Protestants

WindSock

Would it have been better for the majority of Irish people if we had all accepted Protestantism from early on?

chughes

Given what's been done in the name of Catholicism and Protestantism on this island over the centuries, maybe we would be better off without either of them.

WindSock

True, but you are never going to get rid of religion, as long as there are people there will always be beliefs.

mike65

Well the country would have fewer corrupt gombeens.

WindSock

Are Protestants less corrupt than Catholics? I am just wondering also from a political point of view also. Would we have gotten our independence back or would it have been easier? Would we have been as oppressed?

mike65

Well Italy and Ireland are corrupt, Iceland and Norway are not. Thats my sophisicated reasoning.

getz

mike65 wrote: »

Well Italy and Ireland are corrupt, Iceland and Norway are not. Thats my sophisicated reasoning.

in protestant countrys now the churches do not seem to dictate to goverments and the people but in jewish, islamic ,budist, and catholic countrys they do ,

Manach

Mike65, could you define corrupt, in a measurable form (e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_Perceptions_Index) and based on that state which is religion a significant corrupting factor in a society?

mike65

Coruption Perception index? What use is that? I'd sooner deal with what can be seen.

Denerick

WindSock wrote: »

Would it have been better for the majority of Irish people if we had all accepted Protestantism from early on?

Ugh... What an innocuous statement.

Hookey

WindSock wrote: »

Are Protestants less corrupt than Catholics? I am just wondering also from a political point of view also. Would we have gotten our independence back or would it have been easier? Would we have been as oppressed?

I think we'd have been more like Scotland culturally, but I still think there would have been a separation from the UK at some point (just because unlike Scotland the start point was invasion rather than political union), but it would have been less difficult for the UK Parliament to give Home Rule to a protestant Ireland compared to a Catholic one (easier to sell to the Scots-Irish for a start, if of course plantation would have even happened).

As for whether we'd have been better off culturally; I'm no fan of any religion, and Brits take absolutely no notice of the Church of England, so I'd say being protestant would be a good thing as its the nearest thing you can have to no religion at all!

I think it would be an unimaginably different country, and the knock on effects would mean a very different UK and even US as well.

delta_bravo

mike65 wrote: »

Well Italy and Ireland are corrupt, Iceland and Norway are not. Thats my sophisicated reasoning.

And you attribute that to religion? Because its a very flawed conclusion to make


OP what is your opinion on the matter?

mike65

so I'd say being protestant would be a good thing as its the nearest thing you can have to no religion at all!

You are confusing Protestantism with Anglican what about ohh Lutheran/Presbyterian/Baptist etc all of which breath fire!

Hookey

mike65 wrote: »

You are confusing Protestantism with Anglican what about ohh Lutheran/Presbyterian/Baptist etc all of which breath fire!

But they're pretty much minority sects in the British Isles aren't they? I'm assuming we'd have ended up Church of Ireland which is just Anglican with a different accent. And I know there are more evangelical flavours of Anglicanism as well (e.g. in Africa), but the, well, "white" versions (Episcopalians in the US/Canada?) seem pretty tame.

getz

chughes wrote: »

Given what's been done in the name of Catholicism and Protestantism on this island over the centuries, maybe we would be better off without either of them.

i looked up on wiki answers.co as to why cromwell hated the catholic church so much this is what was said ---the catholic church used to castrate young boys with good voices ,just so that their voice wouldent change,to make their choirs sound good,prostestants had different good reasons for torture and abuse,-yes i agree with you mate

Hookey

delta_bravo wrote: »

And you attribute that to religion? Because its a very flawed conclusion to make


OP what is your opinion on the matter?

I knew I'd seen it somewhere:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/ireland/article6036446.ece
Recent article in the Times about corruption in Catholic v. Protestant countries. However, if you go and read the original research it refers to, it seems that there's more perceived corruption in Catholic countries, but the reality seems to be corruption is more likely in countries with with "lower development,and possibly with dependence on fuel exports, lower trade exposure, and more intrusive regulations".

WindSock

delta_bravo wrote: »

OP what is your opinion on the matter?

I'm trying to see what good the Catholic church has done for the Irish. I know that they did do a great job in educating, feeding (sort of) and nursing us. Apart from that, I think we have been very oppressed by them (certainly from a Womans point of view, but thats a whole other debate, for this thread I'm talking in general national terms) The English oppressed us for centuries, I know their primary motivation was land, but they wanted to convert us too.

When British rule ceased I think the church stepped in to fill that power/oppression gap for much of the 20th C and even before that.

I was just wondering what Ireland would have been like if we didn't have the Catholic Church to answer to? Would we have suffered as much by the hands of the English if we converted to their religion more willingly? And how would it affect us today?

Denerick

WindSock wrote: »

I'm trying to see what good the Catholic church has done for the Irish. I know that they did do a great job in educating, feeding (sort of) and nursing us. Apart from that, I think we have been very oppressed by them (certainly from a Womans point of view, but thats a whole other debate, for this thread I'm talking in general national terms) The English oppressed us for centuries, I know their primary motivation was land, but they wanted to convert us too.

When British rule ceased I think the church stepped in to fill that power/oppression gap for much of the 20th C and even before that.

I was just wondering what Ireland would have been like if we didn't have the Catholic Church to answer to? Would we have suffered as much by the hands of the English if we converted to their religion more willingly? And how would it affect us today?

In fairness, educating, feeding and taking care of our mental health is quite a lot for any organisation to take on. Be grateful for what you got!

chughes

The reasons for the existance of any religious organization are power and influence. They need to have a flock that they can rule over and shape the thoughts of. As the Protestant church's grip on this country was loosened by the repealing of the Penal Laws, the Catholic church was more than willing to step in to replace one set of penal laws with another set. It would seem that any religious organization that has a majority following will use it's position to further it's own cause, usually to the detriment of other churches/faiths. I would still maintain the view expressed by me in an earlier post that we would be better off without any of them.

WindSock

Denerick wrote: »

In fairness, educating, feeding and taking care of our mental health is quite a lot for any organisation to take on. Be grateful for what you got!

Not a lot for one of the most powerful and wealthiest organisations in the world that more than likely contributed to the poverty of the people in the first place. And certainly not a lot for a religion that preaches goodwill to all mankind.

chughes wrote: »

The reasons for the existance of any religious organization are power and influence. They need to have a flock that they can rule over and shape the thoughts of. As the Protestant church's grip on this country was loosened by the repealing of the Penal Laws, the Catholic church was more than willing to step in to replace one set of penal laws with another set. It would seem that any religious organization that has a majority following will use it's position to further it's own cause, usually to the detriment of other churches/faiths. I would still maintain the view expressed by me in an earlier post that we would be better off without any of them.

And if there were no religion here, some other power boot would have stepped in. I'm just looking at the rule in the context of Christianity as it was the most powerful institution in Ireland and Britain over the last millenium.

IIMII

A better what if in relation to the hassle religious suppression has caused here might be 'What if Henry VIII of England had not met Anne Boleyn, triesd to divorce a powerful wife or hadn't needed to confiscate money from the religious houses?'

You could have then have followed it up with 'Might Ireland have been a more pleasant place without the English desire for lebensraum?'

Hookey

WindSock wrote: »

... as it was the most powerful institution in Ireland and Britain over the last millenium.

In Ireland yes, in Britain, no. The Church has always been subservient to the Crown and State in Britain, even before the Reformation. The Church was certainly influential, but often as a catalyst or an excuse for crown behaviour, rather than the driver of it, as in say Spain or Germany.

This is part of the problem I have with picturing an alternate reality with a protestant Ireland; the flavour of protestantism we would have got (that we did get) was inextricably tied to the English crown; there's an argument that we stayed catholic almost because of that. After all, geographically and ethnically, protestantism would seem like the logical state of affairs if Ireland had been independent of England in the first place (don't forget it was a shotgun wedding between the Celtic church and the church of Rome in the first place). Who knows? An Ireland that had stayed independent of the Anglo-Normans may have ended up as a protestant ally of England. There's one to get your head around.

biko

Prod priests can marry so there would be less of the kiddy fiddling going on.
No Magdalene Laundries.
They also allow women priests, which is cool.

About NI, I think the majority of the working class, be it prods or taighs, don't care too much about religion and have been duped by the likes of Paisley/Adams.

IIMII

I know Paisley is a man of 'faith' but Adams???

Denerick

The church always get a bad press, and is always blamed for causing the poverty of all Catholics throughout history. A pretty unfair charge. Even Weber isn't taken seriously anymore.

WindSock

Denerick wrote: »

The church always get a bad press, and is always blamed for causing the poverty of all Catholics throughout history.

Well if the shoe fits....

Even Weber isn't taken seriously anymore.

What does that mean?

WindSock

About NI, I think the majority of the working class, be it prods or taighs, don't care too much about religion and have been duped by the likes of Paisley/Adams.

I don't think ones faith ever had much to do with the conflict, it is more to do with ones allegiance to the crown.

Look at me saying 'one'. I must be related to the Queen or something

Denerick

WindSock wrote: »

What does that mean?

Max Weber's 'Protestant Work ethic' basically argues that the origins of capitalism (And hence, all the material wealth and power of the modern western world) lie with the emergence of Protestantism in northern Europe. He contrasts the peculiar 'work ethic' which the Protestant faith urges as the reasons for the spectacular growth of nations like Holland, England etc. with the decadency of Catholic nations and peoples like the Italians, France etc.

Load of old nonsense really. He had a point in that Presbyterians seem to have a different standard of work ethic than most catholics or atheists, but that is something more to do with their extreme interpretations of the Bible (As in, a literal interpretation.)

So, the supposed 'poverty' the Catholic church caused the rest of the world to be in (Which is essentially what he argues in an underhand way) is more to do with the fact that presbyterianism requires a spartan lifestyle and a vigourous work ethic, while Catholicism... does not. Can't see how the church can be held to blame for such poverty though. Its really just intellectual laziness and looking for an easy scapegoat.

WindSock

So you disagree that the Catholic church has amassed great wealth? Where do you think that wealth came from? How was St Peters built?
The strict moral guidelines imposed by the church meant everybody was kept in control. No one questioned it for fear of going to hell or get branded a heretic and get tortured or hung. Isn't that why the reformation emerged?
In regards to Ireland, why would you have such a large family when you can barely feed yourself? You must have sex only to concieve, everything was a bloody sin, women were virtual slaves. How can you live up the the ideal of the 'Virgin Mary'?

getz

IIMII wrote: »

A better what if in relation to the hassle religious suppression has caused here might be 'What if Henry VIII of England had not met Anne Boleyn, triesd to divorce a powerful wife or hadn't needed to confiscate money from the religious houses?'

You could have then have followed it up with 'Might Ireland have been a more pleasant place without the English desire for lebensraum?'

anne boleyn wasent she irish and born near killkenny ? [trust the irish to start it all]

IIMII

WindSock wrote: »

In regards to Ireland, why would you have such a large family when you can barely feed yourself?

Large families were part of an historic model, one part of which was that it made sure you had support in you old age. Also, I'm not sure that people were always aware that sex = kids. And then you had the absense of other forms of modern recreation, as well as no contraception etc. And then you had the fact in rural societies that family labour was cheapest. Large families were not nessessarily a Catholic creation. Sure even the institution of marriage for the common man hasn't really been that much of an institution for long so maybe the large family thing you refer to is fairly recent too