'Secularism' to blame for Orange Order decline

futurehope · 02-07-2009 12:09pm

conchubhar1 wrote: »

politicaly for virtualy 80 years in northern ireland
religiously - still in some instances
culturaly and linguisticaly

no need to continue

What happened (or didn't happen) for 80 years (or indeed for 800) is neither here nor there - I'm talking about the present.

I would be interested to see how Catholics are discriminated against religiously (and indeed culturally and linguistically) today - do you have any further details?

Bottle_of_Smoke · 02-07-2009 12:10pm

DoireNod wrote: »

The IRA's campaign has always been the ejection of a foreign force. It was actually the UVF who took it upon themselves to declare war on the IRA and they declared the Catholic community as fair game... As far as the unionist/loyalist community being 'attacked so much' - this is simply because the UVF identified themselves as 'heavily armed Protestants' and were unionist or loyalist in political alignment.

I believe it's also fair to say that many UVF members also happened to be members of the Orange Order.

No arguments. It breaks down as a legitimate response to what I said regarding the topic of this threadthough. Whilst the IRA were fighting what they considered a "foreign force", many of the people they attacked were from the unionist community. They had family in the unionist community. This community was being attacked no matter what the reasoning of the attackers. that's why I used it as an example of why people joined the Orange Order

DoireNod · 02-07-2009 12:11pm

junder wrote: »

I posted some news articules of orange halls that have been attacked, the most recent one which was dubbed in 'Kill all Huns' graffti, funny how not one of you condemned that

No one condoned it either. Stop it with this righteous indignation.

DoireNod · 02-07-2009 12:13pm

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

No arguments. It breaks down as a legitimate response to what I said regarding the topic of this threadthough. Whilst the IRA were fighting what they considered a "foreign force", many of the people they attacked were from the unionist community. They had family in the unionist community. This community was being attacked no matter what the reasoning of the attackers. that's why I used it as an example of why people joined the Orange Order

I was aware of that. Point taken

futurehope · 02-07-2009 12:14pm

conchubhar1 wrote: »

one is a sporting org the other a church

neither of which the uvf or OO are or were

The point is that the presence of UVF members within The Orange Lodges (if this happens), does not necessarily mean The Orange Order endorses The UVF. In the same way that IRA members within The Catholic Church, does not necessarily mean that The Catholic Church endorses The IRA.

junder · 02-07-2009 12:20pm

DoireNod wrote: »

No one condoned it either. Stop it with this righteous indignation.

still was not condemned now was it, you all happy enough to spout whatever rubbish you like about the orange order and yet say nothing about attacks against it, one could almost take the silence as support for the attacks against the orange order, but at least you agree that its 'righteous' indignation

futurehope · 02-07-2009 12:20pm

DoireNod wrote: »

I guess it's likely, but the organisation itself (and its goals) is not religious in the way that the UVF identified themselves as 'heavily armed Protestants'. The IRA's campaign was never against Protestants, but there were likely to be protestant casualties, since the UVF, having declared war on the IRA, were a group of 'heavily armed Protestants'.

I see what you mean. The problem is that if someone puts a gun to your head and blows your brains out - it doesn't really matter to you whether he did it for God or Country, does it?

By the way, you need to be careful about your use of the terms Catholic and Protestant. In many cases they have little to do with religious belief and are more like ethnic labels. This has become increasingly so over the years. Personally I would try to avoid both terms if at all possible - using Nationalist/Unionist instead (unless I really meant Catholics/Protestants).

junder · 02-07-2009 12:23pm

DoireNod wrote: »

I guess it's likely, but the organization itself (and its goals) is not religious in the way that the UVF identified themselves as 'heavily armed Protestants'. The IRA's campaign was never against Protestants, but there were likely to be protestant casualties, since the UVF, having declared war on the IRA, were a group of 'heavily armed Protestants'.

tell that to the families of the protestants murdered by the PIRA for no other reason then they happened to be protestant. 'Protestant casualties' must make murder more palatable to reduce it to such anonymous terms

DoireNod · 02-07-2009 12:26pm

junder wrote: »

still was not condemned now was it, you all happy enough to spout whatever rubbish you like about the orange order and yet say nothing about attacks against it, one could almost take the silence as support for the attacks against the orange order, but at least you agree that its 'righteous' indignation

That's your problem then. Do you even know what the term righteous indignation means? You're trying to play the victim in every post, completely disregarding any other take on the topic. I could easily say that since you don't mention injustices against the Nationalist community and didn't condemn it, that 'one could almost take the silence as support' for injustices committed on the nationalist communities.

junder · 02-07-2009 12:28pm

futurehope wrote: »

The point is that the presence of UVF members within The Orange Lodges (if this happens), does not necessarily mean The Orange Order endorses The UVF. In the same way that IRA members within The Catholic Church, does not necessarily mean that The Catholic Church endorses The IRA.

Lets not forget as well that there were roman catholic priests involved in the IRA, could this be taken as endorsment by the catholic church or simply thos priests invloved taken it upon themslves to join the PIRA

gurramok · 02-07-2009 12:28pm

junder wrote: »

Blown them up, murdered them, burnt down thier halls (almost on a weekly basis) and generally waged a sectarian campaign against its members both directly and indirectly in what was called the 'Troubles' .
So explain to me if there ever was a united ireland how the majorty of the comments on this thread eqate to respecting unionists culture and traditions?

Nice sidestep. I was talking about modern NI where secularism is seen as a danger to the OO, that is they see other religions as a danger to themselves

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

Could you point out exactly where? I'm not seeing it.

"The Orange Order has blamed an increase in secularism for a sharp decline in its membership in Northern Ireland."
""For a while now Northern Ireland has been becoming an increasingly secular society," he said."

Its common sense that they see secularism as dangerous to their goals.

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

It's a word that can have different contexts, in the sense Nelson uses it in that article, it's just coming across to me as "less religious". Look at what he actually said

"Mr Nelson said the Order was suffering from the same trend as churches as people turned away from religion."

Word is pretty meaningful to me, the dictionary agrees.

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

No. But I'm not going to start attacking them for things they're not saying

Good.

""Secondly, there's the whole ethos of the state in Northern Ireland - it appears to be leaning somewhat against the Orange Order."

Proof in the pudding above that their political influence is waining and they hate that.

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

I think they were used as part of the tensions by the unionist loyalist side, I think they gained members because Unionists felt they needed to stand together as their community was being attacked so much. As they don't need to do this now membership will decline. I do agree they should have no political influence though, much as I don't think any religious organisation should have political influence.

They used working class loyalists for violence in their pursuit of their goals, their membership is mostly middle class, if only working class NI Protestants could open their eyes

Though, Nelson doesn't say anything about political influence in that article....

See above, the 'establishment is against them'

the_dark_side · 02-07-2009 12:29pm

pablomakaveli wrote: »

We have a centre for the battle of the Boyne in the Republic which the Unionists visit and there is an OO lodge in Donegal. While the unionists are still opposed to the Irisih language in the North.

But your right that both sides have been very intolerant of each other at times.

There are at least 17 Orange Lodges in Donegal, along with a good number of Mason Meeting houses and Black Preceptary meeting houses. Every year, about 10,000 Orange men march in Rossnowlagh (Donegal) on the week before the 12th of July... so as they are free to go in to the North on the 12th and march.

There is never any trouble, and the Catholic community dont have a problem with it. Catholic businesses do very well out of it in fact.

There is also an Ulster Scotts head office in Raphoe, Donegal, where they also have a language centre. The Ulster Scotts tradition is engrained in the culture of the border counties, its a large part of the history of the area.

The majority of the catholic community in Donegal do not have an issue with the OO, even though the OO have many issues with the RC faith. There has always been a strong cross community spirit and long may it continue. (I was raised a catholic btw)

conchubhar1 · 02-07-2009 12:32pm

futurehope wrote: »

What happened (or didn't happen) for 80 years (or indeed for 800) is neither here nor there - I'm talking about the present.

I would be interested to see how Catholics are discriminated against religiously (and indeed culturally and linguistically) today - do you have any further details?

well nationalists as a whole and some protestant unionists are being denied an irish language act......

culturaly look at responses to the gaa, and support for the irish national soccer side or indeed flying an irish flag at northern irish matches

flags in general

all today and ongoing

DoireNod · 02-07-2009 12:33pm

junder wrote: »

tell that to the families of the protestants murdered by the PIRA for no other reason then they happened to be protestant. 'Protestant casualties' must make murder more palatable to reduce it to such anonymous terms

You seem to be missing my point. Make murder more palatable? What?!

Originally posted by futurehope
I see what you mean. The problem is that if someone puts a gun to your head and blows your brains out - it doesn't really matter to you whether he did it for God or Country, does it?

Did the UVF do what they did for God?

By the way, you need to be careful about your use of the terms Catholic and Protestant. In many cases they have little to do with religious belief and are more like ethnic labels. This has become increasingly so over the years. Personally I would try to avoid both terms if at all possible - using Nationalist/Unionist instead (unless I really meant Catholics/Protestants).

Thanks for the heads up. I wasn't using it in ethnic terms if you read my post.

conchubhar1 · 02-07-2009 12:34pm

junder wrote: »

Lets not forget as well that there were roman catholic priests involved in the IRA, could this be taken as endorsment by the catholic church or simply thos priests invloved taken it upon themslves to join the PIRA

as were several protestant sects and the british govt......

lest you forget

junder · 02-07-2009 12:34pm

DoireNod wrote: »

That's your problem then. Do you even know what the term righteous indignation means? You're trying to play the victim in every post, completely disregarding any other take on the topic. I could easily say that since you don't mention injustices against the Nationalist community and didn't condemn it, that 'one could almost take the silence as support' for injustices committed on the nationalist communities.

As it happens i have condemned just such attacks on other threads so i have not been 'silent'.

DoireNod · 02-07-2009 12:40pm

junder wrote: »

As it happens i have condemned just such attacks on other threads so i have not been 'silent'.

Fair play to you, but the point still stands. Just because someone is 'silent' over an issue doesn't mean you can say that they are condoning it, as you seem to suggest.

conchubhar1 · 02-07-2009 12:43pm

good - those attacks deserved condemning

Can'tseeme · 02-07-2009 2:04pm

The OO is becoming more and more irrelevant firstly because religion on a whole is dying on it's feet. Secondly, the north is becoming a more and more inclusive society, younger people are learning that nationalists/catholics are not born with two heads, have nothing to hate about them and are just the same as them. So basically the secular ethos of the order isn't revelant to modern thinking.

Bottle_of_Smoke · 02-07-2009 2:15pm

Can'tseeme wrote: »

The OO is becoming more and more irrelevant firstly because religion on a whole is dying on it's feet. Secondly, the north is becoming a more and more inclusive society, younger people are learning that nationalists/catholics are not born with two heads, have nothing to hate about them and are just the same as them. So basically the secular ethos of the order isn't revelant to modern thinking.

While I agree 100% with everything other than the final sentence, don't you think someone being non-religious would prevent them even considering joining a religious organisation?

Can'tseeme · 02-07-2009 3:19pm

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

While I agree 100% with everything other than the final sentence, don't you think someone being non-religious would prevent them even considering joining a religious organisation?

Well, that's my point. Religion is becoming more and more irrelevant so then religious organisations are becoming irrelevant.

futurehope · 02-07-2009 3:28pm

conchubhar1 wrote: »

well nationalists as a whole and some protestant unionists are being denied an irish language act......

culturaly look at responses to the gaa, and support for the irish national soccer side or indeed flying an irish flag at northern irish matches

flags in general

all today and ongoing

Sorry, you'll have to forgive me, I'm not very clued up on these issues. How exactly does the NI state discriminate against those who speak Irish only (or even Irish as a first language)?

What problems are The GAA having as regards discrimination by The NI state?

What exactly is the issue, as regards The ROI soccer side?

Why would you fly an Irish (I presume you mean ROI) flag at an NI match?

futurehope · 02-07-2009 3:35pm

Can'tseeme wrote: »

The OO is becoming more and more irrelevant firstly because religion on a whole is dying on it's feet. Secondly, the north is becoming a more and more inclusive society, younger people are learning that nationalists/catholics are not born with two heads, have nothing to hate about them and are just the same as them. So basically the secular ethos of the order isn't revelant to modern thinking.

Are 'young people' learning that the people of The UK including Ulster Loyalists are not born with two heads, have nothing to hate about them and are just the same as them? It would certainly explain the apparent collapse in support for a United Ireland. But hey, support was never really that high anyway was it?

Can'tseeme · 02-07-2009 3:42pm

futurehope wrote: »

Are 'young people' learning that the people of The UK including Ulster Loyalists are not born with two heads, have nothing to hate about them and are just the same as them? It would certainly explain the apparent collapse in support for a United Ireland. But hey, support was never really that high anyway was it?

All you need is love brother:) Never let the narrow mindedness of religion hold you back

futurehope · 02-07-2009 4:39pm

Or the narrow mindedness of outdated political positions.

Can'tseeme · 02-07-2009 7:53pm

futurehope wrote: »

Or the narrow mindedness of outdated political positions.

Unionism may be outdated and has held the north back with a lack of real political ambition. But I wouldn't hold that against anyone or call some narrow minded for having that opinion, they're entitled to it.

T runner · 04-07-2009 8:59am

futurehope wrote: »

Are 'young people' learning that the people of The UK including Ulster Loyalists are not born with two heads, have nothing to hate about them and are just the same as them? It would certainly explain the apparent collapse in support for a United Ireland. But hey, support was never really that high anyway was it?

They aint learning that around marching season are they? They are learning that the protestant/unionist community believe catholics are inferior to them.
There is no collapse in support for a united ireland. The vast majority of people in Ireland believe this as the only logical solution for Ireland.

The only reason the border exists is because the unionist community persuaded the British government that there would be war if they didnt citing Rome Rule etc. That has proven to be untrue, judging by the favorable way southern protestants have been treated south of the border as acknowledged by the Unuinist historian ATQ Stewart.

The reason was always that the protestants in the north didnt want to be ruled by people they are conditioned to believe as inferior. No other reason for that border whatsoever.

junder · 04-07-2009 10:36am

T runner wrote: »

They aint learning that around marching season are they? They are learning that the protestant/unionist community believe catholics are inferior to them.
There is no collapse in support for a united Ireland. The vast majority of people in Ireland believe this as the only logical solution for Ireland.

The only reason the border exists is because the unionist community persuaded the British government that there would be war if they didn't citing Rome Rule etc. That has proven to be untrue, judging by the favorable way southern protestants have been treated south of the border as acknowledged by the Unionist historian ATQ Stewart.

The reason was always that the protestants in the north didnt want to be ruled by people they are conditioned to believe as inferior. No other reason for that border whatsoever.

Actually the border exists because 26 county's left the UK we in northern Ireland never went anywhere. Moreover judging by the blind prejudice by the blind Prejudice by the majorty of posters on this thread against the Orange order and by a huge decline in the protestant population in the republic of Ireland i see no evidence of this special treatment for protestants. Can you provide proof that protestants in northern Ireland are raised to believe that catholics are inferior, and i mean proof not idle speculation or your own inferiority complex does not count. So far the only prejudice i am seeing on this thread is directed at the orange order.

DoireNod · 04-07-2009 12:47pm

junder wrote: »

Actually the border exists because 26 county's left the UK we in northern Ireland never went anywhere. Moreover judging by the blind prejudice by the blind Prejudice by the majorty of posters on this thread against the Orange order and by a huge decline in the protestant population in the republic of Ireland i see no evidence of this special treatment for protestants. Can you provide proof that protestants in northern Ireland are raised to believe that catholics are inferior, and i mean proof not idle speculation or your own inferiority complex does not count. So far the only prejudice i am seeing on this thread is directed at the orange order.

Firstly, the border exists because it was probably a case of '26 or none'. The North-eastern 6 counties weren't only retained in the basis of the demographics of the area, but also because of the largely industrial nature of the area. It was always the goal to unite Ireland, but those who followed Collins et al. seemed to let this goal fall down the agenda. I'm sure you can acknowledge the complexity of the issue.

Secondly, a lot of the so-called 'prejudice' against the Orange Order has been based upon the posters' experiences and (largely un-biased) analysis of history. It's only prejudice if it's completely unfounded and preconceived. Being raised to unquestionably believe the statements of perceived 'moral beacons' like 'Big' Ian Paisley, who called the Pope the anti-christ along with other statements that have been well documented, is closer to prejudice to be honest.

Can you provide proof that protestants in northern Ireland are raised to believe that catholics are inferior, and i mean proof not idle speculation or your own inferiority complex does not count.

I believe the term 'protestant' is misused, as not all protestants are members of the Orange Order. However I think it is fair to say that those children who are raised by members of the Orange Order, would be fairly conditioned to be wary of Catholics, not least due to comments such as Paisley's.

Also, Protestantism was the creation of the Reformation, which was based on the belief that Catholicism was flawed, therefore, the creation of the Protestant faith, by definition, is automatically presumed to be superior by those who follow the faith, unknowingly or knowingly?

futurehope · 04-07-2009 3:06pm

DoireNod said:

Being raised to unquestionably believe the statements of perceived 'moral beacons' like 'Big' Ian Paisley, who called the Pope the anti-christ along with other statements that have been well documented, is closer to prejudice to be honest.

Believing The Pope is The Anti-Christ is a belief shared by many Protestants throughout The World today and indeed throughout history. In fact, it was a theory first put forward by The German Martin Luther (himself still a Roman Catholic at that time). Following your analysis, unless one believes in the 'many paths lead to God' approach, then one is a religious bigot. It may interest you to know that there exists today extreme Roman Catholics who also see today's Pope as The Anti-Christ.

I believe the term 'protestant' is misused, as not all protestants are members of the Orange Order. However I think it is fair to say that those children who are raised by members of the Orange Order, would be fairly conditioned to be wary of Catholics, not least due to comments such as Paisley's.

To be wary is not to feel superior.

Also, Protestantism was the creation of the Reformation, which was based on the belief that Catholicism was flawed, therefore, the creation of the Protestant faith, by definition, is automatically presumed to be superior by those who follow the faith, unknowingly or knowingly?

To believe you are practising true Christianity does not mean you feel superior to non believers. True Protestants see themselves as saved by grace, not by any good works they may have done or by any sense of self worth.

Roman Catholicism also sees itself as the one true faith - outside of which there is no salvation. Perhaps you should spend more time on this forum exploring this sense of superiority.

Richard · 04-07-2009 3:21pm

Riskymove wrote: »

yes but they allow Budhists to convert so therefore all allowed!!:pac:

You cannot become Prime Minister of England if Catholic either! have not seen any law suits

That is simply untrue. For a start, England does not have a Prime Minister. Secondly, the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom can be any religion. The current PM is Presbyterian. Tony Blair could have converted to Catholicism at any time during his Premiership, but chose to do so after he had left office as he considered his religion a private matter.

DoireNod · 04-07-2009 3:40pm

futurehope wrote: »

Believing The Pope is The Anti-Christ is a belief shared by many Protestants throughout The World today and indeed throughout history. In fact, it was a theory first put forward by The German Martin Luther (himself still a Roman Catholic at that time). Following your analysis, unless one believes in the 'many paths lead to God' approach, then one is a religious bigot. It may interest you to know that there exists today extreme Roman Catholics who also see today's Pope as The Anti-Christ.

I'm aware of this, but it doesn't take away from the point I'm making with regard to being led to believe prejudiced perceptions. Out of interest, do you believe the Pope is the Anti-Christ?

To be wary is not to feel superior.

True. I never suggested that it was, but nice observation.

To believe you are practising true Christianity does not mean you feel superior to non believers. True Protestants see themselves as saved by grace, not by any good works they may have done or by any sense of self worth.

Roman Catholicism also sees itself as the one true faith - outside of which there is no salvation. Perhaps you should spend more time on this forum exploring this sense of superiority.

If it's of any interest to you, I'm not interested in religion at any level. I see it all as nonsense, especially Roman Catholicism (I must be mad :eek:). The truth is that they're all the same at one level or another and the reason that many cultures across the world clash is because one claims that one is superior to another. Surely that's the reason that those within the Orange Order (used to?) expel members who would fraternize with Catholics for example? Incidentally, have you actually commented on the notion of secularism being central to the decline of members in the Orange Order, or are you simply here to comment on the differences (or similarities as the case may be) between Christian denominations and the IRA?

getz · 04-07-2009 4:33pm

T runner wrote: »

They aint learning that around marching season are they? They are learning that the protestant/unionist community believe catholics are inferior to them.
There is no collapse in support for a united ireland. The vast majority of people in Ireland believe this as the only logical solution for Ireland.

The only reason the border exists is because the unionist community persuaded the British government that there would be war if they didnt citing Rome Rule etc. That has proven to be untrue, judging by the favorable way southern protestants have been treated south of the border as acknowledged by the Unuinist historian ATQ Stewart.

The reason was always that the protestants in the north didnt want to be ruled by people they are conditioned to believe as inferior. No other reason for that border whatsoever.

favorable way protestants have been treated in the south?-you havent been doing your home work , even to-day check out this--- www.crookedlawyers.com/uploads/case5/htm

futurehope · 04-07-2009 5:04pm

DoireNod said:

I'm aware of this, but it doesn't take away from the point I'm making with regard to being led to believe prejudiced perceptions. Out of interest, do you believe the Pope is the Anti-Christ?

I'm not yet sure what you mean by 'prejudiced perceptions' - perhaps you could clarify who is holding these perceptions and exactly what you think these perceptions are. If you mean religious views then there is no point in commenting, as I believe everyone has the right to hold any religious views they like even if I disagree with them, or argue against them.

As regards The Pope, The Bible talks about Anti-Christs and also about THE ANTI-CHRIST. The pleural would cover a whole range of apostate believers and false prophets, which would undoubtedly cover all individual Popes (in my opinion), as well as many 'Protestants' (again in my opinion). As for THE ANTI-CHRIST, I have come to a hesitant belief that THE MAN OF SIN, will in fact be a Jew, as The Bible talks about a desecration taking place in The Jewish Temple in Jerusalem in which THE MAN OF SIN declares himself God/Christ. Only a Jew would be able to convince other Jews he was the long expected Jewish Messiah. But this is all my speculation.

Something that might interest you and others is this:

The Pope is known as THE VICAR OF CHRIST
VICAR means IN PLACE OFF
ANTI-CHRIST means against, but also in The Greek, IN PLACE OFF

So, you could say The Pope could also be known as ANTI-CHRIST, as it means the same as THE VICAR OF CHRIST.

If it's of any interest to you, I'm not interested in religion at any level. I see it all as nonsense, especially Roman Catholicism (I must be mad :eek:). The truth is that they're all the same at one level or another and the reason that many cultures across the world clash is because one claims that one is superior to another.

That's fine and an opinion many share. I would suspect that in many places religion is merely a flag of convenience for power struggles between ethnic groups.

Surely that's the reason that those within the Orange Order (used to?) expel members who would fraternize with Catholics for example?

I'm not aware that ever happened - might you be talking about attendance at The Mass? Weddings, funerals etc? We do of course know that The RC church took exactly the same approach. Sorry to contextualise things again, I know you'd prefer to keep things purely on The Orange Order.

Incidentally, have you actually commented on the notion of secularism being central to the decline of members in the Orange Order, or are you simply here to comment on the differences (or similarities as the case may be) between Christian denominations and the IRA?

No, I have commented - I believe secularisation will very much be part of any decline in membership of The Orange Order, as with decline in church membership generally. In fact, the same process is killing membership of political parties.

DoireNod · 04-07-2009 6:44pm

futurehope wrote: »

I'm not yet sure what you mean by 'prejudiced perceptions' - perhaps you could clarify who is holding these perceptions and exactly what you think these perceptions are.

My comment was in relation to the point that I made to Junder's comment about prejudiced views on this board. I made the point that 'it's only prejudiced if it's completely unfounded and pre-conceived' and that it's more akin to being prejudiced if you're brought up to believe that Catholics etc. are sinners or other similar derogatory types.

Something that might interest you and others is this:

The Pope is known as THE VICAR OF CHRIST
VICAR means IN PLACE OFF
ANTI-CHRIST means against, but also in The Greek, IN PLACE OFF

So, you could say The Pope could also be known as ANTI-CHRIST, as it means the same as THE VICAR OF CHRIST.

That's an interesting take on it, but it appears to be a bit of an over-emphasis on semantics to be honest. I wonder how those who hold this view actually mean it when they use the term 'Anti-Christ'.

That's fine and an opinion many share. I would suspect that in many places religion is merely a flag of convenience for power struggles between ethnic groups.

Very true. People either knowingly manipulate religion or ignorantly apply religious tags where they are irrelevant.

I'm not aware that ever happened - might you be talking about attendance at The Mass? Weddings, funerals etc? We do of course know that The RC church took exactly the same approach. Sorry to contextualise things again, I know you'd prefer to keep things purely on The Orange Order.

I know of people who have been 'banished' by the Orange Order in the same way that the Roman Catholic church ex-communicated people. By the way, you are not putting it into context by comparing it to the Roman Catholic Church and as this is a thread where the main topic is the Orange Order, it would be good to try to keep it on topic.

No, I have commented - I believe secularisation will very much be part of any decline in membership of The Orange Order, as with decline in church membership generally. In fact, the same process is killing membership of political parties.

Fair point.

futurehope · 04-07-2009 7:31pm

DoireNod said:

My comment was in relation to the point that I made to Junder's comment about prejudiced views on this board. I made the point that 'it's only prejudiced if it's completely unfounded and pre-conceived' and that it's more akin to being prejudiced if you're brought up to believe that Catholics etc. are sinners or other similar derogatory types.

Saying someone is 'a sinner' is a matter of religious opinion and as such I have absolutely no problem with the term (whether or not I agree with it's specific application). As I said previously, all have sinned as far as Reformed Christianity is concerned.

I know of people who have been 'banished' by the Orange Order in the same way that the Roman Catholic church ex-communicated people.

You can indeed be kicked out of The Orange Order, but only for specific itemised reasons. Associating with Roman Catholics is definitely not one of them. Attending Mass might be. Obviously an Orangeman kicked out of The Order might suffer as a result, but The Orange Order can make no claim on his soul, unlike The RC church without whom The individual RC cannot be saved.

By the way, you are not putting it into context by comparing it to the Roman Catholic Church and as this is a thread where the main topic is the Orange Order, it would be good to try to keep it on topic.

Unfortunately that's not possible. You see The Orange Order does not exist in a complete vacuum. In fact, it's reason for existence is opposition to Roman Catholicism (the faith, not the individual), so any discussion of The Order is inevitability going to involve discussion of The RC church. Otherwise, it would be a bit like discussing Irish Nationalism without referencing The UK, which would be absurd.

DoireNod · 04-07-2009 7:54pm

futurehope wrote: »

Unfortunately that's not possible. You see The Orange Order does not exist in a complete vacuum. In fact, it's reason for existence is opposition to Roman Catholicism...

And it also opposed vehemently the United Irishmen, which was inclusive of Irishmen of all creeds.

...so any discussion of The Order is inevitability going to involve discussion of The RC church. Otherwise, it would be a bit like discussing Irish Nationalism without referencing The UK, which would be absurd.

Yes, but continually defending the actions or practices of the organisation by comparing it to that of the Roman Catholic church makes no sense. You could start discussing the actions and beliefs of the United Irishmen, since they were (are) related to the Orange Order. Same principle applies, according to you, no?

j1smithy · 04-07-2009 8:22pm

I see this thread has wandered into familiar territory and had gone way OT. However perhaps the OO is right, that increasing secularism is leading to their decline. I also think there is some denial in that statement. Far from being an expert on the OO, I looked up to see what they do apart from march and go to church and tbh it doesn't seem much. Sure they're involved in some charity work but it just seems to be an old boys club. If it wants to survive it needs to fundamentally reform. Organisations which fail to change with the times always fail. Some of the changes needed may seem counter to the ethos like allowing women in, however they will have to ask themselves if no OO is better than a reformed OO. They will need to appeal to youngsters as a social institution or perhaps even as a sporting one. It will also need to be inclusive. Ie we are different to the other community but we respect your differences. They should model themselves on organisations that are thriving at the moment.

My own opinion is that if the Unionist majority had afforded catholics rights and respect in the 50's and 60's they would be far more secure in their union with the UK. I think republicanism would never have gained such popular support if the catholic population has prospered economically at that time.

I'd like to get a unionist perspective on this though. Futurehope and others, what are the main reasons behind your opposition to unification of the island of Ireland? Do you think your civil rights would be eroded? What of altering the status quo frightens you?

T runner · 04-07-2009 8:41pm

junder wrote: »

Actually the border exists because 26 county's left the UK we in northern Ireland never went anywhere.

This is why many people in NI especially on the Unionist side have a set of belief that is based on ignorance. Irish history is not taught tp prtestants (because theyre British and dont need to know Irish history I guess) and yet everybody there considers themselves expert.

The government of Ireland ACT established a 32 county free state.
The Act had an option for the 6 counties of the North East to withdraw within a month which they did. The Irish protestants of Ulster decided to partition the country (and to partition Ulster.) Why dont you even know the origins of Northern Ireland?

Moreover judging by the blind prejudice by the blind Prejudice by the majorty of posters on this thread against the Orange order and by a huge decline in the protestant population in the republic of Ireland i see no evidence of this special treatment for protestants.

The so-called bad treatment of protestants in the Republic is a revisionist myth. A lot of protestants worked in the British army so after independence of the 26 counties their work moved outside that area naturally enough.

The whole idea of partition was seen as a temporary solution. Even Carson seemed to accept this. However that ruse by the unionists was quickly shown to be dishonest. They eagerly attempted to make life impossible for the Roman catholics living in that juristiction by corrupting and abusing the power they had. They forced the idea of a protestant state for a protestant people, or in fact a protestant state and a catholic state. Part of their plan clearly involved forcing the catholic population out of the corrupt state. There is plenty of evidence of this. Concentrating all the protestants of Ireland into NI would be attractive also. So, northern protestants complaining about the drop in population of protestants in the south is hypocrisy. There was no other possibility in the particular partitioned Ireland that the Ulster protestants forced on all of us. If all of Ireland had stayed in the free state there would have been no decline in population.

The Free State government made sure protestants were treated correctly and
protected. It was in their interest to do so.

(Even Unionist historians acknowledge this.)

Can you provide proof that protestants in northern Ireland are raised to believe that catholics are inferior,

A quick look at some loyalism is proof enough. One mural goes along the lines of Kill them all and let god decide where to send them. If you witness bonfires in loyalist areas you will see KAT signs at the top of the bonfire (Kill All Taigs, or kill all catholics). This is evidence of a dehumanising of the catholic population in the loyalist classes eyes. That there no difference between one catholic and the next. This can only come from people who perceive themselves as superior to the dehumanised population. These signs are most evident in the lower income groups in a population but they always point to a prevailing attitude in the whole of a particular population.

getz wrote: »

favorable way protestants have been treated in the south?-you havent been doing your home work , even to-day check out this--- www.crookedlawyers.com/uploads/case5/htm

That link doesnt work, but I think Ive answered this above.

Richard · 04-07-2009 9:58pm

T runner wrote: »

The government of Ireland ACT established a 32 county free state.
The Act had an option for the 6 counties of the North East to withdraw within a month which they did. The Irish protestants of Ulster decided to partition the country (and to partition Ulster.) Why dont you even know the origins of Northern Ireland?

Yes, but the GoI act did not explicitly stop Ireland being part of the United Kingdom. Yes, NI was part of the Free State for one day, but it took some months for it to be considered that the Free State was not part if the UK. It was not until 1927 that the UK officially and belatedly changed its name from the "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland" to the "United Kingdom of Grest Britain and Northern Ireland".

Yes, Northern Ireland was technically part of the Free State for a day, but it never left the UK. It never went anywhere.

luckyfrank · 04-07-2009 10:25pm

j1smithy wrote: »

I see this thread has wandered into familiar territory and had gone way OT. However perhaps the OO is right, that increasing secularism is leading to their decline. I also think there is some denial in that statement. Far from being an expert on the OO, I looked up to see what they do apart from march and go to church and tbh it doesn't seem much. Sure they're involved in some charity work but it just seems to be an old boys club. If it wants to survive it needs to fundamentally reform. Organisations which fail to change with the times always fail. Some of the changes needed may seem counter to the ethos like allowing women in, however they will have to ask themselves if no OO is better than a reformed OO. They will need to appeal to youngsters as a social institution or perhaps even as a sporting one. It will also need to be inclusive. Ie we are different to the other community but we respect your differences. They should model themselves on organisations that are thriving at the moment.

My own opinion is that if the Unionist majority had afforded catholics rights and respect in the 50's and 60's they would be far more secure in their union with the UK. I think republicanism would never have gained such popular support if the catholic population has prospered economically at that time.

I'd like to get a unionist perspective on this though. Futurehope and others, what are the main reasons behind your opposition to unification of the island of Ireland? Do you think your civil rights would be eroded? What of altering the status quo frightens you?

And at the turn of the 20th century if the unionist minority had afforded catholics there right throughout ireland then the whole island may well still be in the union

As for the OO i dont think many take it seriously up north not even protestant's however it is a part of our history whatever way you look at it as a nationalist i find it unpallatbale at times however i believe it should be preserved

T runner · 04-07-2009 10:57pm

Richard wrote: »

Yes, but the GoI act did not explicitly stop Ireland being part of the United Kingdom. Yes, NI was part of the Free State for one day, but it took some months for it to be considered that the Free State was not part if the UK. It was not until 1927 that the UK officially and belatedly changed its name from the "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland" to the "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland".

Yes, Northern Ireland was technically part of the Free State for a day, but it never left the UK. It never went anywhere.

By That logic the free state was still part of the UK until 1927 because that country didnt change its name until then? The British army withdrew, powers were transferred to Dublin but all these parties were actually mistaken because Ireland was still actually part of the United Kingdom until 1927?
Thats taking revisionism a bit too far surely?

The point is that the politicians of the six counties chose to seperate from the 26. The poster claimed that it was the other way around.

Richard · 05-07-2009 2:12pm

T runner wrote: »

By That logic the free state was still part of the UK until 1927 because that country didnt change its name

No, that's why I said "some months" and that the name change in 1927 was "belated".

The point is that the politicians of the six counties chose to seperate from the 26. The poster claimed that it was the other way around.

The Stormont parliament voted to opt out of the Free State, yes. But in terms of being part of the UK, Northern Ireland never left. The rest of Ireland did.

DoireNod · 05-07-2009 2:46pm

j1smithy wrote: »

Organisations which fail to change with the times always fail.

Fair point, but as long as certain organisations (religious or otherwise) maintain a grip over people, there will be little change. The Orange Order has survived since before the 1798 rebellion in Ireland and people's attitudes worldwide have changed a lot since then. I definitely think that if the numbers of the Orange Order continue to decline, the organisation itself will have significantly less influence than it once had. If the Orange Order 'reformed' as such, I would imagine it would be likely to be met with some criticism from the more pious members, as they are generally very conservative.

I'd like to get a unionist perspective on this though. Futurehope and others, what are the main reasons behind your opposition to unification of the island of Ireland? Do you think your civil rights would be eroded? What of altering the status quo frightens you?

Good question, I'd like to know this too, but it is off-topic. Perhaps this could be the topic of a new thread, or brought to a thread discussing a united Ireland? However, I don't think a united Ireland would affect the Orange Order, since, as junder and futurehope point out, there are a fair amount of lodges across Ireland and notable marches are held in Co. Donegal. I wonder do these Orangemen consider themselves Irish Orangemen or still 'British' and I wonder what their stance on a united Ireland would be?

On topic, I think secularism is a welcome development in society as a whole, not just in Ireland or with regard to the Orange Order.

junder · 06-07-2009 11:10am

Vandals target two Orange halls
Vandals target two Orange halls

Orangemen are due to parade across Northern Ireland in a week
Two Orange halls have been vandalised over the weekend.

Sectarian slogans were daubed on the Orange Hall in Rasharkin. It is understood it is the fourth time that the hall has been targeted this year.

In April, two petrol bombs were thrown at the hall on Main Street in the village, causing scorch damage.

Meanwhile, paint has been thrown at the front of Carlisle Circus Orange hall in Belfast. Major renovation work has recently been carried out there.

The hall is the starting point for the Belfast 12 July parade on Monday.

The attacks have been condemned by the Grand Orange Lodge of Ireland.

DoireNod · 06-07-2009 11:42am

junder wrote: »

Vandals target two Orange halls
Vandals target two Orange halls

Orangemen are due to parade across Northern Ireland in a week
Two Orange halls have been vandalised over the weekend.

Sectarian slogans were daubed on the Orange Hall in Rasharkin. It is understood it is the fourth time that the hall has been targeted this year.

In April, two petrol bombs were thrown at the hall on Main Street in the village, causing scorch damage.

Meanwhile, paint has been thrown at the front of Carlisle Circus Orange hall in Belfast. Major renovation work has recently been carried out there.

The hall is the starting point for the Belfast 12 July parade on Monday.

The attacks have been condemned by the Grand Orange Lodge of Ireland.

Vandalism takes place everywhere; this kind of vandalism is to be expected, especially when a large number of people oppose the nature of the Orange Order and its practices, teachings and especially so close to the marching season. At least no one was hurt. The attacks could also have been committed by anyone - perhaps it is secular society making a statement?

I hope this post wasn't posted with the intent of suggesting that this kind of damage is limited exclusively to the Orange Order. History tells us otherwise. Incidentally, where is the source?

futurehope · 06-07-2009 2:31pm

DoireNod wrote: »

Vandalism takes place everywhere; this kind of vandalism is to be expected, especially when a large number of people oppose the nature of the Orange Order and its practices, teachings...

Interesting choice of words. So if a Catholic church or a synagogue was attacked you would say:

Vandalism takes place everywhere; this kind of vandalism is to be expected, especially when a large number of people oppose the nature of Catholicism/Judaism and its practises, teachings...

???

getz · 06-07-2009 2:51pm

i think that if i had lived in northern ireland all my life ,i would have had a siege mentality which happens when you feel that another country is always threatening you,i know my wife who is from gib has a big dislike for the spanish, change takes time

Nodin · 06-07-2009 4:05pm

futurehope wrote: »

Unfortunately that's not possible. You see The Orange Order does not exist in a complete vacuum. In fact, it's reason for existence is opposition to Roman Catholicism (the faith, not the individual), .

...in theory. A theory which may be applied more frequently abroad than in NI.

DoireNod · 06-07-2009 5:59pm

futurehope wrote: »

Interesting choice of words. So if a Catholic church or a synagogue was attacked you would say:

Vandalism takes place everywhere; this kind of vandalism is to be expected, especially when a large number of people oppose the nature of Catholicism/Judaism and its practises, teachings...

???

Yes. I'm not excusing it per se, rather simply making the point that it happens everywhere. In the case of the attacks on the halls of the Orange Order - they appear to be natural knee-jerk responses to the actions (triumphalist marches, inciting vitriolic feeling etc.) of the organisation and therefore, are to be expected. This vandalism could also be mindless and the product of a lack of recreational outlets, rather than a concerted campaign of vandalism directed against the Orange Order - I wonder what other buildings or businesses were victim to vandalism during this time? Why are you confused? It's not complicated.

'Secularism' to blame for Orange Order decline

Comments