|
|
Post by Wasp on Aug 16, 2009 19:16:38 GMT
Aug 14 2009
THE Orange Walk is when the rednecks of Scotland and beyond parade in the streets and attempt to provoke a sizeable number of people into sectarian fury.
There is an undeniable attraction to these Orange parades. There is verve and colour and the sort of vigour, which those with no brains can exercise.
However, the Orangemen have only one objective and that is to insult Roman Catholics. They have no other reason for these marches at all.
The excuse used for these marches – “the right to march on our streets to celebrate our history.”
Shame they don’t celebrate their Scottish history (rebelling against the monarchy and the union) and instead choose to follow this anti-catholic history.
I wonder if these marchers treat all British subjects equally or as is this case only treat a person with the same skin colour/religion as their equal. The slave trade is a part of our history, yet we don’t celebrate that, and rightly so!
Why this march was permitted at all is beyond reason. How these people have been allowed to parade in an open display of incitement against others in the same community in this day and age is shameful, and something the majority of Dumbarton’s population do not want to neither see or hear.
It was believed precedence had been set with Strathclyde police and Glasgow City Council refusing permission for a march to highlight anti-Irish racism in Glasgow
City Centre for August 9.
The reason for this refusal? Because of “threats of violence from racists.”
THE REPLY
So our walks are to provoke people into sectarian fury ?
We are all brute beasts with no will or ability to resist this, we /they are like petrol awaiting a match? What absolute nonsense!
Christians are taught by responsible christian ministers (sadly missing from Dumbarton) to turn the other cheek if provoked, and not retaliate or lose control of ourselves.
Oh the ignorant and the biased, so we stand accused of wanting to insult the Irish......Wrong!
It has been the Irish that have always wanted to eradicate protestants, especially in Ireland, and forced the protestants to band together for self protection (in the days before organised police forces). The various walks are a display that all is well, we are not about to be obliterated,
we are united.
Celebrating our history is correct,
we have a United Kingdom and Parliament I have 3 out of 4 Grandparents who were Scots, all like me Unionists. All love their heritage as Scots, all very Scottish, and rejoice in Scots history, but not rebellions, not bloodshed, we all see and saw the Union as a possitive benefit and a guarantee of our protestant heritage.
When Roman Catholics stop trying to re-write history and making themselves out to have been unjustly wronged, then perhaps it will be time to stop Orange Parades, but not until.!
AS long as they claim to be the only true church; as long as the pope says he is Christs regent on earth; as long as sectarian education is paid for by the tax payer; As long as the children of mixed marriages are to be brought up RC. we have grounds to be alert to their actions. They claim "Semper Idem" as their motto, meaning always the same.
As for the british citizen jibe, In Liverpool there were Lodges which were nearly all of Afro/Carribean decent. There are Lodges in Ghana, Nigeria and Togo composed of Africans and in Canada an Italian Lodge, and even now in Poland. So Orangeism is international and multi-racial.
It is not incitement, never has been, it is a confident assertion and celebration of our british heritage, It is a thanksgiving, and display of unity and pride.
But you dont want to hear that do you.
|
|
|
|
Post by earl on Aug 17, 2009 16:24:22 GMT
Really? So what were the penal laws all about? Were they:
A) a set of laws created to eradicate Protestantism or
B) a set of laws created to eradicate Catholicism?
|
|
|
|
Post by earl on Aug 17, 2009 16:44:35 GMT
OO, originally called the Peep O'Day boys due to the time of day when they came a knocking on Catholics doors at dawn.
Earl of Gosford quotes at the time:
'a low set of fellows…who with Guns and Bayonets, and Other weapons Break Open the Houses of the Roman Catholics, and as I am informed treat many of them with Cruelty.'
Some Protestant landlords actually felt sorry for the abuse the Peep O'Days/OO were dishing out and actually tried to help by arming them, according to John Byrne, a Catholic dyer from Armagh city:
'to protect themselves from depredations of these fanatick madmen; and many poor creatures were obliged to abandon their houses at night, and sleep in turf-bogs, in little huts made of sods; so great was the zeal of our holy crusados this year.'
Following the repeal of penal laws restricting Catholic access to landed property in 1778 and 1782, Catholic competition for leases intensified, driving up prices and provoking Protestant resentment. Then in 1793 the Catholic Relief Act enfranchised forty shilling freeholders in the counties, thus increasing the political value of Catholic tenants to landlords.
Whereas Catholic competition in the land market allegedly drove up the price of leases, Catholic weavers competing in the labour market aroused Protestant hostility by allegedly depressing wage rates. Certainly, substantial Catholic participation in the linen boom is not in doubt. Prominent Catholic radicals, such as Luke Teeling in Lisburn and Bernard Coile in Lurgan, were wealthy linen merchants. The brother of the Armagh priest, Defender and United Irishman, James Coigly, Bernard Coile employed up to a hundred hands in the county. From the viewpoint of Protestant Ascendancy the Catholic menace included a threat to the livelihoods of Protestant weavers. During the 1780s, Peep O Day Boys raiding Catholic homes (which were also their workplaces) in search of illegally-held arms, smashed domestic looms whenever they came across them. Again, the wholesale wrecking of Catholic cottages by Orangemen in the winter of 1795-6 included the destruction of looms, webs and yarn. The breakdown of traditional social control lurched into sectarian economic warfare.
|
|
|
|
Post by Wasp on Aug 18, 2009 20:21:00 GMT
Earl why didnt you go back a bit further such as say 1641 for example?? With your nic picking at points to find fault you miss the whole point of the reply and you totally miss the feeling of Protestants. You see the author of this letter made valid points without having to throw in various dates to back these points.
The reply clearly shows that this is the general feeling of Protestants to some degree at least and my guess would be that he is talking in particular about the present and recent years covering the troubles, as well as taking into account the violent nature of irish republicans towards their Protestant neighbours throughout history. Trying to nic pic to demean this persons points will get you nowhere and would normally suggest the refusal to understand Protestants, their suffering and their way of life. But earl because its you I am not accusing you of that, I think like me you sometimes get the thinking lines of trying to prove someones points wrong while ignoring the rest of the points.
|
|
|
|
Post by Blue Angel on Aug 18, 2009 22:00:19 GMT
I'd say both of them are amadans - the fellow writing the letter starts in with a lot of barstool republican nonsense and gurning and growling and the guy replying has to start in with digs about Catholics not really been Christians so as to uphold his end of the idiocy. I'd say emulating the attitudes showing by either party is counter-productive.
|
|
|
|
Post by Wasp on Aug 18, 2009 22:24:21 GMT
BA I would not say they are digs at all, they are how he sees it according to his own deep faith. If someone goes off on a rant about catholic beliefs or Protestant beliefs while knowing nothing about the subject and worse still knowing less about their own faith then I would be the first to say it was digs. But a man of faith who knows his bible inside out is hardly digging catholics, he is speaking the truth.
|
|
|
|
Post by Blue Angel on Aug 19, 2009 10:34:50 GMT
"we have grounds to be alert to their actions" - that one line betrays quite a lot I think. So he's using the Bible, which is a book compiled by Catholics, to attempt to refute the Catholic Church? A bizarre notion I've always found, he hardly knows Catholic teaching either. He's talking about mixed marriages there for example, I can tell you been a member of one myself he most certainly is inaccurate in his comments there. I see nothing to be gained from either parties outlooks which are just the height of negativity and paranoia.
|
|
|
|
Post by Blue Angel on Aug 19, 2009 11:09:11 GMT
One assumes the bloke answering the letter was for example referencing the ne temere decree in relation to Children been brought up in mixed marriages - that hasn't been in force for nearly 40 years and was replaced to martimonia mixta which states:-
15. The penalties decreed by canon 2319 (see below) of the Code of Canon Law are all abrogated. For those who have already incurred them the effects of those penalties cease, without prejudice to the obligations mentioned in number 4 of these norms.
Canon 2319, § 1:
"Catholics are under an excommunication latae sententiae reserved to the Ordinary:
(1) who contract marriage before a non-Catholic minister contrary to canon 1063, § 1, 1:
(2) who contract marriage with an explicit or implicit agreement that all children or any child be educated outside the Catholic Church;
(3) who knowingly presume to present their children to non-Catholic ministers to be baptized;
(4) who, being parents or taking their place, knowingly present their children to be educated or trained in a non-Catholic religion.
The rest of that decree urges parents in mixed marriages to endeavour to the best of their abilities to instruct their children in the Catholic faith but also urges them to instill respect for the other partner's faith and to not deride or mock it any time. Ne temere was an overly harsh decree which caused problems in many places, the German Catholic Church was granted special provisions regarding it because of the large number of mixed marriages historically in Germany. James Connolly's wife Nora (who was an Ulster Protestant) recounted how she and Connolly had to marry in a side chapel in the Church. I'd quite happily say Ne Temere was an incomplete and in many ways not particularly charitable decree, but the respondent in the OP post shows as much indepth knowledge of what he is railing against as does the letter writer.
|
|
|
|
Post by Wasp on Aug 19, 2009 13:22:52 GMT
BA of all the 125 anathemas which were never revoked, never challenged because of the churchs infallable stance etc, infact concedrning these anathemas Vatican II referred to the Council of Trent dozens of times and quoted Trent's proclamations as authority. Never revoked.
If only people could put their trust in God and the bible rather than the teachings and traditions of men throughout the years.
|
|
|
|
Post by Blue Angel on Aug 19, 2009 13:34:12 GMT
Then one would presume all the early Christians were lost as the Bible in any sense you and I would recognise it was not compiled for several centuries after Christ's death. The Bible is the word of God but not everything worth knowing is confined within it, once you start down that road the Bible becomes an idol in and of itself I find.
|
|
|
|
Post by earl on Aug 19, 2009 13:55:33 GMT
Earl why didnt you go back a bit further such as say 1641 for example?? With your nic picking at points to find fault you miss the whole point of the reply and you totally miss the feeling of Protestants. You see the author of this letter made valid points without having to throw in various dates to back these points. No, he has not made valid points. He has accused the Irish of trying to eradicate Protestantism, when the reality was that both religions had a go at eradicating the other, so to accuse Irish Catholics of it alone is hypocrisy. He has suggested that this forced them to band together, well again this is a half truth. Militias were formed not only to protect the new colonizers from the disposed natives, but also to protect their own interests from any unwanted interference from the king/government. This has been an element of Irish Protestantism right up to the formation of the original UVF. After all, it was this aspect of Irish Protestantism which gave birth to the United Irishmen and republicanism as an ideal on this island. Specifically talking about the formation of the OO, by that stage, Protestants were more worried about protecting their control through the ascendancy than anything else and the OO/Peep O'Day boys were heavily involved in industrial sabotage of Catholic industries. By that stage, the emphasis was more on control and less on protection. He then goes on to say that Catholics try to make out that they were unjustly wronged, and two words easily show one aspect of how historically they were, "penal laws". To this date, Catholics are discriminated in the UK in relation to no member of the Royal family can marry a Catholic. I believe that since the troubles, unionism has tried to redefine itself as the sole victim of history and has vigorously gone about re-writing history. There are tales of 'homecomings', black pigs dyke and bleak wild empty lands tamed and made productive by the colonizers which totally paints over the truth of the situation. Both these tall tales contradict each other by the way. Now I'm not trying to justify any ludicrous claims that come about by some crazy republicans. I can't stand the 'get off our land' crowd. I believe that Protestants have been living long enough on this island to have long surpassed any titles of 'planter' or outsider and consider them and their culture indigenous of the island. I don't believe that half truths and twisting history is required to justify any of it. I'm not even going to go into the whole religious side of his reply as BA has pointed out, most of it is completely irrelevant in modern society and that situation has not occurred in a long time. See above regarding the troubles. My dear fellow, as I've pointed out, republicanism couldn't have occurred on this island without the help of great Protestants like Wolfe Tone. One of the largest units of the United Irishmen was made up of Presbyterian's in Antrim. I believe that the person is historically inaccurate with his reply. That said, he was clearly provoked by the initial idiot post, which I've failed to mention thus far as it's not worth mentioning. TBH, I wouldn't fully blame his reaction. Clearly he was provoked into a response. I wouldn't disagree with this. Often it's hard to see the forest through the trees! |
|
|
|
Post by Blue Angel on Aug 19, 2009 14:06:09 GMT
A plague on both their houses - I do not define republicanism as Catholic or Protestant, but as Earl pointed out as a movement it's strongest and best early advocates were mainly Protestant in Ireland. I find both to be chauvinist, small minded bigots. And I totally agree with Earl, the Protestant population of the north of Ireland have every right to be there, I have no time for the 'get back to England or Scotland' outlook of some I've heard over the years and equally no time for the 'get back to Ireland' outlook of some others I've also heard.
|
|
|
|
Post by Wasp on Aug 19, 2009 21:00:12 GMT
To answer a few points. Earl the catholic church ruled Ireland and still has major influence to some degree, since a Protestant cannot be pope does this mean they are discriminated against by not being able to hold that office?? Of course not and the same applies to the Royal family.
You claim Unionists are rewriting history?? Well many many educational and surprizing articles I have read are by Irish catholic historians and researchers etc who have challenged some of the things taught in schools in the republic, so that is hardly Unionists trying to rewrite history now is it?? What Unionists are doing is making sure the truth is getting out instead of a onesided distortion of certain parts of our history. While I am sure there may be some who are exaggerating the truth, they are light years behind republicans and how they portray history.
BA not to long ago when you were an athiest you slagged off my liefs, you mocked my beliefs which I had no problem with. I tried to answer various points made by yourself, yet now when someone says something against catholic doctrine etc you are far from amused. Why the double standards?
|
|
|
|
Post by earl on Aug 20, 2009 11:20:46 GMT
WASP, do you know how many people of my age group that I know, of my generation who still go to mass (an obvious rhetorical question)? The answer is 1. This 'still has a major influence' is absolutely bogus. No one I know gives a shit about the church. The pope is not the figurehead of the Irish state, the president is and anyone of any religion can stand for that office. This is not the case with the figurehead of the British state.
I don't know where you are going with Catholic Irish historians examining and questioning their own history. That's a natural and healthy thing to do and that's a separate matter to what some Unionists are trying to do.
|
|
|
|
Post by Wasp on Aug 20, 2009 21:03:52 GMT
I know and I am friendly with plenty who still attend mass and hold onto their faith. Really? Would I be wrong in stating that bishops or their reps are patrons for over 90% of primary schools? Is the chairperson usually a priest on a schools board of governors? In catholic run schools is the church allowed to discrimante on accounts of sex and religion which is 2 of the 10 grounds on which discrimination is outlawed? Is perfectly legal for a church-run school to refuse the enrolment of an unbaptised child in favour of a Catholic one? A church-run school also has the power to fire a member of staff if they decide that they are not upholding the ethos of the school. Which in effect means they could sack someone for being gay or having kids out of wedlock. Is it ture that teachers increasingly include a reference from their Parish priest in their job application? Would I be correct in saying that in Dublin alone for example the Sisters of Mercy operate the Temple St. and The Mater hospitals, and the Sisters of Charity operate St Vincents and St Michaels? Would I be correct in saying that all of these hospitals must uphold the 'Catholic ethos'? This bound to cause problems between medicine and this ethos. A good example of this would be 2005, where the Mater hospital's clinical advisory group refused to allow the trial of a lung cancer drug to proceed because part of the treatment would have required patients to use contraception. Here read it for yourself. www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2005/1006/1127148482479.htmlCertainly not a bogus claim earl. Maybe you dont know many people or maybe you dont know anyone that counts in running your country.  Earl any leadr who is a catholic is answeable to the pope, so if a figurehead had any real power then if it went against catholic ethos they could not implement it incase for example they were excommunicated. No its not a seperate matter at all, it is these historians who are providing Unionists with this information. It certainly is healthy and it is very much welcomed by my community. |
|
Earl any leadr who is a catholic is answeable to the pope, so if a figurehead had any real power then if it went against catholic ethos they could not implement it incase for example they were excommunicated.