Sectarian Violence.

PDN

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Disagree with me all you wish, but there is no need to be so uncivil about it.

Hang on a minute. You start a thread about sectarianism. Then you accuse anyone who expresses a different opinion as being in denial.

Then you accuse others of being uncivil?

Have you actually got something more to discuss about sectarianism?

Maybe you could even explain what the connectiom is between Ian Paisley's theological disagreements with the RCC and yobos throwing stones in Belfast.

Bannasidhe

PDN wrote: »

Hang on a minute. You start a thread about sectarianism. Then you accuse anyone who expresses a different opinion as being in denial.

Then you accuse others of being uncivil?

Have you actually got something more to discuss about sectarianism?

Maybe you could even explain what the connectiom is between Ian Paisley's theological disagreements with the RCC and yobos throwing stones in Belfast.

Post #31 posted by you

I don't think you get pleasure from it. But I think, either through ignorance or dishonesty, that you are prepared to exploit it.

Is not 'expressing a different opinion' - it is inflammatory, insulting and extremely uncivil.

Apart from taking issue with the tone of your response and objecting to your uncalled for personal attack quoted above I have merely stated there is a problem with the continued existence of sectarianism on this island.

I have said yes- tribal/political is the real issue but that nonetheless there is an undeniable sectarian element that feeds the cycle of hate.
So I disagreed with those who say there is no sectarian element.
That is it.

Can you please provide me with one example in this thread where I was uncivil to anyone?

PDN

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Can you please provide me with one example in this thread where I was uncivil to anyone?

In my opinion, you were uncivil in accusing people of being in denial because they expressed a different view.

Then, when your position was challenged, you threw a hissy fit and demanded that the thread be closed.

Now, do you actually have anything further to discuss as regards sectarianism.

Bannasidhe

PDN wrote: »

In my opinion, you were uncivil in accusing people of being in denial because they expressed a different view.

Then, when your position was challenged, you threw a hissy fit and demanded that the thread be closed.

Now, do you actually have anything further to discuss as regards sectarianism.

Oh PDN - you do make me laugh.

Yes, I said to those who denied there was a problem that I disagree with them. Is that a problem on this forum?
I showed my reason for why I disagreed by providing examples of anti-Catholic rhetoric from a man who held the highest political office in NI. What is the problem with that?

When you said I was either ignorant or dishonest - which is an attack on the poster not the post which was reported but no action was taken - I requested the thread be closed as it was descending into pointlessness. Lead by a moderator of all people.

No PDN - I do not want to discuss sectarianism with you. I prefer to debate with people who are capable of being civil or who at the least are held accountable when they breach the forum charter.

PDN

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Oh PDN - you do make me laugh.

Yes, I said to those who denied there was a problem that I disagree with them. Is that a problem on this forum?
I showed my reason for why I disagreed by providing examples of anti-Catholic rhetoric from a man who held the highest political office in NI. What is the problem with that?

When you said I was either ignorant or dishonest - which is an attack on the poster not the post which was reported but no action was taken - I requested the thread be closed as it was descending into pointlessness. Lead by a moderator of all people.

No PDN - I do not want to discuss sectarianism with you. I prefer to debate with people who are capable of being civil or who at the least are held accountable when they breach the forum charter.

So, I guiess I'll never find out why Paisley's theological views are connected with stone throwing yobos.

Bannasidhe

PDN wrote: »

So, I guiess I'll never find out why Paisley's theological views are connected with stone throwing yobos.

http://www.ofmdfmni.gov.uk/violence.pdf

Enjoy.

PDN

Bannasidhe wrote: »

http://www.ofmdfmni.gov.uk/violence.pdf

Enjoy.

I don't see any mention of Paisley's theological views there. I do, however, see a discussion about the problems between two ethnic groups.

Any real points to offer, rather than irrelevant links?

Bannasidhe

PDN.

With the greatest of respect I decline to engage with someone who resorts to unnecessary personal abuse of the sort contained in post #31, which I have also quoted, and is not sanctioned for doing so.

It makes a mockery of the term debate when a moderator is allowed to flaunt the charter and attack the poster not the post.

PDN

Bannasidhe wrote: »

PDN.

With the greatest of respect I decline to engage with someone who resorts to unnecessary personal abuse of the sort contained in post #31, which I have also quoted, and is not sanctioned for doing so.

It makes a mockery of the term debate when a moderator is allowed to flaunt the charter and attack the poster not the post.

So, no explanation about Paisley's theological views and their supposed connection to sectarian violence. Ok.

Actor

Bannasidhe wrote: »

PDN.

With the greatest of respect I decline to engage with someone who resorts to unnecessary personal abuse of the sort contained in post #31, which I have also quoted, and is not sanctioned for doing so.

It makes a mockery of the term debate when a moderator is allowed to flaunt the charter and attack the poster not the post.

Sarky

Sarky wrote: »

See what I did there?

I guess you didn't see what I did there.

skooterblue2

I can hire one half of the working class to kill the other half.
~ Stephen Jay Gould, “Gilded-Age Industrialist” 1896

I remember when Marching season was done properly as a child. The british Army were called in with Razor wire deployed and the RUC were issued Baton rounds. You would have local residents against the loyalists against the republicans and the Orange Order and Sinn Fein were far away from the front line.

Oh they just love to have a crack at one another. The summer would be the same without it. It is not something that comes naturally... racism is taught at the dinner table. If either side ignored the other then there would be no excitement. Its Stormonts problem not either Dublin or London. They have as close to independence as they will ever have. They would be better off developing industry, trade, tourism, Education agriculture and energy rather than pursuing old wounds.

Monty Burnz

Actor wrote: »

She is referring to this:

PDN wrote: »

I don't think you get pleasure from it. But I think, either through ignorance or dishonesty, that you are prepared to exploit it.

Here, a poster is calling another poster either ignorant or dishonest. Both of these would be considered terms of abuse.

PDN

Monty Burnz wrote: »

She is referring to this:

Here, a poster is calling another poster either ignorant or dishonest. Both of these would be considered terms of abuse.

Not so, to be ignorant of something is to be lacking in knowledge. We are all ignorant on certain subjects. And it was in that non-pejorative sense that I used the term.

In fact I was using the word 'ignorant' to be charitable to her. It would be easy to assume that she was doing a Dawkins and that her exploitation of sectarian violence was wholly dishonest. Instead I decided to cut her some slack and allow for the fact that she might be genuinely mistaken and just isn't very well informed about Northern Irish tribal warfare. After all, not everybody has had the misfortune to grow up North of the border or to live there for any length of time.

newmug

PDN wrote: »

Instead I decided to cut her some slack and allow for the fact that she might be genuinely mistaken and just isn't very well informed about Northern Irish tribal warfare. After all, not everybody has had the misfortune to grow up North of the border or to live there for any length of time.

I wish I grew up North of the border. Its surreal to be in a part of my own country thats cut off from the rest of it. I love Ireland so much.

Bannasidhe

PDN wrote: »

Not so, to be ignorant of something is to be lacking in knowledge. We are all ignorant on certain subjects. And it was in that non-pejorative sense that I used the term.

In fact I was using the word 'ignorant' to be charitable to her. It would be easy to assume that she was doing a Dawkins and that her exploitation of sectarian violence was wholly dishonest. Instead I decided to cut her some slack and allow for the fact that she might be genuinely mistaken and just isn't very well informed about Northern Irish tribal warfare. After all, not everybody has had the misfortune to grow up North of the border or to live there for any length of time.

Oh dear oh dear. PDN is upset.

My bad - did I touch a raw nerve?

newmug

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Oh dear oh dear. PDN is upset.

My bad - did I touch a raw nerve?

In fairness Bannasidhe, now who's being uncivil? WRT sectarian violence, I think we all agree its wrong, we all agree its stupid, we all agree its 99% political, 1% religious. And that 1% is just the two words "Catholic" and "Protestant". 0% Christian.

Bannasidhe

newmug wrote: »

In fairness Bannasidhe, now who's being uncivil? WRT sectarian violence, I think we all agree its wrong, we all agree its stupid, we all agree its 99% political, 1% religious. And that 1% is just the two words "Catholic" and "Protestant". 0% Christian.

I am simply pointing out that given PDN's rather extreme reaction, his portrayal of me as ignorant or dishonest combined with his claim that he was being 'charitable' by saying that that it would appear that I touched a raw nerve.

I was very clear that I think there is a sectarian element that feeds the tribalism and political divisions. Over and over and over I made this clear. But I was accused of potentially 'doing a Dawkins' ( whatever that is) and seeking to 'exploit' sectarianism. Not once did I do this, nor did I have any intention of doing it - but yet I was attacked by a MOD because he believed I may, possibly, at some point, do this.


This strikes me as indicative of the fact that PDN is troubled by internal strife within the wider Christian community and decided to head off an imagined attack on that community by a big bad Atheist by launching a preemptive attack.
What he has done is highlighted the fact that in this forum, MODs appear to not be bound by the charter and are free to attack posters based on what the MOD fears that poster my be about to say.

Ironically - If I wanted to use sectarianism to launch an attack on Christianity in Ireland there are far better fora for it then this one. One's where I would not be subjected to personal attacks by a MOD.

I came here to engage in a dialogue with members of the Christian community not attack anyone.

So, do you think he was being uncivil to say that I am now being uncivil?

newmug

I think both of yiz can be pretty narrow-minded at times, albiet from opposite extremes of the spectrum.

But this is the Christianity forum. It says st the start of the beer and wine forum "this is for people who enjoy beer and wine, dont come on here complaining about how bad it is for your health", or something to that effect. I would offer the same advice for any forum where there will be an obvious bias, including this one.

You asked what we think of sectarian violence, as Christians. We answered that we think its un-Christian, and indeed political and tribal as opposed to properly sectarian. The sectarian element could be replaced by anything, the soccer team you support, your genetic lineage, your favourite colour! So really, its not about sectarianism at all. I think you'll find that thats the mainstream view among the populace, Christian or not.

That is your answer.

Bannasidhe

newmug wrote: »

I think both of yiz can be pretty narrow-minded at times, albiet from opposite extremes of the spectrum.

But this is the Christianity forum. It says st the start of the beer and wine forum "this is for people who enjoy beer and wine, dont come on here complaining about how bad it is for your health", or something to that effect. I would offer the same advice for any forum where there will be an obvious bias, including this one.

You asked what we think of sectarian violence, as Christians. We answered that we think its un-Christian, and indeed political and tribal as opposed to properly sectarian. The sectarian element could be replaced by anything, the soccer team you support, your genetic lineage, your favourite colour! So really, its not about sectarianism at all. I think you'll find that thats the mainstream view among the populace, Christian or not.

That is your answer.

I may be 'narrow minded' (thanks for that btw - it's really the first-time I've ever been called that ) Backseat modding removed

I asked what people think can be done to remove even the perception of a sectarian element to violence in Ireland. This is not the same as 'is there sectarianism' or 'does anyone agree with it.'

But really, as I said when I was 'having a hissy fit' - I realized quite quickly that I made a mistake opening this thread in this forum as discussion proved to be impossible bar a few posters who did give considered opinions,

Fanny Cradock

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I may be 'narrow minded' (thanks for that btw - it's really the first-time I've ever been called that ) but if I attack a poster I will deservedly be infracted for it. Defend him if you must newmug but the fact is PDN is abusing his position as a MOD to attack people whose views conflict with his own.

I asked what people think can be done to remove even the perception of a sectarian element to violence in Ireland. This is not the same as 'is there sectarianism' or 'does anyone agree with it.'

But really, as I said when I was 'having a hissy fit' - I realized quite quickly that I made a mistake opening this thread in this forum as discussion proved to be impossible bar a few posters who did give considered opinions,

Well then lodge a complaint instead of whining about PDN and the other denizens of the Christianity forum.

philologos

For the record, I think PDN is right. The Northern Ireland issue is more based on nationalism and tribalism than on any considered Christian belief. I've heard quite a few churches come out and say that and I think it is entirely welcome.

Bannasidhe

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Well then lodge a complaint instead of whining about PDN and the other denizens of the Christianity forum.

I have not complained about anyone but PDN as his attack on me.
Am I not allowed to defend myself?

Bannasidhe

philologos wrote: »

For the record, I think PDN is right. The Northern Ireland issue is more based on nationalism and tribalism than on any considered Christian belief. I've heard quite a few churches come out and say that and I think it is entirely welcome.

So do I.

marienbad

philologos wrote: »

For the record, I think PDN is right. The Northern Ireland issue is more based on nationalism and tribalism than on any considered Christian belief. I've heard quite a few churches come out and say that and I think it is entirely welcome.

And what tribes would that be ? The catholic tribe and the protestant tribe perhaps ?

Of course it is sectarian. It involves nationalism also - they are not mutually exclusive .

philologos

marienbad wrote: »

And what tribes would that be ? The catholic tribe and the protestant tribe perhaps ?

Of course it is sectarian. It involves nationalism also - they are not mutually exclusive .

Can you show me which Biblical passages, and which theology motivated the Troubles?

One of the best arguments against your position is that I know quite a number of people who have reformed beliefs in Dublin, and in areas which aren't traditionally so, who don't have a ravenous hatred of Roman Catholics.

Are you telling me that the Troubles were caused by Christian belief. If so please show me which ones?

The more probable explanation is that it largely comes down to nationalism, and unionism, and each chose their favourite creed. In my view doing considerable damage to the witness of Christians in Northern Ireland.

I can only hope going forward that Gospel witness in Northern Ireland is Jesus-centered rather than nation-centred.

marienbad

philologos wrote: »

Can you show me which Biblical passages, and which theology motivated the Troubles?

One of the best arguments against your position is that I know quite a number of people who have reformed beliefs in Dublin, and in areas which aren't traditionally so, who don't have a ravenous hatred of Roman Catholics.

Are you telling me that the Troubles were caused by Christian belief. If so please show me which ones?

The more probable explanation is that it largely comes down to nationalism, and unionism, and each chose their favourite creed. In my view doing considerable damage to the witness of Christians in Northern Ireland.

I can only hope going forward that Gospel witness in Northern Ireland is Jesus-centered rather than nation-centred.

Well lets see how things pan out in Belfast rather than Dublin shall we.

An example of nationalism might be if the band decided to march past SF offices and an example of tribalism might be if they marched past the Celtic Supporters Club or any GAA club .

But no - they march past a catholic church , now what would you call that ?

PDN

marienbad wrote: »

Well lets see how things pan out in Belfast rather than Dublin shall we.

An example of nationalism might be if the band decided to march past SF offices and an example of tribalism might be if they marched past the Celtic Supporters Club or any GAA club .

But no - they march past a catholic church , now what would you call that ?

Actually the problem is usually that they march past the turf of a Nationalist community.

philologos

marienbad wrote: »

Well lets see how things pan out in Belfast rather than Dublin shall we.

Things in Belfast seem to be panning out much better than they were decades ago, and the church scene seems to be committing its focus more and more to the Gospel from what I can tell. Which is encouraging particularly for those of us who want to make Jesus better known rather than engaging in tribalism.

marienbad wrote: »

An example of nationalism might be if the band decided to march past SF offices and an example of tribalism might be if they marched past the Celtic Supporters Club or any GAA club .

But no - they march past a catholic church , now what would you call that ?

On the basis of what particular Christian beliefs? Or is that about tribalism again, associating your favoured church with your national identity?

You're going to need to pin the nail on the head in respect to that.

marienbad

philologos wrote: »

Things in Belfast seem to be panning out much better than they were decades ago, and the church scene seems to be committing its focus more and more to the Gospel from what I can tell. Which is encouraging particularly for those of us who want to make Jesus better known rather than engaging in tribalism.



On the basis of what particular Christian beliefs? Or is that about tribalism again, associating your favoured church with your national identity?

You're going to need to pin the nail on the head in respect to that.

I don't need to do anything Phil - though we can agree that things have improved beyond recognition and there is no going back. It is a pity that the last remaining knuckleheads are so slow to get with the programme.

philologos

marienbad wrote: »

I don't need to do anything Phil - though we can agree that things have improved beyond recognition and there is no going back. It is a pity that the last remaining knuckleheads are so slow to get with the programme.

For your argument to be consistent you do.

You're claiming that the Troubles were based primarily on religion. I'm asking you to show me what tenets that the participants were fighting over. Or was it over nationalism? In that case religion was only an appendage to a nationalistic tribalism.

skooterblue2

I would like to remind people that Fr Patrick Ryan and Dr Ian Paisley didnt do a lot to help matters

JimiTime

skooterblue2 wrote: »

I would like to remind people that Fr Patrick Ryan and Dr Ian Paisley didnt do a lot to help matters

Indeed. They set a rotten example for Christianity, no denying that.

marienbad

philologos wrote: »

For your argument to be consistent you do.

You're claiming that the Troubles were based primarily on religion. I'm asking you to show me what tenets that the participants were fighting over. Or was it over nationalism? In that case religion was only an appendage to a nationalistic tribalism.

You keep making this an either or situation -it is'nt.

I am not claiming the troubles were based primarily on religion, read my posts again. But you are bending over backwards to exclude the sectarian element.

Sound of Silence

Here's a thread from a British Student Forum on sectarianism in Northern Ireland.

http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/showthread.php?t=2062092&highlight=Irish

Some real gems for those interested.

Our country our rules.
Our ancestors won the Boyne not theirs.
Ulster is Protestant, has been Protestant and shall always remain Protestant Loyalist.
These people who protest the Orange Order need to understand whos paying whos welfare.

FGAPU

And was met with this reply.

Ran out of good rep but I have to say I agree with this 100%. Thats all that needs to be said

It then descended into even more of a farce than what could be expected here on the After Hours forum.

philologos

marienbad wrote: »

You keep making this an either or situation -it is'nt.

I am not claiming the troubles were based primarily on religion, read my posts again. But you are bending over backwards to exclude the sectarian element.

I'm not bending over backwards at all. I'm getting you to ask the simple question, how were the troubles based on Christianity? I've even given you an opportunity to explain what theology was behind it.

It seems to me, that the Troubles were founded on human based issues, with little or no consideration of Christianity, while hiding behind the favoured religions associated with either nation.

Much as PDN said, I don't think the Troubles were based on religion at all. Perhaps cultural human religion, but nothing genuinely Christian.

marienbad

philologos wrote: »

I'm not bending over backwards at all. I'm getting you to ask the simple question, how were the troubles based on Christianity? I've even given you an opportunity to explain what theology was behind it.

It seems to me, that the Troubles were founded on human based issues, with little or no consideration of Christianity, while hiding behind the favoured religions associated with either nation.

Much as PDN said, I don't think the Troubles were based on religion at all. Perhaps cultural human religion, but nothing genuinely Christian.

But Phil that is your get out of jail card for everything-the '' it can't be Christian because no true christian would behave like that'' defence.

I have news for you , these people believe they are true christians , just as you believe you are.

Of course it is nationalism, of course it is tribalism , but it is sectarian also .

And by the way what exactly is ''cultural human religion''

philologos

marienbad wrote: »

But Phil that is your get out of jail card for everything-the '' it can't be Christian because no true christian would behave like that'' defence.

It's not really a get out of jail free card. I've asked you to show how the Troubles are based on Christian belief. It can't be that difficult can it?

marienbad wrote: »

I have news for you , these people believe they are true christians , just as you believe you are.

You're avoiding my question marien.

marienbad wrote: »

Of course it is nationalism, of course it is tribalism , but it is sectarian also.

See below.

marienbad wrote: »

And by the way what exactly is ''cultural human religion''

Nominalism which isn't based on Biblical truth as far as I can tell.

PDN

marienbad wrote: »

I have news for you , these people believe they are true christians , just as you believe you are.

Actually they don't. In loyalist areas, for example, they refer to 'Christians' as the born-again types who now attend church regularly, not nominal Protestants who were born in the tribe but don't attend church.

This is precisely the kind of 'ignorance' that I referred to earlier.

newmug

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I asked what people think can be done to remove even the perception of a sectarian element to violence in Ireland. This is not the same as 'is there sectarianism' or 'does anyone agree with it.'

In fairness, you stated the you believed the violence was indeed sectarian, and then accused a few people of denying that it happens at all. Those posters were denying it has anything to do with genuine Christianity.

marienbad wrote: »

I am not claiming the troubles were based primarily on religion, read my posts again. But you are bending over backwards to exclude the sectarian element.

The only people who think religion has anything to do with the tribal rivalry in the North are knuckle dragging, ignorant, narrow minded people with their own definately non-Christian agendas, no matter what theism they claim to follow. The rest of the worlds population, of all denominations and none, know that its just ignorance and thuggery.

There is no need to change or remove the perception of whats happening, because for any straight thinking person, their perception is spot on.

marienbad

philologos wrote: »

It's not really a get out of jail free card. I've asked you to show how the Troubles are based on Christian belief. It can't be that difficult can it?



You're avoiding my question marien.



See below.



Nominalism which isn't based on Biblical truth as far as I can tell.

Not at all Phil - you have made a statement that this is not a sectarian act - now back it up.

I don't have to do anything more than I have done in describing thsese incidents as containing an element of nationalism and sectarianism..but in this particular case more sectarianism than anything else.

marienbad

newmug wrote: »

In fairness, you stated the you believed the violence was indeed sectarian, and then accused a few people of denying that it happens at all. Those posters were denying it has anything to do with genuine Christianity.





The only people who think religion has anything to do with the tribal rivalry in the North are knuckle dragging, ignorant, narrow minded people with their own definately non-Christian agendas, no matter what theism they claim to follow. The rest of the worlds population, of all denominations and none, know that its just ignorance and thuggery.

There is no need to change or remove the perception of whats happening, because for any straight thinking person, their perception is spot on.

''Knuckle dragging ignorant narrow-minded people'' - perfect definition newmug. At least you agree they are sectarian . I will leave it to the christian posters to decide how good these knuckle heads are as christians.

philologos

marienbad wrote: »

Not at all Phil - you have made a statement that this is not a sectarian act - now back it up.

I don't have to do anything more than I have done in describing thsese incidents as containing an element of nationalism and sectarianism..but in this particular case more sectarianism than anything else.

I was asking you about your earlier claim. That The Troubles were based on Christianity.

I'm happy to accept that the Troubles were based on tribalism and that nominal Protestantism and Catholicism played into that. Nothing of actual Christian belief or substance played into it.

Unless you can answer my question marien?

marienbad

philologos wrote: »

I was asking you about your earlier claim. That The Troubles were based on Christianity.

I'm happy to accept that the Troubles were based on tribalism and that nominal Protestantism and Catholicism played into that. Nothing of actual Christian belief or substance played into it.

Unless you can answer my question marien?

So when are you going to substantiate your claim that sectarianism is not the cause ?

And if you are going to quote me please do so accurately- nowhere have I said that the issue was purely sectarianism .

Bannasidhe

Who had said sectarianism is the only cause of violence in NI?

What is being disputed is whether there is a sectarian element which fuels the tribalism.

Yet, one of the reasons for the very existence of NI is based on Protestant fears of living in a Roman Catholic dominated country.

The 1912 Ulster Covenant makes this clear:

BEING CONVINCED in our consciences that Home Rule would be disastrous to the material well-being of Ulster as well as of the whole of Ireland, subversive of our civil and religious freedom, destructive of our citizenship, and perilous to the unity of the Empire, we, whose names are underwritten, men of Ulster, loyal subjects of His Gracious Majesty King George V., humbly relying on the God whom our fathers in days of stress and trial confidently trusted, do hereby pledge ourselves in solemn Covenant, throughout this our time of threatened calamity, to stand by one another in defending, for ourselves and our children, our cherished position of equal citizenship in the United Kingdom, and in using all means which may be found necessary to defeat the present conspiracy to set up a Home Rule Parliament in Ireland. And in the event of such a Parliament being forced upon us, we further solemnly and mutually pledge ourselves to refuse to recognize its authority. In sure confidence that God will defend the right, we hereto subscribe our names.
And further, we individually declare that we have not already signed this Covenant.

Nationalist politicians described Home Rule as the 'promised land'. The cause of Irish self-government was certainly interwoven with centuries-old memories of Catholic dispossession and Protestant ascendancy on the one hand and popish plots and moonlit intimidation on the other...

In 1886, for instance, sectarian riots in Belfast raged for several months after a Catholic docker allegedly told a Protestant worker that none of ‘his sort’ would find employment under Home Rule...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/victorians/home_rule_movement_01.shtml


On the use of the slogan 'Home Rule is Rome Rule'

While southern Ireland was clamouring for repeal of the Union with Britain, Ulster came round to the view that Union with Britain suited her better than any form of self-government for Ireland. For one thing she saw that the Union was to her economic advantage, since she was far more industrialised than the agricultural south, and her future clearly depended on the continuance of friendly trade with Britain. Due to the industrial revolution Belfast had grown bigger than Dublin. Ulstermen were proud of their achievements and would have seen them as proof of the Weberian theory of the "Protestant work ethic". Religious faith combined with business acumen to arise in Ulster a fixed opposition to Home Rule, which was later expressed in the popular slogan, Home Rule means Rome Rule.

Her Protestant majority became fearful of one day finding herself dominated by a Roman Catholic Parliament in Dublin:
They saw Catholic priests playing a big role in the pro-Home Rule IPP branches.
Would Home Rule, they wondered, become Rome Rule, with Catholic bishops telling Catholic MPs how to vote?
Might Irish Protestants not thereby lose their civil and religious liberty?

...The Protestants’ fears about a Dublin Parliament may seem to have been have been exaggerated at the time, but the history of Ireland since independence has, on the whole, tended to suggest that they were not. "Home Rule", they declared, "would be Rome Rule, and that was all there was to it". "It may seem strange to you and me," Bonar Law told Lord Riddell, "but it is a religious question. Those people are . . . . prepared to die for their convictions"

"Our home was a Catholic household; all the children were at Catholic schools and the Catholic University, so all the children’s friends were Catholics, and all my grandmother’s subtle match-making and her ambition’s pre-supposed Catholic dynasties. Home Rule means Rome Rule said the Ulster Protestant slogan. Not at all. . . . . . . It was 'our people', neither Rome nor the Protestant ascendancy, who should rule in Ireland. 'Our people', through an élite, sprung from it, trained for its service, . . . . . . The Jesuits were helping to train such an élite"

The slogan continued to be used for decades in unionist politics in Northern Ireland, and explains the visceral outburst by Ian Paisley in the European Parliament against the presence of Pope John Paul II on 12 October 1988. Paisley referred to the Pope as "The Antichrist".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rome_Rule

As James Craig (Northern Ireland’s prime minister 1921–1940) put it 'remember that in the south they boasted of a Catholic state all I boast of is that we are a Protestant parliament and a Protestant state.'

I find it hard to understand how anyone could claim that there is not undercurrent of sectarianism still active in NI which fuels the tribal divisions.