Post by Republic on Apr 25, 2007 11:45:15 GMT
In 1824, according to the Commission of Inquiry into Education in Ireland (before the state became involved in eduation), there were over 12,000 schools in Ireland, and of those 9,300 were ‘hedge schools’ catering for very large numbers of people.
And because of the Penal Laws only foreign educated people, the vast majority of whom were from Catholic religous orders, were the only ones educated enough to teach at these schools.
The hedge school system was replaced by the national school system in 1831 and again because of Penal Laws there was no one except for religous orders able to teach and run these school and that continued on and on.
And because of the Penal Laws only foreign educated people, the vast majority of whom were from Catholic religous orders, were the only ones educated enough to teach at these schools.
The hedge school system was replaced by the national school system in 1831 and again because of Penal Laws there was no one except for religous orders able to teach and run these school and that continued on and on.
Penal Laws were a source of embarrasment to the british govt by the mid 18th century. It was the anglo-irish protestant ascendancy and the irish parliament keeping them in place. Again, we need to look closer to home for blame.
The british govt were the ones who introduced the catholic relief acts of 78 and 82 (as part of the constitution of 1782, of course some irish protestants feigned interest in catholics- grattan comes to mind- but most had no time for catholics and were only interested in their own careers)
you'll be interested to learn that irish catholics supported the british govt against the irish-parliament-supported american revolution.
catholics were grateful to britain for protecting them from irish protestants and they even hoped that britain would give them a catholic colony in maryland when britain won the war. alas thatnever happened and the irish never got that catholic colony in the new world.
But all that is largely irrelevant given that i am talking about the free state govts failure to introduce non-religious education. The govt of the 1930s cannot, with any credibility, claim they were hampered by events of the 1830s or of the early 1700s.
Are you telling me if bertie wanted to do something controversial, the events of 1907 would hinder him?
? ;DThe reality is that religious education was kept because the vast majority of the population wanted it. Do you agree? If you dont agree, then why was there such a catholic influence in education IN THE 20TH CENTURY? surely not because of the 18th or 19th century?
?? thats a lame excuse!!!Therefore the unionists were right that the state would have a catholic bias.
So even though the anti-divorce lobby WAS NOT based on religion and religion played no part in the anti-divorce lobby it was still religous discrimination? It restricted the freedom on Catholics as well mate but again it was nothing to do with religion! As Ireland moved from a rural to urban based society so did our opinions on divorce.
and contraception. Dude I can't remember any denomination of Protestant Hierarcy lambasting the Republic for not allowing certain forms of contraception. Look at how conservative NI was as well and their opinions on various forms of contraception! They're not dis-similar.
and contraception. Dude I can't remember any denomination of Protestant Hierarcy lambasting the Republic for not allowing certain forms of contraception. Look at how conservative NI was as well and their opinions on various forms of contraception! They're not dis-similar.
Divorce was a catholic inclusion in the constitution. All the research backs this up. Property may have been the reason in the referendums, but im talking about the 1930s, when religion was the reason. Dont confuse the two.
all the research indicates that the clauses were religiously-based.
See Joseph Lee or Roy Foster, two of the best historians of modern ireland.
Then what are you basing all this on? What's the big whoop-dee-doo?
Protestants being discriminated against based on their religion? It didn't happen.
Protestants being discriminated against based on their religion? It didn't happen.
where is this coming from?
My question was 'were unionists right that an irish state would have a catholic bias'?
I made no judgement on whether this was a good or a bad thing.
The state did have a catholic bias so the anti-HR unionists were proved right.
I am not arguing anything else.
It somes down to this------
Did unionists claim the state would have a catholic bias? Yes
Did the state have a catholic bias? Yes
now we can argue all day and night about why this would happen but those two points are the only two things that we know for sure. We dont whether unionists would have ceated a more secular state. maybe, maybe not. We cant say for sure.
the only two things that are certain is the above two points.
I disagree. We haven't much to go because Nationalists were gerrymandered and disenfrachised out of government in NI so we haven't see that theory put to the test before.
At the moment there is consensous on a number of things such as water rates and household rates. That isn't playing tribal politics or being populist. It's being against double taxation and representing your constituants no matter what religion they are. The majority of other policy differences are nothing to do with that tribe you're from but more to do with normal Left V Right Politics.
At the moment there is consensous on a number of things such as water rates and household rates. That isn't playing tribal politics or being populist. It's being against double taxation and representing your constituants no matter what religion they are. The majority of other policy differences are nothing to do with that tribe you're from but more to do with normal Left V Right Politics.
we shall see, but in all honesty, i hope you are right.
Man are we working under the assumption that the Unionists would sit in the Dail or not when speculating about the IPP and Unionists? If not any debate is mute.
no we are not working under that assumption at all. im working under what happened, not under what may or may not have happened.
If they are then they, as conservative, middle class type Christians would have had a lot in common with the decendents of the IPP who predominantly went with FG.
They also beleived in keeping a link with Britian and so on which would have made them closer to the Unionists that FF.
They also beleived in keeping a link with Britian and so on which would have made them closer to the Unionists that FF.
well, the michael collins link will always dissuade from thinking that way. ask any unionist of the time would they consider linking with the IPP or politicians who supported collins and i am pretty sure the answer would be in the negative.
Ironically it was FG who took ireland out of the commonwealth and declared a republic in 1949, in a stupid attempt to prove their republican credentials.
Dev himself admitted that he would never have taken ireland from the commonwealth. even in 1921 he admitted that he was not a 'doctrinaire republican', so dont get too caught up in the hype about devs anti-britishness. He worked quite well within the commonwealth and often found membership to be advantageous.
the declaration of the republic also copperfastened partition, at a time when unionists needed convincing about the souths intentions, coming just 4 years after neutrality.
so if anything, i could just as easily see unionists siding with pro-commonwealth FF. but frankly i find the thought of unionist partnership with either party in 1930s 40s 50s quite ridiculous.
dont forget the bitterness that existed at the time.
But the examples set elsewhere in Europe don't suppport your theory PLUS, there would have had to have been reconcilliation on some level for Unionists to sit in the DAIL IN THE FIRST PLACE
i dont know many examples that can ever be used in relation to this messed-up country!!!!!
and the assumption about reconciliation before dail entry is a reasoonable one, although i am sceptical if unionists would have ever accepted it, no matter how much reconciliation occurred.
bottom line is they wanted union, only union, and nothing else. amybe they would have accepted reconciliation within the UK. to assume otherwise is a gross misunderstanding of the unionists position and their collective mindset, imo.
I have to do a quick edit here to add, that the people, mainly, Catholic were not scared or even concerning themselves with any "Prod" threat as proven when they voted a Protestant to be President and voted for several Protestant TD's and have continued to vote for people including Jew's and a Hindu with religion playing NO part in the election campaign.
thats because there was never a prod or any other religious threat in catholic ireland. the situation would have been way different if there a million protestnats influencing the direction of the country. then the catholic vote would have come into play.
hey im not syaing irish people were bigots, that was just the way it was back then. unionists did the same in NI. it happened all over europe. im irish myself, im not denigrating us, im fairly evaluating our recent history.
NI should do the same, because there will be no progress while we pretend that we were angels. we weren't!!
