Easter Sunday/ 2006

Flex

Wicknight wrote:

Well technically it was exactly that same. An Irish male had the same vote as an English, Scotish or Welsh male.

The problem was Ireland was too small a percentage of the overall UK vote to properly effect change in Ireland itself if these went against the rest of the UK, in the same way that Kerry can't have a different outcome in something like the abortion referendum even if everyone in Kerry votes different from the rest of Ireland.

So it was all a quite modern democracy. The problem was the border that drew up this democracy.

But the people of Kerry are the same race as the rest of the Irish people. The Irish were never British, we were a different people altogether. As I said before a better analogy would be in Ireland annexing Iceland and then refusing to grant independence to the Icelandic people because the people in the other part of the Irish state didnt support it.

axer

flogen wrote:

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1750159,00.html

Wow, comparisons between WB Yeats and Hitler and apparently (according to that tripe) WB Yeats inspired the IRA

but it was much more of one than most countries on earth then or many today.

So things should be accepted if others have it worse.

fly_agaric

Wicknight wrote:

I've read the Guardian a bit and i'm not sure they do "glorify" acts of violence by third world resistance movements, but then I'm sure you have examples.

I certainly don't glorify them, so I'm not quite sure what you're referring to.

^^I apologise. "Glorify" was an exaggeration and hasty choice of words.
I should have left it at "apologise".

I never said you "glorify" or "apologise" for violence.
Your typo suggested you may be excusing the British reaction to the 1916 rising when you would condemn, say, Israels' reactions to Palestinian terrorists, which would be a bit inconsistent.

Anyway, here's your Guardian example:

Apologetic piece by Guardian contributer (and member of a radical Islamist organisation) on the London Bombs:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1527323,00.html

The people who planted the bombs in London thought they were fighting the good fight against "Western Oppression" etc etc on behalf of muslims in the 3rd world.

Guardian apologising for not mentioning Dilpazier Aslam's other "affiliation":

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,3604,1534499,00.html

On Monday July 18 Aslam was advised that the Guardian considered that Hizb ut-Tahrir had promoted violence and anti-semitic material on its website and that membership of the organisation was not compatible with being a Guardian trainee.

Zombrex

Flex wrote:

But the people of Kerry are the same race as the rest of the Irish people.

Well biologically there is no such thing as race (and even the old fashion ideas of race the Irish are the same as all other western europeans), so I assume you are talking abut some form of "cultural identifiy"

And while we now consider everyone on this Island as being the same culturally, the same was not true 800 years ago when the English first arrived. Back then Ireland was divided up into a large number of different tribes who did not consider themselves the same or equal at all.

The idea of a unified people of "Ireland" was, ironically, created by the British ruling here.

But on the same grounds that you describe the Irish as individual group, the people of Kerry or Cork or Limerick could also use, ie cultural identity, if they wanted to.

But all this is beside the point.

I don't think it was a particularly fair system of democracy we had in 1916, but it was a democracy none the less. To say there was not democracy in Ireland in 1916 is simply factually incorrect.

Zombrex

fly_agaric wrote:

Anyway, heres your example:

Getting a bit off topic here, but those are both "Comment" pieces.

The Guardian regularly publishes comment pieces from a wide range of different sources, including extreme left and right wing view-points. The reader is supposed to know there the commentary is coming from (which is why they printed the apology about not informing).

You can't really say they reflect the views of the paper, or call the paper hypocritical, because you will regularly get Comment pieces that express two polar view points, even in the same days paper. The two points contradict each other, by that isn't hypocracy it is discussion.

I've read Comment pieces in the Guardian that call for anti-abortion laws and pro-Iraq invasion pieces, view points you wouldn't associate with the left-wing "agenda" of the Guardian.

Anyway, getting off topic

Flex

Wicknight wrote:

Well biologically there is no such thing as race (and even the old fashion ideas of race the Irish are the same as all other western europeans), so I assume you are talking abut some form of "cultural identifiy"

And while we now consider everyone on this Island as being the same culturally, the same was not true 800 years ago when the English first arrived. Back then Ireland was divided up into a large number of different tribes who did not consider themselves the same or equal at all.

The idea of a unified people of "Ireland" was, ironically, created by the British ruling here.

But on the same grounds that you describe the Irish as individual group, the people of Kerry or Cork or Limerick could also use, ie cultural identity, if they wanted to.

I disagree, the Irish people were a race and were culturally one people and one nation; we had the same language, laws, literature, mythology, ancestory, etc. However, I dont disagree with the fact that we were never (withe exception of the brief period of Brian Boru's rule) politically united as one; each of the 4 provincial kings wanted to assert himself as high king but because each provence was generally the same size and same strenght no individual king could assert his complete control and rule over the others, so the high kingship remained largely ceremonial, rather than as it was meant to have been used.

fly_agaric

^^@Wicknight: Yes, this is all offtopic. I'll stop now.
I see your point - the logical inconsistency is a result of trying to reflect a range of viewpoints. I'm not a Guardian reader or an Observer reader so I don't know how much these papers honestly try to do that.

The type of "comment" and "opinion" pieces a newspaper chooses to publish are part of what defines the newspaper's agenda and outlook.

Typically, I find that the opposing view may be aired from time-to-time in newspapers with a particular slant. I suppose it is an attempt at balance, but the most simplistic + bombastic proponents of that view will be used to give cranks who write letters to the editor a big fat target to aim at (e.g. the Steyn + Krauthammer articles in the IT).

Anyway, another example of the Guardian publishing an apologia for violence by a radical Islamist:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1116855,00.html

The west's occupation of our countries is old, but takes new forms. The struggle between us and them began centuries ago, and will continue. There can be no dialogue with occupiers except through arms.

Seen any speeches in the Guardian by Nick Griffin or David Duke recently?:p

axer

Wicknight wrote:

I don't think it was a particularly fair system of democracy we had in 1916, but it was a democracy none the less. To say there was not democracy in Ireland in 1916 is simply factually incorrect.

An unfair democracy is worse than no democracy at all as it is only an illusion of the people deciding their future.

The Easter Rising WAS part of our struggle for independence whether people agree with it/believe it was a failure/condem it or not - it doesn't matter. Nobody can deny that it was part of our struggle for independence and it should be commemorated as being part of our struggle for independence. I believe it was an important part of our struggle for independence as it changed the mindsets of Irish people (whether people think it was on purpose or just by chance), others believe it wasn't - that we would have gained independence by now anyway without the "brutal" shooting of innocent people. It was unfortunate that a group of people felt they had no other choice but to use violence to be heard/to get change.

murphaph

Flex wrote:

Whats so different about Bunreacht na hEireann today than from the day it was enacted in 1937 that means we're able to live in such a liberal democracy today where the RC Church has pretty much no influence or power rather than back then when the RC Church was so influencial

Erm, for a start the RC church had a "special position" under Bunreacht na hEireann until the seventies! The very first chance the ordinary slobs got to vote on this special position they landslid it right out of the constitution! do you think the entire electorate suddenly decided that it should go in the 70's and that everyone was happy as larry with it before the day of the referendum, or do you not think it more likely that for decades beforehad (perhaps from the start) people were (at least secretly) sick and tired of the RC oppression they lived under? Your argument is no different than me claiming that Nazi Germany was a grand place to live because nobody openly opposed Adolf Hitler & Co.

Zombrex

axer wrote:

An unfair democracy is worse than no democracy at all as it is only an illusion of the people deciding their future.

Well thats not really true at all. The American system of 2 parties and first past the post (through the electoral college) is not a particular fair version of democracy (pretty much half the country can be non-represented by the government), but it is still a democracy, one that some other countries envy.

axer wrote:

The Easter Rising WAS part of our struggle for independence whether people agree with it/believe it was a failure/condem it or not - it doesn't matter.

Yes it was. That doesn't mean it was warrented or justifed.

I could go out into O'Connell St with a machine gun and start shooting people with a "Free Tibet" or "Fir is murder" poster stuck to my back. Doesn't mean that is warrented just because the actions are linked to a worthy cause.

murphaph

Take a trip back to Easter 1916 - with the Royal Dublin Fusiliers
ON April 27, 1916, three days after Patrick Pearse stepped onto the portico of the General Post Office in Dublin to proclaim the new Irish Republic, 2,128 men of the 16th (Irish) Division suffered horrifically from a German gas attack.

It occured near the German-held village of Hulluch, in France. As the rebellion roared in Dublin, more than 540 men of the Irish Division were killed instantly from the effects of the gas; the remainder would suffer chronic lung and breathing conditions for the rest of their lives.

The timing of this gas attack on April 27 by Bavarian troops was, in an Irish context, very poignant. News of the Easter rebellion in Dublin reached the Irish troops along the western front. Many of the troops were very bitter about what happened. Some, like the poet Francis Ledwidge who served with the Royal Inniskilling Fusiliers, had a certain amount of sympathy with the rebels. Sgt Edward Heapey of the 8th Dublins had come safely through the attack at Hulluch. He was one of the many who wrote home on the issue of Sinn Féin and the effect the rebellion had on the men’s morale and sense of betrayal: ‘I wish I had my way with the Sinn Féiners. I would put every one of them here and make them do some real good fighting and make them realise what war is like.’



Many of the Dublin Fusiliers were worried about the safety of their folks in Dublin. Writing to a young Dublin lady, Pte Joseph Clarke stated: ‘I was sorry to hear of the of the rebel Rising in Ireland, but I hope by the time this letter reaches you, the condition will have changed and things normal again. There is no one more sorry to hear of the Rising than the Irish troops out here. Their whole cry is, if they could only get among them for a few days, the country would not be annoyed with them any more.

‘Some of the men in this Battalion are uneasy about the safety of their people and one or two poor fellows have lost relatives in this scandalous affair. We just have had some men returned off leave and they tell us Dublin is in ruins. It is awfully hard to lose one’s life out here without being shot at home. We of the 2nd Battalion, the Dublins, would ask for nothing better that the rebels should be sent out here and have an encounter with some of their so-called allies, the Germans.

‘These men are pro-German, pure and simple, and no Irish men will be sorry when they get justice meted out to them, which ... should be death by being shot.’

Eugene Sheehy was an officer in the 1st Royal Dublin Fusiliers who survived the war to become a legal staff officer in the national army and a judge of the Irish Circuit. His sister Mary Sheehy was married to another Dublins officer, Lieut Tom Kettle MP, who was later killed during the Somme offensive. Eugene’s other sister, Hannah, was married to Francis Skeffington. In hindsight, Eugene wrote about the Irish who joined the British Army and their attitude to the Easter Rising. He was a little more forgiving than Pte Clarke.

‘The Rising in Easter week was a source of heartbreak to me and to the tens of thousands of Irish nationalists who joined the British army. We had done so at the request of our leaders - who were the elected representatives of the people - and the vast majority of the nation applauded our action.’

John Redmond pronounced the Rising a ‘German invasion of Ireland, as brutal, as selfish, as cynical as Germany’s invasion of Belgium’. He contrasted the ‘treason’ in Dublin with the fortitude and loyalty of the Irish troops of the 16th (Irish) Division in France.

German newspapers were aware of the Dublin rebellion and this news travelled to the German lines at the front. One headline read: ‘Irishmen! Heavy uproar in Ireland. English guns are firing on your wives and children.’

The Easter Rising in Dublin occurred roughly one year after the Gallipoli landings and the Gas attack at St Julien. The people who lived in inner city Dublin had not yet recovered from the terrible loss of loved ones resulting from those attacks. News about this latest loss of Irish life at Hulluch had made its way back to Dublin not long after the Rising. Initially, the rebellion and the rebels were unpopular among the people of inner Dublin, where many of the Dublin Fusiliers came from.

The Dublin Fusiliers, along with several other Irish regiments of the British Army, were involved in the early stages of putting down the rebellion when it broke out. The 10th Dublins fought at the Mendicity Institute along Usher’s Quay and the 4th Dublins fought the rebels along the railway line from the Broadstone Railway Station up to the Cabra Bridge. Eleven members of the regiment were killed or died of wounds, one of whom was Lieut Gerald Aloysius Neilan, 10th Royal Dublin Fusiliers, from Mount Harold Terrace, Dublin, who was killed by a sniper on Easter Monday. He was an ex-student of Clongowes Wood College, Co Kildare. His brother took part in the Rising with the Volunteers and was deported to Knutsford Detention Barracks. Lieut Neilan is buried at Glasnevin Cemetery, Dublin.

In early November 1917, every Irish regiment, including the Dublin Fusiliers, was moved from Ireland to either England or Scotland, and replaced mainly by English regiments. The British military command in Dublin was worried about guns going over the barrack walls.

In 1996, a maintenance team clearing out a derelict house in Blackrock, Co Dublin, found a British Army death certificate and a press cutting for a Pte Joseph Pender, regimental number 8477, of the 9th Battalion Royal Dublin Fusiliers. The date on the death certificate was April 27, 1916, the date of the gas attack at Hulluch. Joseph was 17 when he died. So, too, was Pte Paddy Byrne, from 19 Summerhill in Dublin, who died alongside him.

Running through the battlefield facing Hulluch stands the magnificent Loos Memorial. All the men listed on the memorial have one thing in common: their bodies were never found. Among those names are Joseph Pender and Paddy Byrne, two young Irish men who died in Easter week 1916.

When the military parade passes the GPO in Dublin this Easter, spare a thought and a place in your heart for these two young lads - they were Irish soldiers too.

Tom Burke
Ayrfield Rd
Ayrfield
Dublin 13

link

I think that's a nice piece and sums up many of my feelings about this whole commemoration business. Clearly we are all still very divided on the rising/rebellion and I think it's time for national debate, but not time for military parades. I, like wicknight am happy to live in a republic but do NOT believe that that republic needed the deaths of 220 odd civilians and even the police/army and rebel victims of the rising.

Flex

murphaph wrote:

Erm, for a start the RC church had a "special position" under Bunreacht na hEireann until the seventies! The very first chance the ordinary slobs got to vote on this special position they landslid it right out of the constitution! do you think the entire electorate suddenly decided that it should go in the 70's and that everyone was happy as larry with it before the day of the referendum, or do you not think it more likely that for decades beforehad (perhaps from the start) people were (at least secretly) sick and tired of the RC oppression they lived under? Your argument is no different than me claiming that Nazi Germany was a grand place to live because nobody openly opposed Adolf Hitler & Co.

The 'special position' was a meaningless line De Valera put in to placate ultra conservative Catholics who had been insisting that the RC church be made the official state religion (on a par with the status the Church of England has in England). It meant nothing which is why the constitution pissed off conservative Catholics groups. Like I said, I dont disagree that the RC church had excessive influence in Ireland and its not a place Id have liked to live, but people in those decades were willing to live with it for whatever reason; they had the means to live like we do today if they wanted too, but because of fear or loyalty or being very religious people, they didnt. The difference today is peoples attitudes.

In regards the Nazi comparison, in Germany Hitler was quite popular prior to starting the war because he had completely turned around the German economy and reduced unemployment, however if people had spoken out against him they wouldve probably disappeared at the hands of the Gestapo and other Nazi 'forces'. In Ireland the RC Church didnt have an army of henchmen to make people disappear. They probably embarassed people and because people cared about the church, and priests were 'such great fellas' so their opinions were sooooo important, they usually succeeded. If a Catholic priest decided to berate me or try embarass me because I dont go to mass or dont do other Catholic type practices regularly (in fact the last time I was inside a church was my brothers confirmation 4 years ago) Id either laugh at him or tell him to **** off depending on what mood I was in, and most people would probably do the same because our attitudes are totally different to those of our grandparents and great grandparents, or in some cases, even our own parents attitudes towards the RC church.

axer

Wicknight wrote:

Well thats not really true at all. The American system of 2 parties and first past the post (through the electoral college) is not a particular fair version of democracy (pretty much half the country can be non-represented by the government), but it is still a democracy, one that some other countries envy.

Exactly - because it is called a "democratic" system it will never change (even though it is hugely unfair) - at least not in the near future anyway. I doubt many countries envy the USA's democractic system. Ireland had a "democratic" system which was even more flawed and descriminating than that in the USA. One could say that it offer so little power to the Irish while calling itself democracy that it would be better not that "democracy" at all. 2 individual political parties alone in Great Britain had more representitives that the total number of Irish representitives (including unionist representitives). This meant that those Irish Representitives had very little (if any) power in the United Kingdom of Britain and Ireland with no chance of getting more.

Wicknight wrote:

Yes it was. That doesn't mean it was warrented or justifed.

I could go out into O'Connell St with a machine gun and start shooting people with a "Free Tibet" or "Fir is murder" poster stuck to my back. Doesn't mean that is warrented just because the actions are linked to a worthy cause.

Your analogy is flawed. Some of those who fought in the Rising went on to officially represent the Irish people with one becoming president of the Republic of Ireland. BTW Why would one start shooting in O'Connell St trying to free tibet??!!

murphaph

Flex wrote:

The 'special position' was a meaningless line De Valera put in to placate ultra conservative Catholics who had been insisting that the RC church be made the official state religion (on a par with the status the Church of England has in England). It meant nothing which is why the constitution pissed off conservative Catholics groups. Like I said, I dont disagree that the RC church had excessive influence in Ireland and its not a place Id have liked to live, but people in those decades were willing to live with it for whatever reason; they had the means to live like we do today if they wanted too, but because of fear or loyalty or being very religious people, they didnt. The difference today is peoples attitudes.

It was't meaningless. It prevented divorce for a start which had been available previously. McQuaid had a major hand in legislation passed in the Oireachteas. Just because it didn't go far enough for the ultra-conservative RC groups doesn't mean it had no effect on people's lives.

Flex wrote:

In regards the Nazi comparison, in Germany Hitler was quite popular prior to starting the war because he had completely turned around the German economy and reduced unemployment, however if people had spoken out against him they wouldve probably disappeared at the hands of the Gestapo and other Nazi 'forces'. In Ireland the RC Church didnt have an army of henchmen to make people disappear. They probably embarassed people and because people cared about the church, and priests were 'such great fellas' so their opinions were sooooo important, they usually succeeded. If a Catholic priest decided to berate me or try embarass me because I dont go to mass or dont do other Catholic type practices regularly (in fact the last time I was inside a church was my brothers confirmation 4 years ago) Id either laugh at him or tell him to **** off depending on what mood I was in, and most people would probably do the same because our attitudes are totally different to those of our grandparents and great grandparents, or in some cases, even our own parents attitudes towards the RC church.

I've highlighted a section of your text which I must disagree with. Have you seen the Magdalen Laundries film? It clearly shows how a poor unfortunate who falls foul ofthe great RC moral code could and did regularly 'disappear'. Heck, some poor kids actually dies in their 'care' so they were a mini-facist group with immense power (the Garda were afraid to question the fcukers too!! hence any reports made about kiddy-fiddling were ignored and the abuse went on).

I really don't understand how you can claim the RC church didn't make people's lives a misery and that they wanted to be treated that way. They were all scared sh!tless that's all!!

My mother (63 from the Midlands) is round my house now and she's telling me some horrific stuff. She recalls a women whose husband died. She took another man into her home and her neighbours reported her to the Gardai. The Gardai reported it to the PP and the courts issued and order that her children be removed from her and taken into 'care'. And people couldn't disappear??

She also recalls the 'curching of women'. This was when a woman had given birth to a child she had to sit out mass until the PP had 'cleansed' her of the sin of sex (even though the pr!cks were telling people to have kids all the damned time!).

Zombrex

axer wrote:

Your analogy is flawed. Some of those who fought in the Rising went on to officially represent the Irish people with one becoming president of the Republic of Ireland.

So, whats that got to do with anything? Members of the IRA Army Council have gone on to be minster for education (or what ever McGuiness was).

axer wrote:

BTW Why would one start shooting in O'Connell St trying to free tibet??!!

Pretty sure it would get attention for the cause. Wasn't that the point of the Rising?

Diorraing

murphaph wrote:

It was't meaningless. It prevented divorce for a start which had been available previously. McQuaid had a major hand in legislation passed in the Oireachteas. Just because it didn't go far enough for the ultra-conservative RC groups doesn't mean it had no effect on people's lives.

Eh, wasn't a referendum on divorce defeated in the 80s and only barely passed in the nineties? Do you honestly believe that the people of the 30s would have voted for divorce?

I really don't understand how you can claim the RC church didn't make people's lives a misery and that they wanted to be treated that way. They were all scared sh!tless that's all!!

The only people I hear complaining about the church at that time are people who didn't live during that time (i.e you). Yes, by our standards today the church had excessive power but at the time people weren't displeased about the church having such power. They voted for a catholic constitution. We can get up on our moral highground now and say "they shouldn't have liked that" but for all intents and purposes they weren't angry about living in Catholic Ireland.

My mother (63 from the Midlands) is round my house now and she's telling me some horrific stuff. She recalls a women whose husband died. She took another man into her home and her neighbours reported her to the Gardai. The Gardai reported it to the PP and the courts issued and order that her children be removed from her and taken into 'care'. And people couldn't disappear??
She also recalls the 'curching of women'. This was when a woman had given birth to a child she had to sit out mass until the PP had 'cleansed' her of the sin of sex (even though the pr!cks were telling people to have kids all the damned time!).

I don't buy these anecdotes. I could go on about how my grandmother had a wonderful childhood even though she was brought up in the tenements. If life, as a result of Independace, was as bad as you say, why was there no major support for left-wing or radical parties? Why was there no major demonstrations against the way things were run? Why did they vote to give the church the "special place" (which really does't mean anything) in the first place???

ChityWest

Quote:
Originally Posted by axer
"BTW Why would one start shooting in O'Connell St trying to free tibet??!! "


"Pretty sure it would get attention for the cause. Wasn't that the point of the Rising?[/QUOTE]"

I think you are confused if you think that the 1916 Easter rising was about Republicans shooting innocent civilians in the street.

They were half armed - half trained and they went out against the best equipped and most organised army in the world - your analogy is pretty offensive.

Zombrex

ChityWest wrote:

They were half armed - half trained and they went out against the best equipped and most organised army in the world - your analogy is pretty offensive.

They started an urban gun battle with a world military power in a densly populated urban centre believing the British Army would not fight back. When they realised the British Army were fighting back they fought on with no hope of victory believing that the death and destruction would be blamed on the British and it would help the cause. There is one word for that - moronic

I hold the Rising members as responsible for civilian deaths in Dublin 1916 as the British Army. Both are equally to blame, the actions of neither should be celebrated or applauded. The Rising was unjustified, unnecessary and an example of gross stupidity. If it had been carried out by a legitamate army the commander would probably be court-marshled and stripped of command.

It is the idea that those civilian deaths were necessary or justifed that is offensive.

It is the idea that we would have a military parade celebrating the actions of those who are responsible that is offensive

ChityWest

Wicknight wrote:

It is the idea that those civilian deaths were necessary or justifed that is offensive.

It is the idea that we would have a military parade celebrating the actions of those who are responsible that is offensive

Either - I am reading you wrong or you think that people (of a country which is occuppied) should keep to peaceful means of protest indefinitely ?

Or is your objection here to the details of the way in which they fought back?

Bearing in mind the context of those events, the fact that the guerilla tactics were an adaptation of what was learned (in part during easter week) how do you think that the war of independence is any different ?

Innocent people also died in the War of Independence (same as they do in every war) so by your logic that War should be a point of shame and embarrassment for Irish people everywhere too ?

PS
Please dont bother coming back with any pedantic drivel about how technically we were some sort of quasi-pseudo-democracy.

murphaph

Diorraing wrote:

Eh, wasn't a referendum on divorce defeated in the 80s and only barely passed in the nineties? Do you honestly believe that the people of the 30s would have voted for divorce?

Do you have any notion of how people were TOLD what way to vote in such referenda? The priest would stand in the pulpit and tell you you would burn in hell if you didn't vote the RC way. People were fcukin scared of these cnuts. It's easy to sit here in 2006 and say "silly people, should have ignored the priest" but they couldn't. The daren't.

Diorraing wrote:

The only people I hear complaining about the church at that time are people who didn't live during that time (i.e you). Yes, by our standards today the church had excessive power but at the time people weren't displeased about the church having such power. They voted for a catholic constitution. We can get up on our moral highground now and say "they shouldn't have liked that" but for all intents and purposes they weren't angry about living in Catholic Ireland.

See above, and my mother grew up in the 40's. She complains bitterly about how the RC behaved. Others do too. At the time people dared not speak out. The place was as close to a facist dictatorship as you could imagine. It wasn't a true democracy because the RC church were constantly consulted and handcrafted legislation.

Diorraing wrote:

I don't buy these anecdotes. I could go on about how my grandmother had a wonderful childhood even though she was brought up in the tenements. If life, as a result of Independace, was as bad as you say, why was there no major support for left-wing or radical parties? Why was there no major demonstrations against the way things were run? Why did they vote to give the church the "special place" (which really does't mean anything) in the first place???

See above! You did NOT speak out about them. When a few people did speak out (the condoms from Belfast!) they were popularly supported in private, certainly by many women who were treated disgracefully by the RC church here. It's one thing to protest against a political movement, but when you believe that your PP is a link in the chain that leads right back to St. Peter and from there to GOD himself, you thought twice about complaining. You believed that every word from the PP's mouth was essentially coming from your creator. That's a powerful hold they had.

Flex

murphaph wrote:

It was't meaningless. It prevented divorce for a start which had been available previously. McQuaid had a major hand in legislation passed in the Oireachteas. Just because it didn't go far enough for the ultra-conservative RC groups doesn't mean it had no effect on people's lives.

It was meaningless though, it gave them no extra powers and no increase on the influence they already held. It was worthless and the very people it had been put there to appease (the conservative Catholics) knew it was worthless which is why they complained about it. The article also recognised Protestant Churches and the Jewish religion and referred to the Church of Ireland as being the Church of Ireland which further aggrevated conservative Catholics because prior to that the CoI had been referred to as the "so called 'Church of Ireland'". Also the 'special postition' was based solely on the fact that the RC Church was the chosen church of the great majority of the country, not because it was the 'one true church' or anything special. And once more, it wouldnt have been given any 'special place' if it wasnt so influencial in the first place.

I've highlighted a section of your text which I must disagree with. Have you seen the Magdalen Laundries film? It clearly shows how a poor unfortunate who falls foul ofthe great RC moral code could and did regularly 'disappear'. Heck, some poor kids actually dies in their 'care' so they were a mini-facist group with immense power (the Garda were afraid to question the fcukers too!! hence any reports made about kiddy-fiddling were ignored and the abuse went on).

I havnt seen the movie, and my knowledge on the Magdalene Laundry's is limited so correct me if Im wrong, but as far as I know, women sent there were sent at the request of their families, and could have been taken out at any time if a family member on the outside was willing to vouch for them.

I really don't understand how you can claim the RC church didn't make people's lives a misery and that they wanted to be treated that way. They were all scared sh!tless that's all!!

OK, Ill set out my position here; I am not defending the RC Church or denying the abuse that went on; Im not denying the excessive influence the RC Church had; it was not the type of place I wouldve liked to live in; personally I think it was a bad thing and Iv no doubt at all alot of people probably didnt like it. Im making these points in opposition to the believe that the rising resulted in an independant state where the state and constitution forcefully made people live a life with major Catholic involvement in it. It didnt. People were willing to allow the RC Church to have such influence through fear or loyalty or strong religiousness, there was nothing forcing people to live strictly Catholic lives or to hold priests in such high esteem. The only thing thats different about today where we live in a liberal democratic and secular country as opposed to 70-odd years ago is our attitudes; the RC church hasnt got any influence anymore because people dont care about the church. Being a priest or having a son or brother or nephew who is a priest isnt a great prestigious thing anymore, people arnt afraid of claiming they were sexually abused by priests. Basically the RC church has no power today because we dont give them power. We arnt as religious as before, we arnt afraid of them anymore, whatever; we have a completely different attitude.

My mother (63 from the Midlands) is round my house now and she's telling me some horrific stuff. She recalls a women whose husband died. She took another man into her home and her neighbours reported her to the Gardai. The Gardai reported it to the PP and the courts issued and order that her children be removed from her and taken into 'care'. And people couldn't disappear??

She also recalls the 'curching of women'. This was when a woman had given birth to a child she had to sit out mass until the PP had 'cleansed' her of the sin of sex (even though the pr!cks were telling people to have kids all the damned time!).

I was speaking to my mother and 2 of my aunts and 2 of my uncles about this subject last night and they pretty much said that people didnt go against the RC Church because people cared too much about what they thought. When Id ask why they didnt just ignore the church they said because back then you couldnt be rude to a priest or say anything bad about them because they held them in much higher esteem, they were more religious than today and because they were afraid of them because of the influence the Church had. In the end they came to the conclusion that looking back it was the fault of the ordinary people (like themselves) for tolerating the RC Church's excessive influence and giving them that much power.

Nobody was forced to be Catholic and be so religious and care so much about priests opinions, just like today. The only difference is our attitude towards the RC church as opposed to previous generations; it doesnt mean as much to us and we arnt afraid of it.

Zombrex

ChityWest wrote:

Either - I am reading you wrong or you think that people (of a country which is occuppied) should keep to peaceful means of protest indefinitely ?

No, I think they shouldn't do pointless acts of violence that just get people killed and achieve nothing, just for the sake of violence.

Seriously, where did people get this ridiculous idea that you have the right to do anything you like, start any level of violence and mayhem that leads to the deaths of hundreds of civilians, so long as you claim to be fighting for a worthy cause?

Seriously, I would love to know.

As I said before, Free Tibet is a good cause. In fact it is a great cause, doubt anyone would object to Free Tibet. Should I blow up the Chinese embassy in Dublin? Might kill a couple of hundred people, but well that is just unforunate. But not my fault, I was doing it for a worthy cause. At least I was doing something after all :rolleyes:

The idea that the Rising rebels were doing this for the people of Dublin is offensive in the extreme. They were doing it for their own vanity, their own ridiculous romantic ideas of blood sacrafice, and to satisfiy their own frustrations. And they were prepared to take a whole lot of innocent people with them.

ChityWest

ArthurF wrote:

But seriously - does anyone know whats happening in this years 1916 anniversary parade? and will you be attending, or am I thinking of what might happen on the 100th anniversary of the Rising in 2016?

To get back to the original point of the post (for a second) - here is some official info for the event and what to expect :

http://www.taoiseach.gov.ie/attached_files/RTF%20files/1916Commemorations.rtf

http://www.taoiseach.gov.ie/index.asp?locID=199&docID=2447

Heres the timetable part :

Easter Sunday: Ceremony at the General Post Office, Dublin and Parade 17th April 2006
Parade Begins
To include Army, Navy, Aer Corps, UN Veterans, Gardai. Aer Corps fly past.
11.45am:
• Parade departs from Dublin Castle via Dame Street
• Parade arrives Westmoreland Street and halts.
• Arrival of President at GPO
GPO Ceremony Begins
12.00 noon:
• National Flag lowered on roof of G.P.O.
• Army Officer reads Proclamation
• Taoiseach invites President to lay a wreath
• President lays a wreath
• Minute’s silence observed in memory of all those who died
• National Flag raised to full mast
• National Anthem
Parade Continues
• Parade continues through O’Connell Street on to Parnell Square

Note:
The Parade may be viewed as it passes through Dame Street, Westmoreland Street and O’Connell Street.
Large Screens will be placed at strategic locations along the route so that all aspects of the GPO Ceremony and Parade will be visible from individual locations

ChityWest

Wicknight wrote:

No, I think they shouldn't do pointless acts of violence that just get people killed and achieve nothing, just for the sake of violence.

Seriously, where did people get this ridiculous idea that you have the right to do anything you like, start any level of violence and mayhem that leads to the deaths of hundreds of civilians, so long as you claim to be fighting for a worthy cause?

Seriously, I would love to know.

I think they got the idea from several hundred years of oppression and your characterisation of their actions as having been 'for the sake of violence' is based on your uber-PC revisionist opinion and not historical evidence as to the character of the individuals involved.

Wicknight wrote:

The idea that the Rising rebels were doing this for the people of Dublin is offensive in the extreme. They were doing it for their own vanity, their own ridiculous romantic ideas of blood sacrafice, and to satisfiy their own frustrations. And they were prepared to a whole lot of innocent people with them.

Again this is your personal take on the motives behind the people involved.

Zombrex

ChityWest wrote:

I think they got the idea from several hundred years of oppression

THey got the idea from their romantic ideas of Irish rebelion in their heads, and the ridiculous socialist idea that the British Army (as part of a capitalist government) would not shell their own property. Like I said, moronic.

ChityWest wrote:

and your characterisation of their actions as having been 'for the sake of violence' is based on your uber-PC revisionist opinion and not historical evidence as to the character of the individuals involved.

No its based on reality. Or maybe you want to explain what the purpose of the Rising was if not violence and bloodshed? They all just wandered into the GPO to post a letters?

ChityWest wrote:

Again this is your personal take on the motives behind the people involved.

The motivations of the rebels is quite well documented.

murphaph

Flex wrote:

It was meaningless though, it gave them no extra powers and no increase on the influence they already held. It was worthless and the very people it had been put there to appease (the conservative Catholics) knew it was worthless which is why they complained about it. The article also recognised Protestant Churches and the Jewish religion and referred to the Church of Ireland as being the Church of Ireland which further aggrevated conservative Catholics because prior to that the CoI had been referred to as the "so called 'Church of Ireland'". Also the 'special postition' was based solely on the fact that the RC Church was the chosen church of the great majority of the country, not because it was the 'one true church' or anything special. And once more, it wouldnt have been given any 'special place' if it wasnt so influencial in the first place.

At the end of the day though, Archbishop McQuaid had Dev up kissing his hole in archbishop's house talking about the governance of this country, so it did have an effect.

Flex wrote:

I havnt seen the movie, and my knowledge on the Magdalene Laundry's is limited so correct me if Im wrong, but as far as I know, women sent there were sent at the request of their families, and could have been taken out at any time if a family member on the outside was willing to vouch for them.

Right, which is different from Nazi Germany how? You are almost stating that what happened to those women was ok because their 'shamed' families sent them to those hellholes? That's a strange position. Ultimately, people did disappear into those institutions and many never left them alive.

Flex wrote:

OK, Ill set out my position here; I am not defending the RC Church or denying the abuse that went on; Im not denying the excessive influence the RC Church had; it was not the type of place I wouldve liked to live in; personally I think it was a bad thing and Iv no doubt at all alot of people probably didnt like it. Im making these points in opposition to the believe that the rising resulted in an independant state where the state and constitution forcefully made people live a life with major Catholic involvement in it. It didnt. People were willing to allow the RC Church to have such influence through fear or loyalty or strong religiousness, there was nothing forcing people to live strictly Catholic lives or to hold priests in such high esteem. The only thing thats different about today where we live in a liberal democratic and secular country as opposed to 70-odd years ago is our attitudes; the RC church hasnt got any influence anymore because people dont care about the church. Being a priest or having a son or brother or nephew who is a priest isnt a great prestigious thing anymore, people arnt afraid of claiming they were sexually abused by priests. Basically the RC church has no power today because we dont give them power. We arnt as religious as before, we arnt afraid of them anymore, whatever; we have a completely different attitude.

But the above didn't happen in the country we seceeed from! The UK was far more secular than the RoI and the CoE never had as much influence on people's lives as the RC church did here. Divorce and abortion have been available in the UK for decades and homosexuality was legalised many decades before this country. Civil liberties were ridden roughshod over with impunity and that's the failing of this state.

ChityWest

Wicknight wrote:

THey got the idea from their romantic ideas of Irish rebelion in their heads, and the ridiculous socialist idea that the British Army (as part of a capitalist government) would not shell their own property. Like I said, moronic..

Not English Property anymore is it ?

Next time you see a tricolour flying where a union jack used to be you might want to think about who is to thank for that.

Wicknight wrote:

No its based on reality. Or maybe you want to explain what the purpose of the Rising was if not violence and bloodshed? They all just wandered into the GPO to post a letters?.

I think you are referring to one consequence (of many) as if it were the motivation - its not and you are wrong.

Wicknight wrote:

The motivations of the rebels is quite well documented.

Thats just not an answer is it ?

Zombrex

ChityWest wrote:

Next time you see a tricolour flying where a union jack used to be you might want to think about who is to thank for that.

I do, all the time. And it ain't because of the rebels at Rising. The Rising was an insult to the ideas of the Tri-colour, and of this nation.

ChityWest wrote:

I think you are referring to one consequence (of many) as if it were the motivation - its not and you are wrong.

Not that it matters (you can't stand up in court and say you didn't mean to kill your wife when you shot her in the head), but it was the motivation. The motivation was to start a war with the British, in the middle of Dublin city centre ffs. As I said, moronic.

I'll grant you that the rebels ridiculously believed at the start that the British wouldn't fight back with heavy artilery. But then being stupid isn't really a defense now is it? (But Judge, I didn't know shooting my wife in the head would kill her) If you hold up a post office in this day and age with a load of men and weapons but say "I had no idea that the police would show up" who do you blame if someone gets hurt? The Gardi? Do you go, "ah well those poor bank robbers didn't think the police would try and stop them, so it isn't there fault they got everyone killed in a bloody shootout" Doubtful. :rolleyes:

ChityWest wrote:

Thats just not an answer is it ?

Its an answer to your assumption that this is just my personal take on it. It isn't, the motivations are well documented. There, thats my answer.

A Dub in Glasgo

Wicknight wrote:

It isn't, the motivations are well documented. .

By whom?

A Dub in Glasgo

Some folk must be squirming that the Irish Republic has the cheek to commemorate her history. Squirm away is what most Irish people say.