Ian Paisley has died

tigger123 wrote: »

What? Are you referring to the Good Friday Agreement? That was supposed to bring about a united Ireland?

Sorry yes the Good Friday Agreement. It seems McGuiness is happy for this to be settlement which it shouldn't be it should be a stepping stone to a 32 county republic by peaceful means. But McGuiness has lost the fight for a united Ireland that's why maybe he calls Paisley a friend

Happyman42 wrote: »

The attempts by RTE and the media to 'dilute' what this man did and tried to do would be laughable if it wasn't so pathetic and sad. Their hypocrisy is mirrored by those on here who would seek to revise this man's contribution while still seeking retribution for what Adams allegedly did. 'F***ing hypocrites'...to paraphrase Paisley himself.

Without trying to sound too conspiratorial, it does make you wonder just how much of an influence either the Grand Orange Lodge of Ireland and/or the British government have over RTE and Ireland.

Let's not forget before the Irish civil war, there were alot of Protestants living in Ireland (Throughout); who were not only granted more land and rights than the Native Irish people, but who were also both more wealthy and influential as a result sic; (Of the plantation by the British).

How much of that influence has really gone away?

Since the Protestant Reformation, Protestantism has always frowned upon, looked down upon, condescended on and outright despised followers of the Catholic faith; and the Catholic religion itself (I'm personally an agnostic btw).

Apart from the Paedophile scandals within the Catholic Church (Which is reprehensible), what did the Catholic church do to warrant such bitterness from reformists (Genuine question)?

I know I could google but I am lazy :P

EDIT: I'm assuming Catholic priests refused to take anal from John Calvin and Marin Luther?

Happyman42 wrote: »

I don't believe it has anything to do with that.
It is simple, there is still a hardcore in the media who know that they got it wrong, they revile Adams and SF because it reminds them how wrong they got it. They will cling to all opposites of SF for that reason, hoping that by placing bigots on pedestals that they can stall the day when their hypocrisies are found out.
Politically, the establishment parties in the south know they are the inheritors of a power that was gained because of a sellout. A sellout and abandonment of Irish people living in N.I. And they know that there is a day of reckoning coming with every percentage rise of SF.
It is based in simple fear on both counts...fear of being found out.

So anything just to get under the skin of SF then you reckon?

I'd agree.

Makes a bit of sense; also would have it's roots to the civil war though, in a modern sense of historically speaking

If that makes sense.

SF being related to Republicanism and IRA, RTE and media outlets being government institutes.

BeerBoobs wrote: »

Apart from the Paedophile scandals within the Catholic Church (Which is reprehensible), what did the Catholic church do to warrant such bitterness from reformists (Genuine question)?

here's three.
Magdalene laundries. Outlawing homosexuality. Blocking the mother and child scheme.

tigger123 wrote: »

It's a very good question. What right would I have as someone born and raised in Dublin to tell someone living in Belfast what Government they should be ruled by?

Personally I'm not so sure that if a referendum was held in the morning that Catholics (and or/Nationalists) would readily opt in to the Republic.

I think a lot of the rhetoric around the North makes a lot of assumptions about what the people who live there want.

You have every right to have a say I believe. Men from every county died for the cause so I believe every person has the right to have a say. Ultimately the north is our land governed by the British which is wrong IMO

Chrissybhoy wrote: »

You have every right to have a say I believe. Men from every county died for the cause so I believe every person has the right to have a say. Ultimately the north is our land governed by the British which is wrong IMO

So, what about what Catholics/Nationalists in the North want? Does that even come into it? There's no self-determination? What if they didn't want to be part of the Republic?

EunanMac wrote: »

Soctland provides something £ 10,500 in taxes per head, and the British government spend something like £ 9,500 per head in Scotland. Scotland is a net tax contibuter.

However the British created cess pit mess that is the six counties, produces £ 6,500 per head in taxes, but costs the British taxpayers £ 10,500 per head.

It's Britain's mess, let them carry the can.

Britain would hand it back in a heartbeat if they could. There's nothing for them up there.

tigger123 wrote: »

So, what about what Catholics/Nationalists in the North want? Does that even come into it? There's no self-determination? What if they didn't want to be part of the Republic?

I really do think that nationalists/Catholics/republicans would like to be part of the republic. I know the mess the country is in and the argument we can't afford the north. But then I feel more strongly about the people that died for a 32 republic and for their sake not to die in vain. Call me whatever you want mad deluded but I think we should have what is rightfully ours

Chrissybhoy wrote: »

Should that referendum not be for all the 32 county's and not just the six tho ?

That is correct and is enshrined in the amended Article 3.

Shakespeare's Sister wrote: »

Heh, the more puritanical reformed churches wouldn't have a problem with the homosexuality one. The hate towards Catholics by Protestants goes back hundreds of years to Rome's dominance, corruption, nepotism, greed, assisting plundering etc. it's understandable that Christians would want to break away from that and form their own churches, but unfortunately hate accompanied it and hasn't left certain volatile areas.

To be fair to the whole religion thing, a lot of it was just convienent. A lot of the problems in the north has a class origin that became political and religious. Some of the greatest nationalist (Wolfetone, Parnell) were protestant.
I also doubt that most republicans or loyalists could have a theological discussion about the differenced between CoI and Catholicism.

I don't know if anyone's mentioned this quote, but when I think of paisley I think of it.

"Somebody told me the other day the reason Brian Cowen's lips were so thick was that when his mother was bringing him up he was a very disobedient young boy, so she used to put glue on his lips and put him to the floor and keep him there. "

that image always brings a smile to my face

One more point I'd like to make about the legacy of "Dr" "Reverend" Ian Pasiley and Protestantism * is why are they all so against homosexuality?

Up in the North here the current Health Executive minister (And DUP MP) Edwin Poots denied the donation of blood by homosexuals.

Apparently Edwin Poots would rather see children who need a blood transfusion die, than give them blood belonging to a male or female person who is attracted to the same sex.

Where do people get off on these things?

It's basically like saying Homosexuality is a disease and it's obviously a genetically transferred disease spread via transmission of the blood.

Now I am a straight man, but by Jesus! How ridiculous.

How about saving some children's lives by allowing legislation that includes donation of blood by Homosexual men/women?

Provided that tests have been carried out on said people, that says they are free from any infections; which is a requirement for everyone else.

They are humans too!!!

EDIT: Apologies for the typo, that was clearly unintentional.

BeerBoobs wrote: »

One more point I'd like to make about the legacy of "Dr" "Reverend" Ian Pasiley and protosatansim is why are they all so against homosexuality?

Up in the North here the current Health Executive minister (And DUP MP) Edwin Poots denied the donation of blood by homosexuals.

Apparently Edwin Poots would rather see children who need a blood transfusion die, than give them blood belonging to a male or female person who is attracted to the same sex.

Where do people get off on these things?

It's basically like saying Homosexuality is a disease and it's obviously a genetically transferred disease spread via transmission of the blood.

Now I am a straight man, but by Jesus! How ridiculous.

How about saving some children's lives by allowing legislation that includes donation of blood by Homosexual men/women?

Provided that tests have been carried out on said people, that says they are free from any infections; which is a requirement for everyone else.

They are humans too!!!

Because all these god-worshippin religions put their beliefs before anythin else.

ProtoSATANISM??
I don't even think Satanism would have any of the ****e rules,bigotry,scaremongering and hypocrisy which is preached by catholics,protestants,presbyterians,muslims,jehovahs,jews etc. etc. etc.
Apologies for going off topic.