'Secularism' to blame for Orange Order decline

conchubhar1

merely being of a different belief - shocking as it is

DoireNod

conchubhar1 wrote: »

merely being of a different belief - shocking as it is

Sometimes I think they are very similar to the radical Evangelical Christians in places like America - especially when you listen to or read some of Paisley's words.

conchubhar1

not suprising as, if you are speaking of protestant evangelicals, they are known for their close mindedness and views

(protestant sects are the largest in america - equally could apply to some catholics or other faiths)

the_dark_side

futurehope wrote: »

Why would a Catholic wish to join an explicitly Protestant organisation? It would be like a Protestant wanting to join Opus Dey.

Here is an interesting twist. Ex RUC reservist and protestant lay preacher (who also was a member of OO), was selected as Sinn Fein candidate for East Derry in 2005

http://www.zoominfo.com/people/Leonard_Billy_427571680.aspx

Bottle_of_Smoke

the_dark_side wrote: »

Here is an interesting twist. Ex RUC reservist and protestant lay preacher (who also was a member of OO), was selected as Sinn Fein candidate for East Derry in 2005

http://www.zoominfo.com/people/Leonard_Billy_427571680.aspx

That's kind of the inverse of futurehope's question though. He's a Protestant who joined Sinn Fein. And whilst they may be made up mainly of Catholics, they are specifically not a "Catholic organisation"

Interesting reading all the same mate!

Bottle_of_Smoke

gurramok wrote: »

Shall we be seeing a concerted campaign against secularism by the Orange Order to protect itself?

What has a person of another belief ever done to offend the Orange Order?!

Almost seems as if you're looking to simply mock them. Look at the article in the first post. At no point did Nelson criticise secularism, he simply gave it as a reason why their membership is dwindling.
Your original commentary in that post was jumping the gun and very sensationalist.

Not to get back on topic or anything, but I agree with him that its part of the reason. I'd say the main reason is the dwindling tensions amongst the the two main communities in NI and the reasons I outlined in post #5.

gurramok

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

Almost seems as if you're looking to simply mock them. Look at the article in the first post. At no point did Nelson criticise secularism, he simply gave it as a reason why their membership is dwindling.
Your original commentary in that post was jumping the gun and very sensationalist.

Eh no, secularism is put across as a bad thing for the reason of the decline. Secularism usually means toleration of others beliefs and the withdrawl of religious beliefs from the political sphere, they are obviously not happy with losing their political influence.

Do you wish to see them have poltical influence?

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

Not to get back on topic or anything, but I agree with him that its part of the reason. I'd say the main reason is the dwindling tensions amongst the the two main communities in NI and the reasons I outlined in post #5.

So you admit the Orange Order has been part of the tensions, so the sooner it disappears from the political(not religious) scene the better for all.

José Alaninho

gurramok wrote: »

so the sooner it disappears from the political(not religious) scene the better for all.

Sooner see it disappear from both tbh; why let it continue sowing seeds of hatred and suspicion within the Protestant community?

FTA69

conchubhar1 wrote: »

no - until the majority of northern ireland and ireland as a whole say so

The Unionist veto in other words, all Unionism ever wanted was the northern part of Ireland to remain in the UK as long as they were in the majority, something they will always be due to the fact the border was drawn with that specific purpose in mind. What we have currently isn't self-determination, rather the acceptance of a British border propped up by an artificially created majority. All the DUP had to decommission was the worst excesses of its raving bigotry, politically their goals have been completely realised while generally Sinn Féin et al have acquiesced to participating in a British framework in Ireland.

Deedsie

FTA69 wrote: »

The Unionist veto in other words, all Unionism ever wanted was the northern part of Ireland to remain in the UK as long as they were in the majority, something they will always be due to the fact the border was drawn with that specific purpose in mind. What we have currently isn't self-determination, rather the acceptance of a British border propped up by an artificially created majority. All the DUP had to decommission was the worst excesses of its raving bigotry, politically their goals have been completely realised while generally Sinn Féin et al have acquiesced to participating in a British framework in Ireland.

I dont think unionists will always have the majority. Children are not born prejudiced, it is a result of there upbringing. With half the amount of OO members as fifty years ago, you would hope it will half again and dilute the hatred that exists in our society.

FTA69

FTA69 wrote: »

an artificially created majority.

Jaysus.

Are people still banging on about that? That's kinda the nonsense I thought was dying out, even amongst the oldest Shinner heads.

Should we do something for Wales after all that Niall of the Nine Hostages inflicted on them?

conchubhar1

well that created majority is a lot closer in time to nialls atrocities
isnt niall semi mytho-historical figure anyway?

junder

gurramok wrote: »

Shall we be seeing a concerted campaign against secularism by the Orange Order to protect itself?

What has a person of another belief ever done to offend the Orange Order?!

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?

José Alaninho

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?

Forgive us, oh please forgive us, for not 'respecting' an organisation that blatantly promotes hatred and intolerance.

pablomakaveli

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?

You're making it seem one sided. GAA halls have been attacked and burned in the North as well.

And unionists aren't very respectful of irish culture and traditions either. In fact they seem less respectful of our culture than we are of theirs.

conchubhar1

that is a common statement that unionists or protestants would be discriminated in a united ireland


bull**** - half the irish revolutionaries were protestants!
they could use english or irish should they wish
they would have religious freedom
etc etc


it is nationalists in northern ireland who are discriminated against

pablomakaveli

conchubhar1 wrote: »

that is a common statement that unionists or protestants would be discriminated in a united ireland


bull**** - half the irish revolutionaries were protestants!
they could use english or irish should they wish
they would have religious freedom
etc etc


it is nationalists in northern ireland who are discriminated against

Our first president Douglas Hyde was a protestant as well.

conchubhar1

exactly on the whole - ireland hasnt been discriminatory towards people born here

besides the unionists

Mr.Micro

pablomakaveli wrote: »

And unionists aren't very respectful of irish culture and traditions either. In fact they seem less respectful of our culture than we are of theirs.

:rolleyes: take that with a large pinch of salt. We have had nothing but intolerance from all sides in NI.

pablomakaveli

Mr.Micro wrote: »

:rolleyes: take that with a large pinch of salt. We have had nothing but intolerance from all sides in NI.

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.

conchubhar1

is that why they are in government now?

oscarBravo

The Orange Order are in government?

conchubhar1

no - that was in response to both sides being nothing but intolerant of each other
both sides being nationalists and unionists

Mr.Micro

conchubhar1 wrote: »

no - that was in response to both sides being nothing but intolerant of each other
both sides being nationalists and unionists

It is a tenuous tolerance that allows both sides to share power for the common good and vitally the individual interests of all the respective parties via the good Friday agreement. At street level the intolerance on all sides is just as raw as it always was. Politics rarely IMO mirror real life.

Bottle_of_Smoke

gurramok wrote: »

Eh no, secularism is put across as a bad thing for the reason of the decline.

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

Secularism usually means toleration of others beliefs and the withdrawl of religious beliefs from the political sphere, they are obviously not happy with losing their political influence.

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."

Do you wish to see them have poltical influence?

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

So you admit the Orange Order has been part of the tensions, so the sooner it disappears from the political(not religious) scene the better for all.

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.

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

DoireNod

Originally Posted by junder
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' .

This is the kind of willingness to ignorance that angers me. The way you wrote that comment (intentional or not) gives the impression that there was only one side to the story in Ireland post-1960s - as if 'The Troubles' was simply the casualties suffered by the Protestant community and the Orange Order. If you knew the actual history of the conflict, which stems back 100s of years, the time-frame otherwise known as 'The Troubles' was actually a result of the intense sectarian campaign against Catholics (Yes that's right, those 'despicable sinners' who worship the Anti-Christ:eek: Right...) by the British state and its elements. As a matter of fact, during this time, it was Loyalist hate groups who disrupted the peaceful demonstrations, while the RUC stood idly by and then it was the British army who murdered 14 men on Bloody Sunday. After these events, to some people, believe it or not, the campaign pursued by the IRA wasn't brutal enough.

And on another point; whoever claims that unionists will always be the majority in the North is mistaken in my opinion. They can't gerrymander forever

DoireNod

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.

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.

Deedsie

DoireNod wrote: »

And on another point; whoever claims that unionists will always be the majority in the North is mistaken in my opinion. They can't gerrymander forever

Well said.

futurehope

conchubhar1 wrote: »

it is nationalists in northern ireland who are discriminated against

In what ways?

futurehope

Deedsie wrote: »

I dont think unionists will always have the majority. Children are not born prejudiced, it is a result of there upbringing. With half the amount of OO members as fifty years ago, you would hope it will half again and dilute the hatred that exists in our society.

The Unionist majority seems pretty solid at the moment. 82% of the people in British Ulster oppose a United Ireland even in the long term according to recent opinion polls.

As regards hatred in society, I suspect that will reduce thanks to The PIRA surrender. It was The IRA who bred the hatred.