

PatricaMcKay wrote: »

The central issue is and remains the occupation and sectarian issues have been used to divide and rule in order to maintain that occupation. Ignoring that pretending the pink elephant doesnt exist in the room and freaking out about a blue kitten also there. The British government have shown their readiness to maintain sectarianism during the years of the "Peace Process", indeed you could argue that GFA is there to copper fasten sectarianism.

Also comparing Republican volunteers to Loyalist death squad members and the colonial militia in all honesty is strange firstly as Republican partisans focused on military targets as opposed to terrorizing a civilian population, didnt spend their time in prison watching porn and taking drugs, didnt run webs of prositution and drug dealing, didnt have the active support of the British state on all levels (that goes without saying) and in general have been able to get on with productive lives unlike the Loyalists to say the least.

This is getting well off-topic as we are supposed to be discussing sectarianism - not terrorism in general.

I lost friends who were killed for being born into and living among the Catholic tribe, and friends that were killed for and living among the Protestant tribe. I knew people on both sides who were blown up simply for drinking in a pub at the wrong time - no military target.

I also encountered drug dealers, pimps and paedophiles who used their status within the UDA and the PIRA to shield themselves.

If you think one side was composed of lily-white angels then you are kidding yourself. The sectarian conflict was tribalism conducted by murderous thugs on either side. I also (as someone whose family identified as neither Protestant or Catholic) had the unfortunate experience of being badly beaten in both loyalist and nationalist areas for simply being on that tribe's territory as someone who, as a non-tribe member, did not belong.

Even years later it makes me quite angry to hear thuggery being described as if it was somehow principled or heroic.

Fuinseog

PatricaMcKay wrote: »

No the quote was actually that a Loyalist is a Protestant without horse, pretty big difference there.

I am interested in literary quotes so I would be interested in your source. I just found the quote below on wikipedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Irish

Dublin working class playwright Brendan Behan, a staunch Irish Republican, famously defined an Anglo-Irishman as "a Protestant with a horse".
Pat: He was an Anglo-Irishman.
Meg: In the name of God, what's that?
Pat: A Protestant with a horse.
Ropeen: Leadbetter.
Pat: No, no, an ordinary Protestant like Leadbetter, the plumber in the back parlour next door, won't do, nor a Belfast orangeman, not if he was as black as your boot.
Meg: Why not?
Pat: Because they work. An Anglo-Irishman only works at riding horses, drinking whiskey, and reading double-meaning books in Irish at Trinity College.
—From act one of The Hostage, 1958
Thus, in Behan's understanding, the Anglo-Irish were Ireland's leisure class.

gigino

PatricaMcKay wrote: »

as Republican partisans focused on military targets as opposed to terrorizing a civilian population

I do not think thats how the relatives of those killed in , for example the Darkely church massacre ( where the INLA went to to a protestant church and machine gunned people at random ), the Le Mons restaurant bombing, the Enniskillen bomb, the Kingsmill atrocity, bloody Friday etc would see it. When the IRA targetted the off duty ( part time security force ) sole son who had a farm along the border, it was perceived as a way of getting the land, rolling the border back, which is what happened in many instances. Sometimes politicians, as representatives of the civilian population, were targetted. Like it or not a few decades of bombs + shootings was designed to terrorize a civilian population. It was sectarian. I have heard enough sectarian comments after a few sectarian songs to know the "armed struggle" was sectarian.

PatricaMcKay

gigino wrote: »

I do not think thats how the relatives of those killed in , for example the Darkely church massacre ( where the INLA went to to a protestant church and machine gunned people at random ), the Le Mons restaurant bombing, the Enniskillen bomb, the Kingsmill atrocity, bloody Friday etc would see it. When the IRA targetted the off duty ( part time security force ) sole son who had a farm along the border, it was perceived as a way of getting the land,

Part time security force? LOL, would you go way out of that...You realize you are talking about the UDR otherwise known as the B-Specials until the Brits had to change the name for international reasons (though they remained the B-Specials), who were up to their knecks in connections with the Loyalist death squads and were loathed right across the "nationalist" community, even by the most wimpiest good two shoes SDLPer?

Darkley wasnt carried out by the INLA, it was carried out by one member of the INLA who was stood down and two civilians who had lost it after losing family member after family member to the random slaughter carried out by the death squads. You do also realize that just prior to that the INLA had been led by two Ulster Protestants cruelly murdered in front of one of them's kids by probably the SAS? Well probably you dont.

Kingsmill was a disgrace however Le Mon wasnt supposed to happen the way it did, the unit was out to destory an economic target and NOT murder civilians, things messed up...That happens during an armed struggle.

How come people like you keep dragging up Kingsmill and completely ignore the Glennane gang? Have you even heard of them?

You do realize also that The Sunday Times six months after Bloody Friday revealed that the Brits HAD recieved warnings but decided to ignore them for propaganda purposes just like they did on other occasions.

I could go into further detail about how just wrong your post is but this is not the place to discuss this and so this is my last post on the subject.

As long as the underlying reasons for the conflict remain violence will go along them, if you are that het about the violence I would suggest that you campaign for a British withdrawal.

PatricaMcKay

gigino wrote: »

I have heard enough sectarian comments after a few sectarian songs to know the "armed struggle" was sectarian.

Name me ONE, just ONE, sectarian Republican song?

gigino

PatricaMcKay wrote: »

You realize you are talking about the UDR otherwise known as ........

not necessarily, I also could have meant part time or retired policemen, or others. Anyway, "Republican partisans " as you call them did indeed murder plenty of civilians, from elderly parishoners in the church at Darkley to people at Remberance services ( Enniskillen) to people in shops ( eg Bloody Friday ) to people in restaurants ( eg Le mons ) to workers on the bus ( eg Kingsmill )to politicians ( eg Graham ), to other people who worked for the government in one way or another. You said they did not "terrorize a civilian population"... well their violence, intimidation and threat of violence was an attempt to do just that, in their "campaign for a British withdrawal" as you call it. Why else do / did some people in N.I. talk about being "under siege"? Here in the Republic decades ago ( during the troubles ) I have heard some bigots cheer when they heard another RUC man was killed on the radio, "yippee, another black prod gone"....so do'nt try to tell me at least some republicans were not sectarian. Its a bit like nine decades ago when some "Prods" were shot, + burnt out etc in west Cork + elsewhere for being Protestant. The intimidation then helped reduce numbers from 250,000 to 100,000 - as Eoghan Harris says, the greatest civilian movement in pre war Europe. Sectarianism played a part in that too.

wolfsbane

PatricaMcKay said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane

No one - to the best of my knowledge - was murdered for his/her view of Justification by Faith or the Real Presence in the Mass. If they were selected for death by religion, it was only because their religion was presumed to reveal their political allegiance. Everyone knew this was not absolutely the case, but communal identity was the practical test. There have been a small number of Unionists/Loyalists who were Catholics, and the same of Nationalists/Republicans who were Protestants.


Not so fast there.

The people at Kingsmill were murdered because of their religious background.

No, they weren't. If they had been known as Protestant Nationalists they would not have been murdered. They were murdered because they were perceived to be Unionists/British.

The vast majority of Loyalist victims were murdered because of their religious background.

Wrong again. Same reasons as above. Catholics known to be Unionist would not be targeted.

A lot of Loyalists were pleased at the killing of Stephen Kerr because he was Roman Catholic.

Who is Stephen Kerr? Do you mean Constable Stephen Carroll or Constable Ronan Kerr? You must have a closer contact to Loyalists than I do, for I know few who care a fig what religion one is, only what their position is on the Northern Ireland State.

*********************************************************************
Acts 17:26 And He has made from one blood every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth, and has determined their preappointed times and the boundaries of their dwellings, 27 so that they should seek the Lord, in the hope that they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us; 28 for in Him we live and move and have our being, as also some of your own poets have said, ‘For we are also His offspring.’

wolfsbane

PatricaMcKay wrote: »

No its not.

Its two things, the occupation and the fact that a part of the population was bought off along sectarian lines to secure the north for economic reasons and later for idealogical ones.

Lenny Murphy, the most notorious of the Loyalists...Pretty "Gaelic name".

Sands though? Devine though? Even Adams?

Whatever reasons you may think the British government had for agreeing to Partition, you ignore the fact that the Unionist people of Northern Ireland refused to submit to a gaelic, Catholic Ireland. They did not see themselves as one nation with the gaels, and viewed the influence of the RCC as a clear and present danger to civil and religious liberty.

It was the Unionist/British people of Ulster that determined Partition, regardless of what the British government intended. No doubt some of the rich and powerful were in it for economic reasons only - but they were not the masses who were willing to die in the ditches.

Sectarianism implies an irrational hatred of others on the basis of their religion. Ulster Protestants were and are happy to co-exist with their Catholic fellow-countrymen, provided they are not being coerced into an Irish Republic. It has always been the National Question that is the issue, not other's religion.

******************************************************************
Acts 17:26 And He has made from one blood every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth, and has determined their preappointed times and the boundaries of their dwellings, 27 so that they should seek the Lord, in the hope that they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us; 28 for in Him we live and move and have our being, as also some of your own poets have said, ‘For we are also His offspring.’

PatricaMcKay

wolfsbane wrote: »

No, they weren't. If they had been known as Protestant Nationalists they would not have been murdered. They were murdered because they were perceived to be Unionists/British.

Crap they were killed because they were Protestant civilians, yes in order to halt the Glennane gang's butchery of innocent RCs, but it was murder pure and simple, and sectarian murder at that. The message was we can sink as low as you can so back off. Which was sick and contrary to Republican principles.

PatricaMcKay

wolfsbane wrote: »

Wrong again. Same reasons as above. Catholics known to be Unionist would not be targeted.

LOL, Loyalist death squads murdered innocent Protestants who were probably Unionist or at least came from Unionist families. You know as well as I do that some Loyalists were pleased with the killing of Ronan Kerr because he was a "Taig". There wasnt much logic outside of cold blooded machismo behind their killings.

PatricaMcKay

wolfsbane wrote: »

Sectarianism implies an irrational hatred of others on the basis of their religion. Ulster Protestants were and are happy to co-exist with their Catholic fellow-countrymen, provided they are not being coerced into an Irish Republic. It has always been the National Question that is the issue, not other's religion.

No it was about securing the privilieges however small you have over your neighbour and your right to bask in the reflected glory of now long gone Empire.

PatricaMcKay

wolfsbane wrote: »

They did not see themselves as one nation with the gaels, and viewed the influence of the RCC as a clear and present danger to civil and religious liberty.

The Gaels? Are you living in the early Middle ages?

The Irish nation is a mix of things, I have French Huegnot, Scottish, English, Italian and "Gael" blood, but Im Irish. Same as you are. This denial of being Irish was only really started by the Loyalists during the last insurgency.

And a clear and present danger to civil liberty? Since when are Unionists concerned about civil liberty? Werent they the ones who viciously attacked the civil rights movement? What problem did they have with the Special Power act? Or the one about flags?

wolfsbane

PDN wrote: »

The reasons behind the two tribes' dislike of each other is neither here nor there. It's still tribalism. Neither are the names significant - in Nigeria you find Hausa people with Yoruba names and vice versa. Inter-marriage still takes place to some extent in tribal societies.

Although I've lived in the Republic for many years, prior to becoming a Christian I lived for periods in loyalist areas such as Ballyhackamore and Greenisland. I also lived in Nationalist areas such as the lower Antrim Road and the New Lodge. I have met men of violence from both sides of the divide and, while some of them were quite engaging on a personal level, there was a frightening similarity between them.

While bigots and partisans like to trumpet how their side was noble, and everything was the other side's fault, I think they kid themselves. Tribalism is ugly, and the North's troubles were a playground for thugs and psychopaths who wrapped their ignoble criminality in the flag of the tribe they happened to be born into.

To take the last comment first: Yes, like most wars and rebellions I have read of, the thug element often comes to the top. They are willing to take risks and willing to intimidate, like the criminals they are. Stalin was a classic example.

Not that the paramilitaries were solely composed of such to begin with. Many on both sides were true patriots. Some remained so, but power tends to corrupt. And the need for funds led others into robberies and drug-dealing. So whether its the CIA, the FARC, the IRA, the UDA or UVF, both government agencies and paramilitaries become corrupt.

And it is not a matter of mere gangsterism, the rule of the few by violence. Both sets of paramilitaries had significant support for their basic cause. They were seen as defenders of 'our kind'. Easy to repudiate when the peace comes, but enjoying tacit support among many 'respectable' people when things were tough. In a war, one can't be too choosy about allies.

Finally, many people who supported the war did so from a natural fear of the other side. They did not wish to start a war, but had to respond to aggression (or perceived aggression). Their fault was not warmongering, just a failure to think it through before confronting the 'enemy'. A failure to recognise there were just complaints/ needs the other side had, as well as unjust ones. If we all had tried to accommodate those just demands, perhaps today's compromise would have been there from the beginning. It's a principle that applies to so much of human relationships - marriage, family, employment, etc.

The Bible puts it so simply:
Philippians 2:4 Let each of you look out not only for his own interests, but also for the interests of others.
********************************************************************************

wolfsbane

PatricaMcKay wrote: »

Crap they were killed because they were Protestant civilians, yes in order to halt the Glennane gang's butchery of innocent RCs, but it was murder pure and simple, and sectarian murder at that. The message was we can sink as low as you can so back off. Which was sick and contrary to Republican principles.

So if they had been Protestant GAA members, known to support a United Ireland, they would still have been murdered by the IRA? Nonsense!

It was an indiscriminate assassination of Unionists, to match the Glennanne gang's indiscriminate assassination of Nationalists. But neither side were being sectarian.

As to being contrary to Republican principles, have you not heard of the Altnaveigh Massacre?
http://www.newrymemoirs.com/stories_pages/mayhem1921-1923_1.html

You seem to suggest that it is OK to kill those who resist the Republican campaign for a United Ireland - that it is principled to murder full and part-time soldiers, full and part-time policemen, prison officers, judges, clerks, brick-layers, etc. who work in police stations and army bases? Unionists only innocent if they bow their heads and submit to Republican rule?

That's no different from the Loyalists who reckoned nationalists only innocent if they keep their aspirations to themselves and don't support any pressure for a United Ireland.

********************************************************************
Philippians 2:4 Let each of you look out not only for his own interests, but also for the interests of others.

wolfsbane

PatricaMcKay wrote: »

LOL, Loyalist death squads murdered innocent Protestants who were probably Unionist or at least came from Unionist families. You know as well as I do that some Loyalists were pleased with the killing of Ronan Kerr because he was a "Taig". There wasnt much logic outside of cold blooded machismo behind their killings.

Loyalists murdered innocent Protestants /Unionists either by mistake - they were so incompetent - or in the course of a robbery or other crime. NEVER because they had religious differences with them.

I have known many loyalists over the years, and none of them ever made an issue of the religious beliefs of their victims. It was ethnic/national concerns that motivated their actions.

***********************************************************************
Philippians 2:4 Let each of you look out not only for his own interests, but also for the interests of others.

lmaopml

wolfsbane wrote: »

Finally, many people who supported the war did so from a natural fear of the other side. They did not wish to start a war, but had to respond to aggression (or perceived aggression). Their fault was not warmongering, just a failure to think it through before confronting the 'enemy'. A failure to recognise there were just complaints/ needs the other side had, as well as unjust ones. If we all had tried to accommodate those just demands, perhaps today's compromise would have been there from the beginning. It's a principle that applies to so much of human relationships - marriage, family, employment, etc.

The Bible puts it so simply:
Philippians 2:4 Let each of you look out not only for his own interests, but also for the interests of others.
********************************************************************************

Very true Wolfe! Nobody has the 'monopoly' on suffering as a brave lady once said...easy with twenty twenty vision hindsight to see - but it took a few brave men to recognise that reality and break the mould..


There is a time for everything,
and a season for every activity under the heavens: 2 a time to be born and a time to die,
a time to plant and a time to uproot,
3 a time to kill and a time to heal,
a time to tear down and a time to build,
4 a time to weep and a time to laugh,
a time to mourn and a time to dance,
5 a time to scatter stones and a time to gather them,
a time to embrace and a time to refrain from embracing,
6 a time to search and a time to give up,
a time to keep and a time to throw away,
7 a time to tear and a time to mend,
a time to be silent and a time to speak,
8 a time to love and a time to hate,
a time for war and a time for peace.


Thank goodness, both sides want peace and a better future for everybody.

PatricaMcKay

wolfsbane wrote: »

Loyalists murdered innocent Protestants /Unionists either by mistake - they were so incompetent - or in the course of a robbery or other crime. NEVER because they had religious differences with them.

My point was that their killing often drug and alcohol fueled was indiscriminately aimed at people from RC backgrounds. Killing Republican activists I can understand...Any Taig Will Do...That I dont understand.

wolfsbane

PatricaMcKay wrote: »

No it was about securing the privilieges however small you have over your neighbour and your right to bask in the reflected glory of now long gone Empire.

I'm no expert on the privileges enjoyed in Ireland in the decade before Partition, but to the best of my knowledge Catholics had as many as the Protestants. They had a much larger representation at Westminster, and a big number in the police. But I'm open to correction.

As far as I'm aware, the issue for the Unionists coming up to the War of Independence and Partition was not supremacy and privilege, but survival of our British identity and our religious freedom.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulster_Covenant#Kipling.27s_.22Ulster_1912.22

Coming to what I do know for a certainty, my opposition to the IRA campaign was not any desire to dominate my RC neighbours (I grew up in a predominately RC area), but to protect my British identity and religious freedom. I saw the Irish State that had emerged, and it confirmed the opinions and fears of my forefathers. Gaelic and Catholic to the core. I even was told by a Republican supporter that Ireland ought to be Catholic in essence - contraceptives should be banned, as also divorce. Protestants would just have to live with it. But Protestants were not going to live with it, nor with anything that denied their British identity - hence the late war.

Yes, I know the assurances many Nationalists/Republicans gave of the non-sectarian nature of a New Ireland, the unity of Planter and Gael. We just did not believe them, especially not when we saw the Ireland they had developed when they were free to do so.


*******************************************************************
Philippians 2:4 Let each of you look out not only for his own interests, but also for the interests of others.

PatricaMcKay

wolfsbane wrote: »

Finally, many people who supported the war did so from a natural fear of the other side. They did not wish to start a war, but had to respond to aggression (or perceived aggression).

Sorry, no, the last thing the IRA wanted was the troubles, infact the civil rights movements caused a split in the Republican movement, it was the Unionist response to the civil rights movement that caused so many people to flood into the IRA and later from the Officials to shrink to nothing and the Provos to become everything when the former declared their ceasefire. It was Unionists whipped to hysteria who convinced so many people that the Orange state could not be reformed, it had to be smashed.

And still today Unionists keep on egging us other back into the troubles.

PatricaMcKay

Woflsbane as a Republican I hate the Free State more than you could ever imagine.

My theological objections to Roman Catholicism are in various threads.

But after the smashing of the Irish Republic in the 26 there was a wave immigration as massive if not more so as in the time of the famine, when Republicans were driven out. Both the sick and twisted states in Ireland are products of that counter revolution.

fryup

PatricaMcKay wrote: »

And still today Unionists keep on egging us other back into the troubles.

:rolleyes:

is it the unionists who are planting bombs and targeting policemen???

your views.. are a prime example of the tribilistic mentality of the north

PatricaMcKay

wolfsbane wrote: »

As far as I'm aware, the issue for the Unionists coming up to the War of Independence and Partition was not supremacy and privilege, but survival of our British identity and our religious freedom.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulster_Covenant#Kipling.27s_.22Ulster_1912.22

The idea that your religious freedom would have been lost is mad. The Free State at its worst was NOT Franco's Spain. Also what is a "British" identity? I know about Scottish, English, Welsh, Manx and Cornish identities, but come on...