Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Protestants

Options
1246

Comments

  • Options
    #92
    owenc
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 5,524 ✭✭✭owenc


    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?'

    It wouldn't have mattered he didn't start the reformation it was a german man called Martin Luther.. Churches like the Methodist and Presbyterian church would still have existed


  • Options
    #93
    PatsytheNazi
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,260 ✭✭✭PatsytheNazi


    bitter wrote: »
    Originally Posted by brianthebard viewpost.gif
    Provide evidence tbh.
    look it up
    You the one making the assertion Collins was of English stock, you should be able to back it up ?

    Simples.


  • Options
    #94
    brianthebard
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,165 ✭✭✭✭brianthebard


    bitter wrote: »
    look it up

    No. provide evidence or stop posting. End of. Mod.


  • Options
    #95
    bitter
    Registered Users Posts: 166 ✭✭bitter


    brianthebard wrote: »
    No. provide evidence or stop posting. End of. Mod.


    yes he was,


  • Options
    #96
    Rabble Rabble
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,367 ✭✭✭Rabble Rabble


    WindSock wrote: »
    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.

    plenty of people questioned doctrine. Very few were tortured. Cromwell killed more people in an hour than were tortured in the Spanish Inquisition.
    Isn't that why the reformation emerged?

    No.
    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,

    Lol, thats clearly contradictory. The blaming of the Irish for having too many children ( which in fact they didnt) is pure English sectarian Supremicist nonsense.


    The question was between Catholicism and Protestantism. English protestantism was extremely puritanical. Irish Catholicism was less so, people believed in all kinds of stuff not mandated by the Church.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #97
    bitter
    Registered Users Posts: 166 ✭✭bitter


    Rabble Rabble wrote: »
    plenty of people questioned doctrine. Very few were tortured. Cromwell killed more people in an hour than were tortured in the Spanish Inquisition.



    No.


    Lol, thats clearly contradictory. The blaming of the Irish for having too many children ( which in fact they didnt) is pure English sectarian Supremicist nonsense.


    The question was between Catholicism and Protestantism. English protestantism was extremely puritanical. Irish Catholicism was less so, people believed in all kinds of stuff not mandated by the Church.


    That Cromwell thing is highly exaggerated :rolleyes:


  • Options
    #98
    Rabble Rabble
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,367 ✭✭✭Rabble Rabble


    owenc wrote: »
    Onto the question.. Yes I think that it wouldve been better for southern Ireland to have been a Protestant religion simply because there would be no fighting and there would be freedom no nonscemce from the catholic church trying to control everyone including protestants


    Ypur view of history is messed up.

    1) Irish Catholicism was largely celtic, very little influenced by rome prior to the Famine.
    2) Protestantism imposed itself on Catholicism in this country. You have never been a victim of anything. You are a descendent of oppressors and land thieves. Stop re-writing your history books.


  • Options
    #99
    Rabble Rabble
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,367 ✭✭✭Rabble Rabble


    bitter wrote: »
    That Cromwell thing is highly exaggerated :rolleyes:

    The Cromwell thing is massively ignored, in fact. The Cromwellian Army pursued a slash and burn policy which killed about 30% of the population, removed about 90% of Catholic land owners - destroying a native Irish culture - and attempted to drive the Irish West to Connaught.

    The fact that this is unknown outside Ireland is atrocious. Victors, however, make history.


  • Options
    #100
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    owenc wrote: »
    Actually yes they are the northern knew are for the union the southern ones arent

    As far as I know most CofI in Northern Ireland are supportive of the union as well. Largely what I would suspect given that the demographics have nothing to do with religion but everything to do with ethnicity and culture.
    Rabble Rabble wrote: »
    2) Protestantism imposed itself on Catholicism in this country. You have never been a victim of anything. You are a descendent of oppressors and land thieves. Stop re-writing your history books.

    LOL. Sorry for being born then :pac:


  • Options
    #101
    PatsytheNazi
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,260 ✭✭✭PatsytheNazi


    bitter wrote: »
    That Cromwell thing is highly exaggerated :rolleyes:
    Rabble Rabble wrote: »
    The Cromwell thing is massively ignored, in fact. The Cromwellian Army pursued a slash and burn policy which killed about 30% of the population, removed about 90% of Catholic land owners - destroying a native Irish culture - and attempted to drive the Irish West to Connaught.

    The fact that this is unknown outside Ireland is atrocious. Victors, however, make history.
    Very true, but your only replying to a wannabe comedian Rabble Rabble. I suspect he won't be around here for too long thankfully :)


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #102
    PatsytheNazi
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,260 ✭✭✭PatsytheNazi


    Jakkass wrote: »

    LOL. Sorry for being born then :pac:
    So am I sorry they were born. Any chance you won't bring as many as possible Paisleyites back to the outer Hebrides ?


  • Options
    #103
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    PatsytheNazi wrote: »
    So am I sorry they were born. Any chance you won't bring as many as possible Paisleyites back to the outer Hebrides ?

    The point seems to be somewhat lost on you. There are many people in the Republic who are of Protestant backgrounds (not necessarily in belief) and are wholly supportive of this State. You seem to be suggesting that people in this situation, I being one of them, grovel over what happened in the past? I'm sorry, but take a reality check.


  • Options
    #104
    PatsytheNazi
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,260 ✭✭✭PatsytheNazi


    Jakkass wrote: »
    The point seems to be somewhat lost on you. There are many people in the Republic who are of Protestant backgrounds (not necessarily in belief) and are wholly supportive of this State. You seem to be suggesting that people in this situation, I being one of them, grovel over what happened in the past? I'm sorry, but take a reality check.
    Well firstly I use the term Paisleyite in a political sense and not a religuious one (BTW I'm not a Catholic).

    But where did I accuse every Protestant in Ireland of being a Paisleyite ? The only Paisleyites that I know of live in the six counties and mainly in places such as north Down, north Armagh, Antrim, east county Derry at that ?


  • Options
    #105
    Rabble Rabble
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,367 ✭✭✭Rabble Rabble


    Jakkass wrote: »
    The point seems to be somewhat lost on you. There are many people in the Republic who are of Protestant backgrounds (not necessarily in belief) and are wholly supportive of this State. You seem to be suggesting that people in this situation, I being one of them, grovel over what happened in the past? I'm sorry, but take a reality check.

    I wasnt talking to you but to OwenC who is an Ulster presbyetarian. It was a counter argument to the "protestants being oppressed by Catholics" beloved of British Protestant historicism.


  • Options
    #106
    Judgement Day
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,549 ✭✭✭✭Judgement Day


    PatsytheNazi wrote: »
    Well firstly I use the term Paisleyite in a political sense and not a religuious one (BTW I'm not a Catholic).

    But where did I accuse every Protestant in Ireland of being a Paisleyite ? The only Paisleyites that I know of live in the six counties and mainly in places such as north Down, north Armagh, Antrim, east county Derry at that ?

    Patsy - any chance that you would let us know what you are? Not what you practice but what tradition you were born into. Don't worry I don't want your address. :D


  • Options
    #107
    Fratton Fred
    Closed Accounts Posts: 26,567 ✭✭✭✭Fratton Fred


    Rabble Rabble wrote: »
    I wasnt talking to you but to OwenC who is an Ulster presbyetarian. It was a counter argument to the "protestants being oppressed by Catholics" beloved of British Protestant historicism.

    You seem to conveniently overlook the fact that Presbytarians were discriminated against as much (if not more) than Catholics.

    Is there a point to this debate? It just looks like sectarian mud slinging to me.


  • Options
    #108
    PatsytheNazi
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,260 ✭✭✭PatsytheNazi


    Fratton Fred wrote: »
    You seem to conveniently overlook the fact that Presbytarians were discriminated against as much (if not more) than Catholics.

    Is there a point to this debate? It just looks like sectarian mud slinging to me.
    Good point, Presbytarians and those labeled " dissenters " were also discriminated against, not as bad as the Catholics but bad enough.

    ( By " dissenters" what religions were they reffering to ? Methodists, Quakers, Jews ? )


  • Options
    #109
    Fratton Fred
    Closed Accounts Posts: 26,567 ✭✭✭✭Fratton Fred


    PatsytheNazi wrote: »
    Good point, Presbytarians and those labeled " dissenters " were also discriminated against, not as bad as the Catholics but bad enough.

    ( By " dissenters" what religions were they reffering to ? Methodists, Quakers, Jews ? )

    non Anglican Christians as far as I know, so Methodist, Quaker, Baptist, Presbytarians etc.


  • Options
    #110
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Rabble Rabble wrote: »
    I wasnt talking to you but to OwenC who is an Ulster presbyetarian. It was a counter argument to the "protestants being oppressed by Catholics" beloved of British Protestant historicism.

    You're just demonstrating your ignorance about the nature of Protestantism. The Presbyterian church was set up by John Knox in Scotland after having met with Calvin in Europe. Being Presbyterian makes you no more for the union than against it in substance. So we must look for other factors.

    As I've already mentioned Anglicans in the North seem to be quite supportive of the union as well. It seems unsurprising that the division seems to fall more along cultural and ethnic lines. It also seems unsurprising that much of the conflict arises from this and nationalism rather than the tenets of any given denomination of Christianity.


  • Options
    #111
    PatsytheNazi
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,260 ✭✭✭PatsytheNazi


    Jakkass wrote: »
    You're just demonstrating your ignorance about the nature of Protestantism. The Presbyterian church was set up by John Knox in Scotland after having met with Calvin in Europe. Being Presbyterian makes you no more for the union than against it in substance. So we must look for other factors.

    As I've already mentioned Anglicans in the North seem to be quite supportive of the union as well. It seems unsurprising that the division seems to fall more along cultural and ethnic lines. It also seems unsurprising that much of the conflict arises from this and nationalism rather than the tenets of any given denomination of Christianity.
    Oh so it's just Republican propaganda that secterian discrimination etc existed against Catholics ?

    " Another allegation made against the Government and which was untrue, was that, of 31 porters at Stormont, 28 were Roman Catholics. I have investigated the matter, and I find that there are 30 Protestants, and only one Roman Catholic there temporarily."
    J. M. Andrews, Unionist Party, Minister of Labour, Stormont, 1933

    http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/issues/discrimination/quotes.htm


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #112
    MarchDub
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,731 ✭✭✭MarchDub


    Fratton Fred wrote: »
    You seem to conveniently overlook the fact that Presbytarians were discriminated against as much (if not more) than Catholics.

    Hi Fred - I have to disagree with this. If you read the Penal laws pertaining to both you can see that the sanctions against Catholics were both political and economic. The sanctions against the Presbyterians were singularly for political purposes - they were not for instance forbidden under law - as Catholics were - to own land and pass on their land to the next generation. They were however, curtailed in representation in county boroughs and limited within Parliament [Catholics were not allowed any representation in Parliament from early in the 1700s]. The Toleration Act of 1719 eased some of the political limits on the Presbyterians. It did not apply to Catholics.

    But Presbyterians were - to their disgust - asked to take the "Black Oath" declaring that they were loyal subjects of the King. This made them feel as if their loyalty was suspect and they were treated politically as being second class to the Anglicans.

    But the economic freedom for Presbyterians is one of the reasons why the Ulster region developed so well economically and why Catholics, for the most part, were the lowest on the economic pole. Under the terms of the Plantation the settlers were given a great deal - low rent and fixity of tenure. Something that took until the late nineteenth century for Catholics in the rest of the country to gain. The Land War etc.

    Fratton Fred wrote: »
    Is there a point to this debate? It just looks like sectarian mud slinging to me.

    Yes, agree. This is why I hesitated to jump in. But I did...:)


  • Options
    #113
    Fratton Fred
    Closed Accounts Posts: 26,567 ✭✭✭✭Fratton Fred


    Were the plantations done based in religious orientation, or simple loyalty to the crown?

    I was at the flight of the Earls centre in Rathmullen and I'm sure it was saying that land was divied up based on allegancies more than anything.


  • Options
    #114
    owenc
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 5,524 ✭✭✭owenc


    Fratton Fred wrote: »
    Were the plantations done based in religious orientation, or simple loyalty to the crown?

    I was at the flight of the Earls centre in Rathmullen and I'm sure it was saying that land was divied up based on allegancies more than anything.

    It was made sure that the people who planted were loyal to the crown and where protestants who spoke english, there was actually a rule that stated that for an undertaker to get land he had to bring 46 protestant men who spoke english! And no the land was not divided up so that the rich people would get the land (only a small minority of it was), you came and bought the land, you just didn't get it for no reason (which some people seem to think happened when it clearly didn't!) I think it was sold out in plots by undertakers,(mainly to musters... ) it was not stolen it was bought! Some of the land was however given to the rich like in my county most of the land was owned by the london companies and they rented it out to tenants (they were still renting it in the 1860s actually!!) they did not sell it, there was also churchland which was land owned by the church of ireland, this land was all sold to scottish planters not rented...


  • Options
    #115
    owenc
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 5,524 ✭✭✭owenc


    Rabble Rabble wrote: »
    Ypur view of history is messed up.

    1) Irish Catholicism was largely celtic, very little influenced by rome prior to the Famine.
    2) Protestantism imposed itself on Catholicism in this country. You have never been a victim of anything. You are a descendent of oppressors and land thieves.Stop re-writing your history books.

    erm no my ancestors bought the land, this is well documented in local history books.. and yes we have my ancestors were not aloud to vote, weren't aloud to marry or even build their own church, infact my ancestors had to marry in the church of ireland and had to baptised there aswell.:mad: Now back OT this has nothing to do with the topic...


  • Options
    #116
    owenc
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 5,524 ✭✭✭owenc


    Rabble Rabble wrote: »
    The Cromwell thing is massively ignored, in fact. The Cromwellian Army pursued a slash and burn policy which killed about 30% of the population, removed about 90% of Catholic land owners - destroying a native Irish culture - and attempted to drive the Irish West to Connaught.

    The fact that this is unknown outside Ireland is atrocious. Victors, however, make history.

    I don't believe this is necessary true because if that was true there would be very little catholics in the plantation counties, that is not the case.. infact there are still tons of catholics in the plantation counties, if it was really true there would barely be 10% in each county, i think its a lot of nonscence personally, it did happen but i don't think it happened to the scale that they say it happened maybe 20% or something but not 90%.:eek: The catholics can't just pop up out of nowhere you know!


  • Options
    #117
    owenc
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 5,524 ✭✭✭owenc


    Fratton Fred wrote: »
    non Anglican Christians as far as I know, so Methodist, Quaker, Baptist, Presbytarians etc.

    Nope presbyterians, it clearly says in the penal laws that presbyterians can't marry etc etc if it were for methodists it would say that.;)


  • Options
    #118
    MarchDub
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,731 ✭✭✭MarchDub


    Fratton Fred wrote: »
    Were the plantations done based in religious orientation, or simple loyalty to the crown?

    I was at the flight of the Earls centre in Rathmullen and I'm sure it was saying that land was divied up based on allegancies more than anything.

    The Plantation laws were very specific - there were a series of them over a period time beginning in 1609. They are quite definitive regarding religion - Catholics were regarded as not capable of giving allegiance to the crown so it was to be a Protestant settlement. All "undertakers" and those who were to be given the land as farmers were to swear the Oath of Allegiance to the Crown - this involved in form a denial of the Pope. The laws also stated that they were all to 'conform themselves in religion according to His Majesty's laws" i.e. no Catholics. The undertakers had to actually swear on behalf of all their family members before they even travelled over to Ireland that they also all conformed in religion and were not papists.

    The issue was of course loyalty to the Crown - and the given assumption was that Catholics would or could not be loyal so were to be excluded. This attitude to Catholics was pretty pervasive and even extended to the British American colonies which also had declarations in Jamestown that Catholics were "subjects of the Pope" and not to be regarded therefore as loyal or full citizens. The small doubt about Presbyterians maybe not quite 'conforming' to his Majesty's laws regarding religion later gave rise to the 'Black Oath' that they were required to take in 1639.

    Many of the people coming from Scotland and northern England were in fact impoverished and landless so it was a good deal for them. Too long to list here but the details regarding taxes, rents, fixity of tenure were very generous. Estates from 1,000 to 2,000 acres were being granted. At first the laws stated that the native Irish were not to be even hired as labourers but this proved difficult to enforce as no labourers came over and so the natives got the servile jobs.

    One of the first protests to all this came from a letter sent from Dublin in Nov 1612 and signed by Six Catholic Irish Lords. They declared their loyalty to the King but tried to explain how the requirement of the Oath of Allegiance was restricting good people from land ownership and from positions in the courts and how as a result of this required Oath - which Catholics could not swear- incompetence and less skilled people in the professions were taking over. Interesting contemporary read on events.

    To add- This is all years before the so called Penal Laws came into force.


  • Options
    #119
    InTheTrees
    Registered Users Posts: 9,900 ✭✭✭InTheTrees


    Its amazing how humans are drawn to dividing up into tribes or religions or ideologies that then try to enslave or eradicate the others.


  • Options
    #120
    owenc
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 5,524 ✭✭✭owenc


    Whats this black oath nonsense? Never heard of that in my life, edit: Nevermind just seen it... Is there any records for this???


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #121
    MarchDub
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,731 ✭✭✭MarchDub


    owenc wrote: »
    Whats this black oath nonsense? Never heard of that in my life, edit: Nevermind just seen it... Is there any records for this???

    It came about for a number of reasons. Partly it had to do with events in Scotland amongst the Presbyterians there, and concern that the Presbyterians in Ireland might not prove loyal to the King. It was the Presbyterians who gave it the name "Black Oath" because of their resentment to it. They had no issue with taking it, it was not against any religious tenet - but it was insulting for them that they were asked as it implied disloyalty. It put them one down from the Anglicans.


    Here is the text -
    THE OATH
    I,
    , do faithfully swear, profess and promise, that I will honour and obey my Sovereign Lord King Charles, and will bear Faith and true Allegiance unto him, and defend and maintain his Royal Power and Authority, and that I will not bear Arms, or do any rebellious or hostile Act against Him, or protest against any his Royal Commands, but submit myself in all due Obedience thereunto: And that I will not enter into any Covenant, Oath or Band of mutual Defence and Assistance against all sorts of Persons whatsoever, or into any Covenant, Oath or Band of Mutual Defence and Assistance against any Persons whatsoever by Force, without his Majesty’s Sovereign and Regal Authority. And I do renounce and abjure all Covenants, Oaths, and Bands whatsoever contrary to what I have herein sworn, professed and promised. So help me God in Christ Jesus.


Advertisement