Northern Protestants

Belfast

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I hate the term "Protestant". IMHO, the term "Protestant" is something which has been created to form an anti Catholic alliance in NI.

there is a difference between Presbytarian, Anglican, Methodist etc. I think you will find that most "Protestants" in NI are Presbytarian which is as different to Anglicanism as Catholicism is.

Technically speaking, everyone who is not Catholic or Orthodox is a Protestant.

(Sorry, I didn't mean to have a rant on you thread, I have a couple of anecdotes from a friend who was a reverend in South Belfast for a while. I'll post them up when i remember them fully)

I agree.

Fratton Fred

McArmalite wrote: »

Just pointing out that it wasn't just the Irish constitution that has institutional secterianism in it. Imagine if the Irish state had in it's constitution that the head of the country must be a Catholic ?? I agreed totally with Tim regarding the discrimination against Protestants regarding the "Special position of the Catholic Church" ( BTW, I'm not a Catholic).



Calm down Fred, just pointing out you posted a porkie :cool:.

Sigh,

The Queen has a dual role, she is also the head of the Church of England, hence my reference to the Vatican.

The religious orientation is only, it seems, an issue in Ireland. If it becomes an issue in Britain it will be adressed, just like the issue of a future monarch marrying a divorcee has been.

btw, if i referred to "My home town" in a previous thread, its because I lived in Maidenhead most of my life. Don't for a minute think that Kilburn is indicative of Irish life in England, because it is/was not. It's a bit like seeing the sectarian divide that existed in Londonderry and thinking Dublin is the same.

Even my ex father in law, a staunch republican from Downpatrick, regularly drank with unionists from the North in his local social club. they had something far more important in common than politics and/or religion...George Best and Desert Orchid:D

Belfast

Tim Robbins wrote: »

And all Protestants were descrimated by in the state of Republic of Ireland until the removal of the special position of the Roman Catholic church in our constitution.

Not sure how the special position of the Roman Catholic church in our constitution discriminated against anyone as it did not confer a special rights on the Roman Catholic church. beyond being mentioned it did nothing for the Roman Catholic church.
the Roman Catholic church wanted to be named as the state religion as it was in Spain and elsewhere.
The special position of the Roman Catholic church was a fudge that Dev put in to to avoid this.(The Irish solution to a Irish problem of its day)


The first President after the 1937 constitution was a Protestants Douglas Hyde.

The single transferable vote system in the south of Ireland was brought in to insure the protestant minority in the south of Ireland would get a fair share of seats in the Oireachtas.

When we are talking about discrimination in the south of Ireland lets not forget about the discrimination against the Rastafarian church where Cannabis has a Sacramental use and the Native American Church and it use of peyote in religious faith.

McArmalite

Belfast wrote: »

Not sure how the special position of the Roman Catholic church in our constitution discriminated against anyone as it did not confer a special rights on the Roman Catholic church. beyond being mentioned it did nothing for the Roman Catholic church.
the Roman Catholic church wanted to be named as the state religion as it was in Spain and elsewhere.
The special position of the Roman Catholic church was a fudge that Dev up in to to avoid this.(this Irish solution to a Irish problem of its day)


The first President after the 1937 constitution was a Protestants Douglas Hyde.

The single transferable vote system in the south of Ireland was brought in to insure the protestant minority in the south of Ireland would get a fair share of seats in the Oireachtas.

When we are talking about discrimination in the south of Ireland lets not forget about the discrimination against the Rastafarian church where Cannabis has a Sacramental use and the Native American Church and it use of peyote in religious faith.

True enough it was a fudge and typical of Dev.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Sigh,

The Queen has a dual role, she is also the head of the Church of England, hence my reference to the Vatican.

The religious orientation is only, it seems, an issue in Ireland. If it becomes an issue in Britain it will be adressed, just like the issue of a future monarch marrying a divorcee has been.

btw, if i referred to "My home town" in a previous thread, its because I lived in Maidenhead most of my life. Don't for a minute think that Kilburn is indicative of Irish life in England, because it is/was not. It's a bit like seeing the sectarian divide that existed in Londonderry and thinking Dublin is the same.

Even my ex father in law, a staunch republican from Downpatrick, regularly drank with unionists from the North in his local social club. they had something far more important in common than politics and/or religion...George Best and Desert Orchid:D

I don't doubt that a staunch republican would drank with unionists from the North and discuss matters like George Best, Desert Orchid etc. Even at this moment on both sides of the border knowningly or unknownly a unionist and a nationalist could be talking about football or horse racing etc in a pub.
Point is, in your words " if the words "Prody" or "Fenian" would get mentioned and all hell could indeed break loose depending on the situation. The taigs and prods in the altercation wouldn't " The next day the same guys would be in there, propping up the bar the very best of friends. " That's just porkies.

Fratton Fred

McArmalite wrote: »

if the words "Prody" or "Fenian" would get mentioned [/I] and all hell could indeed break loose depending on the situation. The taigs and prods in the altercation wouldn't " The next day the same guys would be in there, propping up the bar the very best of friends. " That's just porkies.

ok, fine.:rolleyes:

Tim Robbins

Belfast wrote: »

Not sure how the special position of the Roman Catholic church in our constitution discriminated against anyone as it did not confer a special rights on the Roman Catholic church. beyond being mentioned it did nothing for the Roman Catholic church.

It ended up driving a lot of legislation e.g. Divorce.
It also gave the RC church a huge amount of political gravitas. The Church could lecture from the pulpit and Irish politicians were afraid of them. How else do you explain the ban on contraceptives which not only prevented against unplanned pregnacies but STDs? And crazy RC policy such as not allowing its members attend Trinity?

You have to also remember the ne temere was still in full effect as was the existing legislation whereby education authorities could discriminate on religious grounds.

The special position of the Roman Catholic church was a fudge that Dev up in to to avoid this.(this Irish solution to a Irish problem of its day)

It was a fudge. It was explictly put in our constitution. I suspect the only reason why Dev did was to solidify his politcal base and standing. I doubt he was that interested in transubstantiation.

The single transferable vote system in the south of Ireland was brought in to insure the protestant minority in the south of Ireland would get a fair share of seats in the Oireachtas.

Are you sure about that?

thehighground

I'd imagine that Dev was not very fond of the institution of the Catholic Church (as distinct to having faith) - wasn't he excumunicated twice by said institution or is that a myth?

I would be of the opinion that it was amazing that unlike most other European countries, church and state were actually kept separate to the extent they were in Ireland at that time bearing in mind the poverty in Ireland at the time and the role the Catholic Church played in education, hospitals etc.

thehighground

Tim Robbins wrote: »

It ended up driving a lot of legislation e.g. Divorce.
It also gave the RC church a huge amount of political gravitas. The Church could lecture from the pulpit and Irish politicians were afraid of them. How else do you explain the ban on contraceptives which not only prevented against unplanned pregnacies but STDs? And crazy RC policy such as not allowing its members attend Trinity?

The politicians were mostly roman catholic themselves and even if they were not RC, they were legislating for predominantly RCs. Are you surprised that they would vote with their conscience. Of course it was going to be difficult. As for the ban on Trinity - worth noting the background:

Elizabeth I founded Trinity in 1592 so that students in Ireland could be 'free from papish influence'. The college has allowed Catholics to study there only since the nineteenth century but the Roman Catholic Church continued to ban Catholic students from Trinity until 1971.

John Charles McQuaid, Archbishop of Dublin from 1940 to 1972, deemed it a mortal sin to attend Trinity because of 'pagan' influences at the college.

I have two (RC) relatives who got permission to attend Trinity in the mid-1960s.

You have to also remember the ne temere was still in full effect as was the existing legislation whereby education authorities could discriminate on religious grounds.

As far as I know, protestant schools could also discriminate on religious grounds and it wasn't confined to RC schools. A friend of mine who is CofI and married to an RC is bringing her children up as CofI purely because of the access to CofI national schools and their much smaller classes.

It was a fudge. It was explictly put in our constitution. I suspect the only reason why Dev did was to solidify his politcal base and standing. I doubt he was that interested in transubstantiation.

It was in 1937! And Dev did avoid making the RC church the established church bearing in mind that at least 80% of the voting public were RC.

Amazing isn't it, that the UK hasn't had a Catholic Prime Minister yet and even at this stage, Tony Blair is afraid to admit that he has converted.

Hotblack Desiato

Tim Robbins wrote: »

as was the existing legislation whereby education authorities could discriminate on religious grounds.

They still can, and do, when selecting teachers to 'employ' (the State pays their salaries, but washes their hands of this institutionalised discrimination) and of course, pupils to enrol.

Tim Robbins

thehighground wrote: »

Amazing isn't it, that the UK hasn't had a Catholic Prime Minister yet and even at this stage, Tony Blair is afraid to admit that he has converted.

ninja900 wrote:

They still can, and do, when selecting teachers to 'employ' (the State pays their salaries, but washes their hands of this institutionalised discrimination) and of course, pupils to enrol.

I know all that. I think all religion is nothing more than circular logic on metaphysical issues without any objective evidence. It's only there to help people deal with death, uncertainty and fill ethnocentricity voids. It serves some postive purposes such as reminding people about simple morals and humanistic values.

foxhoundone

without coming across as padantic, i was brought up to believe as a protestant i was part of the luther religion and in that the main policy was that we protest{protestant}
against the main RC church {jesuit,s}and our religion was established in the AD1600,s as i i,ve been taught that the RC church was to draconian in it,s teaching,s indeed when at my neice,s enrolment the preist put out his hand to shake mine {stiched up or what} and i refused on the ground,s that i,m a luther. i had to be escorted from the mass cause every one turned on me {not physical} is that not mind control {indoctronation}
or what.

Fratton Fred

thehighground wrote: »

Amazing isn't it, that the UK hasn't had a Catholic Prime Minister yet and even at this stage, Tony Blair is afraid to admit that he has converted.

I'm not sure that is really relevant. there has been no Muslim or Sikh prime ministers either. Tony Blair becoming a Roman Catholic when he did probably had more to do with him wanting to do it with more privacy he would have had as Prime Minister. In the UK your faith is considered to be no one else's business but your own, it is not worn as a badge like it is in Ireland.

foxhoundone wrote: »

without coming across as padantic, i was brought up to believe as a protestant i was part of the luther religion and in that the main policy was that we protest{protestant}
against the main RC church {jesuit,s}and our religion was established in the AD1600,s as i i,ve been taught that the RC church was to draconian in it,s teaching,s indeed when at my neice,s enrolment the preist put out his hand to shake mine {stiched up or what} and i refused on the ground,s that i,m a luther. i had to be escorted from the mass cause every one turned on me {not physical} is that not mind control {indoctronation}
or what.

that is some pretty heavy stuff. What sort of Protestant church were you brought up in? I have heard of some pretty bigoted people in the CoI up north, but that is pretty extreme.

Most protestants don't give a monkey's about the Roman catholic church, I have been brought up an Anglican and the relationship between the Anglican Church and the Catholic Church was never mentioned.

As i say, the word Protestant seems to be more politically motivated than religious.

foxhoundone

you see mind control, i was brought up on sink housing estate we were quite poor so every sunday me and mate,s would get colected by the local church bus and shipped to the church. on the premise we would get a free hot meal .in exchange we had to lison to some old geezer talking about god an stuff. al i,m saying is i,m an end product,

Tim Robbins

foxhoundone wrote: »

without coming across as padantic, i was brought up to believe as a protestant i was part of the luther religion and in that the main policy was that we protest{protestant}
against the main RC church {jesuit,s}and our religion was established in the AD1600,s as i i,ve been taught that the RC church was to draconian in it,s teaching,s indeed when at my neice,s enrolment the preist put out his hand to shake mine {stiched up or what} and i refused on the ground,s that i,m a luther. i had to be escorted from the mass cause every one turned on me {not physical} is that not mind control {indoctronation}
or what.

Well Luther was an abject racist and biggot, you should read the Jews and their Lies, written by Mr. Luther or check out his fondness of witch burning. Seems ironic such a man could call another Church draconian.

I think it's shocking refusing to shake the Priest's hand. Looks like you've had a lot of mind control imparted on you, but there's absolutely nothing stopping you do a bit of research or being somewhat civil.

Tim Robbins

that is some pretty heavy stuff. What sort of Protestant church were you brought up in? I have heard of some pretty bigoted people in the CoI up north, but that is pretty extreme.

My non-expert research tells me C.o.I. are the least biggotted of all the Protestant Churches up the North. In terms of the Orange Order, painting your curb stones, flying the Jacks, or just being staunch, it would be FP's, followed by the Presbyterians, followed by the C.o.I.

Not sure about Methodists and Baptists. Suspect Methodist veer towards the C.o.I. and the Baptists about the same as the Presbyterians.

Historically it may not have been this way, with the Presbyterians being the most liberal since they had no Bishops, and hence more local autonomy but since the establishment of the Orange Order and increase in tribal rivalary it seems that's all changed. I think one reason for this is a cultural deficient in that some Nordy's don't know what their culture is. C.o.I. folk may not feel they need to argue equal rights for Ulster - Scots as much as Presbyterians and FPs. I would suspect they are happier considering their roots Anglo - Irish rather than Ulster - Scots.

I am open to correction on all this, it's not the easiet thing to get objective information on.

foxhoundone

ya see religion again causing divide,s . well your right that,s why i,m on here researhing i know i was brought up inbalanced, but that,s the 30 odd year,s of religious war for ya {AKA the trouble,s}

foxhoundone

yep fp only just worked it out, free prest, was writon on the side of the bus. and we all know who,s the head of that

Tim Robbins

foxhoundone wrote: »

ya see religion again causing divide,s . well your right that,s why i,m on here researhing i know i was brought up inbalanced, but that,s the 30 odd year,s of religious war for ya {AKA the trouble,s}

400 years. I see the North as the end of the reformation wars.
Yes, it's easy to sit back and cast judgement, which it sounds like I was doing. We were on a cycling trip recently, 4 dubs up the North and we stayed in Bushmills. Now, it would be unsual for anyone South of the Border to stay there as it's rather loyalist. It was easy to make comments about how freaky the place was, but we agreed if we from that place, we'd probably be just the same. So I see where you are coming from.

Tim Robbins

foxhoundone wrote: »

yep fp only just worked it out, free prest, was writon on the side of the bus. and we all know who,s the head of that

Mate, are you doing text speak deliberately?

foxhoundone

well i could give it cause of all the trouble,s i didnt get a good education routine. but i,m just alazy writer u thought speel check would be on this sight lol[laughing out loud not loyal orange lodge}LMAO i,m a keen cycilist to got me self a claud butler under the cycile to work scheme been at it a few year,s now done me a world of good{i can know smoke 40 aday insead of twenty lol

oscarBravo

No, seriously. Please don't do that.

LordSutch

Tim Robbins wrote: »

My non-expert research tells me C.o.I. are the least biggotted of all the Protestant Churches up the North. In terms of the Orange Order, painting your curb stones, flying the Jacks, or just being staunch, it would be FP's, followed by the Presbyterians, followed by the C.o.I.

Not sure about Methodists and Baptists. Suspect Methodist veer towards the C.o.I. and the Baptists about the same as the Presbyterians.

Historically it may not have been this way, with the Presbyterians being the most liberal since they had no Bishops, and hence more local autonomy but since the establishment of the Orange Order and increase in tribal rivalary it seems that's all changed. I think one reason for this is a cultural deficient in that some Nordy's don't know what their culture is. C.o.I. folk may not feel they need to argue equal rights for Ulster - Scots as much as Presbyterians and FPs. I would suspect they are happier considering their roots Anglo - Irish rather than Ulster - Scots.

I am open to correction on all this, it's not the easiet thing to get objective information on.

I'm impressed Tim, cant add or detract from any of the above . . .

Fratton Fred

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I used to drink in an Irish pub in my younger days with some friends and their Dad(The Rose in Maidenhead). You would quite often hear about a fight in the pub in the local rag and not being able to recall it happening.

Where is / was that? I don't know that pub, is it down by the river?

tallus

Deleted User wrote: »

Where is / was that? I don't know that pub, is it down by the river?

http://www.beerintheevening.com/pubs/s/20/20446/Rose/Maidenhead

Fratton Fred

Deleted User wrote: »

Where is / was that? I don't know that pub, is it down by the river?

Next to the Market (Opposite Tesco). It got refurbished a few years back and I think most of the regulars ended up at the Vine.

http://www.beerintheevening.com/pubs/s/32/32168/Vine/Maidenhead (Great site by the way, away fans bible!!)

Fratton Fred

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Next to the Market (Opposite Tesco). It got refurbished a few years back and I think most of the regulars ended up at the Vine.

http://www.beerintheevening.com/pubs/s/32/32168/Vine/Maidenhead (Great site by the way, away fans bible!!)

Now I know it, I was never in it.

McArmalite

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Sigh,

The Queen has a dual role, she is also the head of the Church of England, hence my reference to the Vatican.

The religious orientation is only, it seems, an issue in Ireland. If it becomes an issue in Britain it will be adressed, just like the issue of a future monarch marrying a divorcee has been.

:rolleyes:
As previous stated by me " Imagine if the Irish state had in it's constitution that the head of the country must be a Catholic ?? " Would we ever hear the end of it :rolleyes:

As for comparing the Vatican to britan, the Vatican sole reason for its existance is to promote the Catholic Church, britian claims to be a modern pluralist European state, having legislation stating the the head of state must not be a Catholic is clearly secterian in its nature. But here we go,again if britain says the earth is flat, then it's flat :rolleyes: etc, etc.

Fratton Fred

McArmalite wrote: »

:rolleyes:
As previous stated by me " Imagine if the Irish state had in it's constitution that the head of the country must be a Catholic ?? " Would we ever hear the end of it :rolleyes:

As for comparing the Vatican to britan, the Vatican sole reason for its existance is to promote the Catholic Church, britian claims to be a modern pluralist European state, having legislation stating the the head of state must not be a Catholic is clearly secterian in its nature. But here we go,again if britain says the earth is flat, then it's flat :rolleyes: etc, etc.

you have completely missed my point. it is age old piece of legislation that has not needed to be addressed. when it does it will be in a logical manner. The future King is married to a divorcee, that was once not allowed but it is now acceptable. the same future King has also stated that he sees the monarchs role as defender of faith, not defender of "The" faith. there is a vast difference there.

it is difficult to compare it to the head of the Irish state because it is an elected position, not one that is a birth rite. Only allowing Catholics to run for election would be undemocratic, whereas the nature of a royal holding the head of state is in itself undemocratic, it is, however, backed up by a democratic system that, in real terms, is the operational head of government making the Queens role in effect ceremonial. you are also comparing a constitution that is only a few decades old compared to one that has evolved over nearly one thousand years.

Anyway, there is a British Empire thread somewhere for you to vent your anti British crap.

aquascrotum

Tim Robbins wrote: »

My non-expert research tells me C.o.I. are the least biggotted of all the Protestant Churches up the North. In terms of the Orange Order, painting your curb stones, flying the Jacks, or just being staunch, it would be FP's, followed by the Presbyterians, followed by the C.o.I.

Not sure about Methodists and Baptists. Suspect Methodist veer towards the C.o.I. and the Baptists about the same as the Presbyterians.

Historically it may not have been this way, with the Presbyterians being the most liberal since they had no Bishops, and hence more local autonomy but since the establishment of the Orange Order and increase in tribal rivalary it seems that's all changed. I think one reason for this is a cultural deficient in that some Nordy's don't know what their culture is. C.o.I. folk may not feel they need to argue equal rights for Ulster - Scots as much as Presbyterians and FPs. I would suspect they are happier considering their roots Anglo - Irish rather than Ulster - Scots.

I am open to correction on all this, it's not the easiet thing to get objective information on.

Imo traditionally the heirarchy of the Presbyterian churches would have been, how to put it, less pro-Catholic than Anglican (CoI) churches. But such is the parochial nature of all churches, that viewpoint would vary wildly between parishes and churches, and between ministers/preachers. In my experience, with the exception of the Free-Ps (Paisley-ites), your denomination had little corelation to your political viewpoint. I've met nationalist presbyterians and gun toting UVF supporting anglicans and methodists.

Currently all churches in NI from what I can see are on a love-in mission. Ironic then that (again, imo only) the general public have never been as disenfranchised from the churches.

Haven't read the book referred to by the OP btw, but I'm a northern protestant (presbyterian). I'd consider myself very moderately unionist. I grew up in the 80's and as such have formed my own opinions about certain things - people of my generation do occasionally have to pinch themselves when we think about the reality of life in our school days. I lived quite near the border region of Armagh and I was 14 before we ventured across the border for the first time. Times have changed rapidly and for the better.

For the record though, I now live and work in RoI and am engaged to a RC from Dublin. I'd like to think that I'm part of a moderate majority, most of whom flinch at the term "Loyalist". A prime part of Sinn Fein propaganda over the last decade or so seems to have been to do away with the term "Unionist" - traditionally you had nationalists and republicans, of whom the republicans were the hardcore. Then you had unionists and loyalists, of whom loyalists were hardcore. To speak of loyalists brings up images of paramilitarism, which definitely does not give a fair reflection of the vast, vast majority of protestant people in NI.

LordSutch

aquascrotum wrote: »

For the record though, I now live and work in RoI and am engaged to a RC from Dublin. I'd like to think that I'm part of a moderate majority, most of whom flinch at the term "Loyalist". A prime part of Sinn Fein propaganda over the last decade or so seems to have been to do away with the term "Unionist" - traditionally you had nationalists and republicans, of whom the republicans were the hardcore. Then you had unionists and loyalists, of whom loyalists were hardcore. To speak of loyalists brings up images of paramilitarism, which definitely does not give a fair reflection of the vast, vast majority of protestant people in NI.

Agreed, I have noticed it too ............