Easter Sunday/ 2006

Diorraing

rsynnott wrote:

Would you count the women coming on the train from Belfast with contraceptives? The gay civil rights movement? The vast majority who voted to remove the Catholic church's special position in the 70s?

And life may have been better, assuming one wasn't a woman, gay, an illegitimate child, desirous of speech without censorship, having sex, and so on.

What gay civil rights movement? Did it have the support of the people? I was referring to the period between 1916 and the 70s. Why didn't the majority vote to remove the Church's position in the 40s or 50s? If there was public support for it you may be sure the Government would have done it. Anyway, this is off topic. As has been explained to you earlier, the Catholic church would have been dominant in any form of an independant Ireland

LordSutch

I just wonder do those of you who will be attending the Easter 1916 Parade still hanker after a 32 County Republic? and if so why?

Considering that the majority of people living in the six counties consider themselves British and do not identify with this State.
(bear in mind also that a proportion of nationalists wish to remain in the UK).

They are in essance a "different tribe" and we have finally acknowlwdged that in the Good friday agreement ~ so why keep the friction going?

Cant we all live in peace on this Island, British/ Irish/ Unionist/ Nationalist/ Republican/ Loyalist + others .................................

As has been said many times before in this thread "The 1916 Rising + Violent independence did not appeal to everybody on this island.

murphaph

rsynnott wrote:

And life may have been better, assuming one wasn't a woman, gay, an illegitimate child, desirous of speech without censorship, having sex, and so on.

Not to mention children beaten to death by those brutal shower of cnuts who wrote our friggin constitution, yes folks, remember McQuaid had DeV kissin his ring for months of in Archbishop's House while they concocted that repressive garbage. People need to face the facts that the Ireland that evolved out of independence was a terrible place to live (one of the many reasons people left in droves for Britain of all places, I thought they were the evil oppressor though??) :rolleyes:

Zombrex

Diorraing wrote:

Why didn't the majority vote to remove the Church's position in the 40s or 50s? If there was public support for it you may be sure the Government would have done it.

Maybe you should look up the word "oppression" ...

Dyr

lostexpectation wrote:

I do think the risers increased the catholic repression.

"The Republic guarantees religious and civil liberty, equal rights and equal opportunities to all its citizens, and declares its resolve to pursue the happiness and prosperity of the whole nation and all of its parts, cherishing all of the children of the nation equally"

This state never managed to live up to the proclamations guarantee to cherish all chidren of the nation equally so its a bit rich to go on about repression and the rising.

rsynnott

Diorraing wrote:

What gay civil rights movement? Did it have the support of the people? I was referring to the period between 1916 and the 70s.

Were you? Interesting. All Church-caused problems vanished when the constitution was amended, eh?

Diorraing wrote:

Why didn't the majority vote to remove the Church's position in the 40s or 50s? If there was public support for it you may be sure the Government would have done it.

The government, naturally, did so when public support leapt from nothing to 70-odd percent suddenly in the early 70s?

Bear in mind that the government gave the church its special position (both formal and informal - the church was given influence in education and even health) and turned a blind eye to abominations like the Magdalen Laundries. Until the 90s, mind, in the latter case.

Diorraing wrote:

Anyway, this is off topic. As has been explained to you earlier, the Catholic church would have been dominant in any form of an independant Ireland

If we'd stayed part of Britain for longer, a lot of people would have benefited, and the catholic nastiness would have naturally reduced. Probably quicker, as the church would not have the same level of control as it did after independence. I know if I'd been around at the time, I'd have preferred to live in an Ireland that was part of the UK in the 70s than in an independent Ireland. After all, in our independent Ireland I'd have been criminalised.

Bambi wrote:

"The Republic guarantees religious and civil liberty, equal rights and equal opportunities to all its citizens, and declares its resolve to pursue the happiness and prosperity of the whole nation and all of its parts, cherishing all of the children of the nation equally"

Ironically, illegitimate children didn't get legal equality for quite a long time after that was written...

Zombrex

Bambi wrote:

This state never managed to live up to the proclamations guarantee to cherish all chidren of the nation equally so its a bit rich to go on about repression and the rising.

The state grew out of the fundamentalist ideas of the rising/WoI republicans.

Its unfortunately a catch 22 that the fundamentalists who are normally at the forefront of independence movements are exactly the ones you don't want running your country after independence is achieved.

DeV would be a classic example, with is rather ridiculous ideas on self suffiencey and close ties between the church and the state.

rsynnott

Wicknight wrote:

DeV would be a classic example, with is rather ridiculous ideas on self suffiencey and close ties between the church and the state.

And an unhealthy obsession with internet poker.

Sorry, couldn't help myself

Flex

murphaph wrote:

Not to mention children beaten to death by those brutal shower of cnuts who wrote our friggin constitution, yes folks, remember McQuaid had DeV kissin his ring for months of in Archbishop's House while they concocted that repressive garbage. People need to face the facts that the Ireland that evolved out of independence was a terrible place to live (one of the many reasons people left in droves for Britain of all places, I thought they were the evil oppressor though??) :rolleyes:

.

What was repressive about it? At the time the people who had a gripe with the costitution were conservative Catholic groups like Maria Duce. The Presbyterian Church of Ireland, Church of Ireland, Methodist church and Jews all thought it was a good constitution because it recognised their religions and guarenteed freedom of worship. It also provided universal sufferage, explicitly stated Ireland was a democratic country. And over in Britain their government still answers to the head of the Church of England. My own families experiences as Protestants in the Free State dictate the opposite of the rabid Catholic fundamentalist state Ireland supposidly became after independence aswel, so Im naturally sceptical about it.

As for emmigration to Britain, that was primarily due to economic reasons along with the fact that it was cheaper, quicker and easier to make the short journey across the Irish Sea to Britain (where a citizen of the Free State had rights; being a Dominion) rather than going to the USA.

rsynnott

Flex wrote:

.

What was repressive about it?

State collaboration on Magdalen Laundries. Position of illegitimate children. Last country in Western Europe to legalise homosexuality. Female civil servants forced to resign on marriage. Condoms de facto illegal until 1993. Contraceptive pill illegal until lately. Frankly amazing censorship. Etc...

Flex wrote:

.
At the time the people who had a gripe with the costitution were conservative Catholic groups like Maria Duce.

Yes, they'd have preferred something a bit like Nazi Germany but with more crosses and witch burnings, no doubt. Never mind about them.

Flex wrote:

.
The Presbyterian Church of Ireland, Church of Ireland, Methodist church and Jews all thought it was a good constitution because it recognised their religions and guarenteed freedom of worship.

Certainly compared to other emergent states at the time (mostly fascist), it was. The constitution has never been the problem.

Flex wrote:

.
It also provided universal sufferage, explicitly stated Ireland was a democratic country.

Yes, like most new non-fascist states at the time.

Flex wrote:

.
And over in Britain their government still answers to the head of the Church of England.

Indeed, and they still have the Lord Bishops. And here we are getting to the root of the issue; while the Church of England has ample official recognition, it is not allowed to impose its morality or its whims on the people. Catholicism has less official power in Ireland; it was its unofficial power that was the problem, and a lack of safeguards.

Flex wrote:

.
My own families experiences as Protestants in the Free State dictate the opposite of the rabid Catholic fundamentalist state Ireland supposidly became after independence aswel, so Im naturally sceptical about it.

No-one's saying it was that. By the standards of its time, it wasn't too bad; Europe was turning fascist. But I think that it was worse than England, and certainly became so.

murphaph

Flex wrote:

What was repressive about it?

Are you serious? You have now moved on from defending the rising to claiming the resultant theocracy was a grand place to live afterall! :rolleyes:

Flex wrote:

My own families experiences as Protestants in the Free State dictate the opposite of the rabid Catholic fundamentalist state Ireland supposidly became after independence aswel, so Im naturally sceptical about it.

I think this is the key point. You weren't a 'part of the system' if you were a prod. You weren't going to mass on christmas to have how much you put in the bowl read out from the pulpit. That's right-p!ss poor people were shamed by the PP into giving away more of their hard earned than their kids' empty bellies could afford. I kid you not! Real Valley of the Squiting Windows stuf went on for decades.

Flex wrote:

As for emmigration to Britain, that was primarily due to economic reasons along with the fact that it was cheaper, quicker and easier to make the short journey across the Irish Sea to Britain (where a citizen of the Free State had rights; being a Dominion) rather than going to the USA.

But surely the great oppressor would be the last place a 'free' irishman would want to go?

By the way, as already noted the constitution wasn't the problem per se, but the unnofficial practices were. My mother was expected to resign from Semperit in 1972 when she married my father. 197 fcukin 2!!! It was an awful place to live for most people.

Dyr

rsynnott wrote:

Ironically, illegitimate children didn't get legal equality for quite a long time after that was written...

ironically, we still dont have equal opportunities for all and kids from disadvantaged areas sure as hell arent cherished equally, yet people blather about fundamentalism and repression in relation to those who rose in 1916. The men and women of the rising were more pluralist and inclusive than their modern detractors who are supposed to be at the forefront of a more enlightened ireland. An ireland that hasnt even tried to deliver the civil liberties and equality that the proclaimation of independance aspired to isnt really in a position to criticise those who drew that proclaimation up

A Dub in Glasgo

murphaph wrote:

(one of the many reasons people left in droves for Britain of all places :rolleyes:

Certainly not my experience. The vast majority of people I know who emigrated from the Republic were economic migrants. In fact, the government encouraged it as it kept the unemployment figures down whilst they stole from the public.

Cillian1973

Waht is all this nonsense about the celebrations of the easter rising this year. Is this not a glorification of violence and an act which allows such barbaric views to creep under the comfortable heading of patriotism down with pride for one's nation it is toxic!!!!!11

Violence is sometimes justified when it serves a greater good.

murphaph

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

The vast majority of people I know who emigrated from the Republic were economic migrants

Hence why I wrote "one of many reasons"

Manic Moran

Old adage says that there's nowt wrong with killing as long as the right people get killed...

Seriously though, most people (not all) believe that some things are worth killing for. This line varies. Some think it's worth killing for a set of Nike runners, but usually most think that liberty is an acceptable cause.

Which reminds me, I have to go buy a Gadsden flag for the house...

NTM

Zombrex

Cillian1973 wrote:

Is this not a glorification of violence and an act which allows such barbaric views to creep under the comfortable heading of patriotism down with pride for one's nation

Thats actually exactly what it is. Well put.

As Oscar Wilde said - Patriotism is the virtue of the vicious

magick

Waht is all this nonsense about the celebrations of the easter rising this year. Is this not a glorification of violence and an act which allows such barbaric views to creep under the comfortable heading of patriotism down with pride for one's nation it is toxic!!!!!11

biggest pile of wa*k thread,


or how about in 1776 ?
should the patriots of that era not engage in violence?
The USA has their 4th of July, why cant we have our way to remember the people of 1916?



so you would like to see the union jack flying over our country?
oh by the way you do recall how the British delt with the leaders of the 1916 rising?!

Diorraing

Cillian1973 wrote:

Waht is all this nonsense about the celebrations of the easter rising this year. Is this not a glorification of violence and an act which allows such barbaric views to creep under the comfortable heading of patriotism down with pride for one's nation it is toxic!!!!!11

Nelson Mandela was barbaric then? Abe Lincoln too?

Sangre

He didn't say patriotism equaled barbarism. He meant the reality of violent killings are covered over with a layer of 'patriotism' to lessen their impact and glorify them.

Hotblack Desiato

Cillian1973 wrote:

Waht is all this nonsense about the celebrations of the easter rising this year.

Yes, what is this nonsense?

Practically every nation in this world was born at the point of a gun.

Cillian1973

What do you mean by a greater good?. We are living in a democratic land with civil liberties.You can hardly compare those who died in 1916 to Nelson Mandela's plight. Firstly, Nelson Mandela never advocated violence. Secondly, he was struggling for the rights of a race whereas we were fighting for a culture BIG DIFFERENCE!!!!!!!

Zombrex

magick wrote:

or how about in 1776 ?
should the patriots of that era not engage in violence?
The USA has their 4th of July, why cant we have our way to remember the people of 1916?

Yeah because all violence is the same ...

So the US Independence army taking on the British Army in a field somewhere is the same as a Palestinian suicide bomber blowing up a bus full of children or a Rwanda milita cutting of the heads of women in the street

What nonsense,

oh and way to completely prove the OPs point, that the propaganda of "patriotism" is used to excuse acts of barbaric nature :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

(BTW the 4th July celebrates the signing of the declaration of independce .. last time I check no one got shot or murdered that day :rolleyes:)

Zombrex

Diorraing wrote:

Nelson Mandela was barbaric then? Abe Lincoln too?

No, just the members of the Rising

Flex

Cillian1973 wrote:

What do you mean by a greater good?. We are living in a democratic land with civil liberties.You can hardly compare those who died in 1916 to Nelson Mandela's plight. Firstly, Nelson Mandela never advocated violence. Secondly, he was struggling for the rights of a race whereas we were fighting for a culture BIG DIFFERENCE!!!!!!!

The Irish are a race and we were fighting for our right to be Irish rather than having Britishness imposed upon us. But anyway, whats the difference between fighting for a race and fighting for a culture?

Also, Mandela was seeking reforms in voting and civil rights, he wasnt fighting against a foreign occupying power.

Flex

murphaph wrote:

Are you serious? You have now moved on from defending the rising to claiming the resultant theocracy was a grand place to live afterall! :rolleyes:

No, youve misunderstood. Id never say that the Catholic Church hadnt excessive influence in Ireland, however it wasnt the fault of the constitution, it was the 'fault' of the Irish people. As has already been said, the constitiution provided the means for a quite secular and liberal democracy, pretty much like the one we have today, but people for the most part obviously were content to live with such Catholic ethos in their lives for whatever reason. If the RC church today tried to to reassert its dominant influence over the country it wouldnt have a hope in hell (excuse the pun ) of succeeding because people simply wouldnt put up with it. It wasnt the risings fault or the constitutions fault for the resultant 'theocracy', it was ,if anybodies, the peoples.

I think this is the key point. You weren't a 'part of the system' if you were a prod. You weren't going to mass on christmas to have how much you put in the bowl read out from the pulpit. That's right-p!ss poor people were shamed by the PP into giving away more of their hard earned than their kids' empty bellies could afford. I kid you not! Real Valley of the Squiting Windows stuf went on for decades.

On my mothers side we were Catholics. But like I said, I dont disagree that the RC church had too much influence in this country for too long. Im a very secular person myself so its not the type of place Id have wanted to live, but if people back then had wanted to change it they had the means provided by the constitution, they simply didnt whether through some sort of loyalty to the church or fear or because they were far more religious than most of us today. I think I heard last year that mass attendance used to in mid 90% region right up til the 1970's.

By the way, as already noted the constitution wasn't the problem per se, but the unnofficial practices were. My mother was expected to resign from Semperit in 1972 when she married my father. 197 fcukin 2!!! It was an awful place to live for most people.

I agree, the constitution wasnt the problem, it was the people. The means were there to live in a society like we have in this day, people simply didnt for whatever reason.

billy the squid

jank wrote:

Yep, explains alot on this thread and forum in general.

Your wasting your time axer, these clever guys will never acknowledge that the fact that if the rising didnt happen we wouldnt be masters of our own destiny Home rule or not

Remember Home Rule in the form offered was not what was acheived when we got our own state and eventually our own head of state, all because of the rising.

Canada and Austrailia still have the queen as their head of state, would all ye so clever people like the queen as your head of state??(Answers on a postcard please)

Yes i know about the 1937 constitution but History is about what happened in the past and understanding how the future was influneced by these events.
I cant believe the niavity of people sometimes.
A sense of realism please!

But canada and austrailia are free to declare their independence at any time they like. india did it.

magick

Wicknight

(BTW the 4th July celebrates the signing of the declaration of independce .. last time I check no one got shot or murdered that day

em a LOT of ppl got killed by the siging of that Document because that Document was a symbol of Americas resolve to free herself from the British Empire, and rightly so.

What would you have them do? Sit on their fat arses and ask pretty plz to King George could the have their own country? :rolleyes:

Akrasia

Wicknight wrote:

Yeah because all violence is the same ...

So the US Independence army taking on the British Army in a field somewhere is the same as a Palestinian suicide bomber blowing up a bus full of children or a Rwanda milita cutting of the heads of women in the street

What nonsense,

oh and way to completely prove the OPs point, that the propaganda of "patriotism" is used to excuse acts of barbaric nature :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

(BTW the 4th July celebrates the signing of the declaration of independce .. last time I check no one got shot or murdered that day :rolleyes:)

you think that the only fighting in the U.S. war of independence was in 'fields somewhere'? There were dirty tactics in that war, and in the U.S. civil war, there were massacres and savagery on both sides.

There were geurilla tactics in the U.S. war of independence just like there were in pretty much every other war of independence in history. The reason there weren't more british women and children killed is because they were located a thousand miles away across the atlantic ocean and Aer lingus didn't have a transatlantic service back then.

Suicide Bombing is a tactic that is used in Asymmetric warfare where one side has a huge military advantage over the other. in evenly matched wars, they generally do pit armies against each other, but this doesn't stop them from targetting civilians as part of their campaign. Carpet bombing of cities was a tactic of both sides in World War 2, and don't forget, America dropped Nuclear weapons on two civilian cities in Japan.
I think dropping nuclear weapons and carpet bombing IS the same as suicide bombs and cutting people's heads off with machetes, it's just a more cowardly option because you're a few miles up in the air and the generals don't even have to leave their office.