The Ulster Covenant: A Warning from History

paky

If Ireland ever decided to embark on another project towards Home Rule or in this modern era, a United Ireland, might we expect our political aspirations to be undermined by a band of renegades such as those who signed the Ulster Covenant?
The Ulster Covenant was and is the greatest treachery ever to bestowe the Irish people. As a nation, the Irish people fought long and hard for Home Rule through a democratic process and never betrayed that democratic process by resorting to arms to accomplish that task. The Ulster Covenant was in essence a betrayal of democracy and a betrayal of the wishes of the Irish people.
What future lies in store for the 'State' of Northern Ireland sinces its birth was based on robbing the Irish people of democracy?

Monty Burnz

paky wrote: »

If Ireland ever decided to embark on another project towards Home Rule or in this modern era, a United Ireland, might we expect our political aspirations to be undermined by a band of renegades such as those who signed the Ulster Covenant?
The Ulster Covenant was and is the greatest treachery ever to bestowe the Irish people. As a nation, the Irish people fought long and hard for Home Rule through a democratic process and never betrayed that democratic process by resorting to arms to accomplish that task. The Ulster Covenant was in essence a betrayal of democracy and a betrayal of the wishes of the Irish people.
What future lies in store for the 'State' of Northern Ireland sinces its birth was based on robbing the Irish people of democracy?

Doesn't this sort of ignore the British people in NI?

paky

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Doesn't this sort of ignore the British people in NI?

In every democracy there are majorities and minorities. Those people who claim to be British are entitled to be so but let there be no doubht that they exist as a minority amongst Irish people.

iDave

They then covered themselves in further glory after partition by creating an apartheid state. Always considered Ulster Unionism to be quite a dangerous politcal ideology

Iwasfrozen

iDave wrote: »

They then covered themselves in further glory after partition by creating an apartheid state. Always considered Ulster Unionism to be quite a dangerous politcal ideology

Why is it a dangerous ideology? One can be unionist and not anti catholic.

paky wrote: »

If Ireland ever decided to embark on another project towards Home Rule or in this modern era, a United Ireland, might we expect our political aspirations to be undermined by a band of renegades such as those who signed the Ulster Covenant?
The Ulster Covenant was and is the greatest treachery ever to bestowe the Irish people. As a nation, the Irish people fought long and hard for Home Rule through a democratic process and never betrayed that democratic process by resorting to arms to accomplish that task. The Ulster Covenant was in essence a betrayal of democracy and a betrayal of the wishes of the Irish people.
What future lies in store for the 'State' of Northern Ireland sinces its birth was based on robbing the Irish people of democracy?

Alright let's get something straight. No one robbed anyone of anything. Unionists had as much right to seek continued union with Britain as nationalists had to seek for independence. It isn't "anti democratic" just because you disagree with it.

Terrontress

iDave wrote: »

They then covered themselves in further glory after partition by creating an apartheid state. Always considered Ulster Unionism to be quite a dangerous politcal ideology

As opposed to the money grabbing theocracy south of the border, a model for how to run a country.

paky

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Why is it a dangerous ideology? One can be unionist and not anti catholic.

It's a dangerous ideology because it has never respected or appreciated the democratic will of the Irish people.
The Ulster Covenant demonstrates this. Their ideology is shrowed in sectarianism and this 'tradition' continues to exist to this day.

paky

Terrontress wrote: »

As opposed to the money grabbing theocracy south of the border, a model for how to run a country.

Wasn't it the British who created that state too?

Iwasfrozen

paky wrote: »

It's a dangerous ideology because it has never respected or appreciated the democratic will of the Irish people.
The Ulster Covenant demonstrates this. Their ideology is shrowed in sectarianism and this 'tradition' continues to exist to this day.

Of some of the irish people. Not all. Why take Ireland as one country when the unionist population is concentrated in the north east which makes it easy to cut them off from the rest? Just because Ireland was one jurisdiction in the UK doesn't mean it had to leave as one. Borders change all the time following war.

Happyman42

Two bluffs I wish had been called, either would have resolved the issue once and for all.
The British one to attack any Irish force sent across the border by Jack Lynch.
And the Ulster Covenant one, where the Unionists threatened force and insurrection in the face of Home Rule. No bother to them when it comes to their own sedition and gun running.

Monty Burnz

paky wrote: »

Wasn't it the British who created that state too?

Yes, we have a lot to thank them for.

murphaph

paky wrote: »

If Ireland ever decided to embark on another project towards Home Rule or in this modern era, a United Ireland, might we expect our political aspirations to be undermined by a band of renegades such as those who signed the Ulster Covenant?
The Ulster Covenant was and is the greatest treachery ever to bestowe the Irish people. As a nation, the Irish people fought long and hard for Home Rule through a democratic process and never betrayed that democratic process by resorting to arms to accomplish that task. The Ulster Covenant was in essence a betrayal of democracy and a betrayal of the wishes of the Irish people.
What future lies in store for the 'State' of Northern Ireland sinces its birth was based on robbing the Irish people of democracy?

You really only can see one side of this whole story, can't you?

Edward Carson undoubtedly believed that the Union was best for Ireland and her people. He believed that Home Rule would be ruinous for the country.

It could certainly be argued that he may have had a point.

You can't simply airbrush out the plantations of Ulster from history. They happened and there are now over a million protestants on the island, who, for the most part, don't want what you want. A million people is too large a group to ignore today and it was too big a group to ignore then. This doesn't even include the non-protestants that are in favour of Union. The NI civil service is chock full of catholics who would be on the dole if NI ever left the suckling teat of GB. You shouldn't assume that because someone votes nationalist that they would automatically vote in favour of leaving the union. People know what side their bread is buttered on.

Terrontress

paky wrote: »

Terrontress wrote: »

As opposed to the money grabbing theocracy south of the border, a model for how to run a country.

Wasn't it the British who created that state too?

Certainly. The state which calls itself "Ireland" was granted the right to exist by a vote in Westminster.

getzls

Happyman42 wrote: »

Two bluffs I wish had been called, either would have resolved the issue once and for all.
The British one to attack any Irish force sent across the border by Jack Lynch.
And the Ulster Covenant one, where the Unionists threatened force and insurrection in the face of Home Rule. No bother to them when it comes to their own sedition and gun running.

And they would do it again if they had to.

Won't be any need though.

Fenian Army

I don't think the Ulster Covenant really represents the unified position of ulster protestants at the time.

They had "Ulster Day" and there was a lot of peer pressure to sign - you had to go to church that day and sign - it was hard not to, everyone would know you didn't. You also have numerous documented incidents of babies and very young children signing. You also have people signing it many times.

The protestant attitude of the day is often portrayed as monolithic, but many thousands signed an alternative Ulster covenant in 1913 refuting Carsonism:

"Being convinced in our conscience that Home Rule will not be disastrous to the national well-being of Ulster, and that, moreover, the responsibility of self-government would strengthen the popular forces in other provinces, would pave the way to a civil and religious freedom, which we do not now possess, and would give scope for a spirit of citizenship, we, in whose names are underwritten, Irish citizens, Protestants, and loyal supporters of Irish Nationality, relying under God on the proven good feelings and democratic instincts in our fellow-countrymen of other creeds, hereby pledge ourselves to stand by one another and our country in the troubled days that are before us and more especially to help one another when our liberties are threatened by any non-statutory body that may be set up in Ulster or elsewhere. We intend to abide by the just laws of the lawful Parliament of Ireland until such time as it may prove itself hostile to democracy. In sure confidence that God will stand by those who stand by the people, irrespective of class or creed, we hereunto subscribe our names.”

The Ulster Covenant (and Carsonism in general) was a base piece of orange reactionary bigotry - it should not be celebrated, but rather mourned.

Seems to me that Rev. JB Armour (a protestant himself of course) got it right when he described Carson’s ‘Ulster Day’ as ‘Protestant fool’s day’.

A Dub in Glasgo

murphaph wrote: »

It could certainly be argued that he may have had a point.
.

Everything can be argued

Happyman42

getzls wrote: »

And they would do it again if they had to.

Won't be any need though.

Sooner or later it will come to it again. And sooner or later the ultimate bluff will be called. Like it was with the GFA and look what happened there, one half of the Chuckle Brothers was shouting 'Never, Never, Never' just a few years before.

murphaph

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

Everything can be argued

Indeed, but the OP seems to discount the possibility in his initial post.

Personally I wish that Ireland had remained a single entity, either as part of the UK or independent, but IMO too much water has now passed under the bridge.

murphaph

Happyman42 wrote: »

Sooner or later it will come to it again. And sooner or later the ultimate bluff will be called. Like it was with the GFA and look what happened there, one half of the Chuckle Brothers was shouting 'Never, Never, Never' just a few years before.

What if a majority of RoI citizens vote against any change when the sums are broken down for them and they realise they'll need to pay a huge Solidaritätszuschlag to fund this fantasy. Northerners won't vote to leave their NHS (best NHS care in the whole UK probably) in exchange for our HSE, nor to lose their civil service jobs.

Belfast

Divide and conquer is standard British practice.
Partition was something the British did a lot in the empire.
It would be hard to see a Ireland at the time of home rule working as a united Ireland.
Might have worked if the 1798 rebellion had been a success under the leadership of the united Irishmen.
The Ulster Covenant I think was more people in Ulster attempt to stop them selves being dominated by the Catholic church.

Terrontress

Belfast wrote: »

The Ulster Covenant I think was more people in Ulster attempt to stop them selves being dominated by the Catholic church.

Well they had a home rule parliament almost instantly in Stormont and didn't seem too concerned then.

But the subsequent actions of the free state will have made them feel justified in their signing of the covenant. Home rule really was Rome rule.

I think if Ireland had gained independence as a whole, the unionist politicians would have kept the southerners on a tight leash in terms of the corruption and favouritism which was allowed to flourish in the free state and Republic.

Fenian Army

Terrontress wrote: »

Well they had a home rule parliament almost instantly in Stormont and didn't seem too concerned then.

But the subsequent actions of the free state will have made them feel justified in their signing of the covenant. Home rule really was Rome rule.

I think if Ireland had gained independence as a whole, the unionist politicians would have kept the southerners on a tight leash in terms of the corruption and favouritism which was allowed to flourish in the free state and Republic.

Instead of a proper republic we got two failed sectarian states... albeit that it was not as bad in the south

Terrontress

Fenian Army wrote: »

Terrontress wrote: »

Well they had a home rule parliament almost instantly in Stormont and didn't seem too concerned then.

But the subsequent actions of the free state will have made them feel justified in their signing of the covenant. Home rule really was Rome rule.

I think if Ireland had gained independence as a whole, the unionist politicians would have kept the southerners on a tight leash in terms of the corruption and favouritism which was allowed to flourish in the free state and Republic.

Instead of a proper republic we got two failed sectarian states... albeit that it was not as bad in the south

Not as bad in which sense? Not as failed, not as sectarian?

Each has had its own failings and different issues to deal with.

Fenian Army

Terrontress wrote: »

Not as bad in which sense? Not as failed, not as sectarian?

Each has had its own failings and different issues to deal with.

Not as discriminatory or sectarian... you didn't have state sponsored/instigated pogroms and whatnot

Happyman42

Terrontress wrote: »

I think if Ireland had gained independence as a whole, the unionist politicians would have kept the southerners on a tight leash in terms of the corruption and favouritism which was allowed to flourish in the free state and Republic.

Are you for real? Favoritism? Over 3000 people are dead because the Unionists couldn't run a piss up in a brewery. Those chickens came home to roost a long time ago.
Whatever about political corruption, the free state never came near the abuses of human rights that the Unionists thought was normality.

Chuck Stone

Unionists traditionally hate democracy. That's why they suppressed the civil rights movement and were born of and engaged in continuous gerrymandering.

Unionists had the option of being civil with the Catholic minority but they chose to make the north into a sectarian cesspit up to and including living with a nasty conflict rather than have a taig about the place.

Nodin

Terrontress wrote: »

.........

I think if Ireland had gained independence as a whole, the unionist politicians would have kept the southerners on a tight leash in terms of the corruption and favouritism which was allowed to flourish in the free state and Republic.

And what unionist politicians would those be? Because the ones that ran the sectarian statelet that was the North were no saints themselves.

Terrontress

Nodin wrote: »

Terrontress wrote: »

.........

I think if Ireland had gained independence as a whole, the unionist politicians would have kept the southerners on a tight leash in terms of the corruption and favouritism which was allowed to flourish in the free state and Republic.

And what unionist politicians would those be? Because the ones that ran the sectarian statelet that was the North were no saints themselves.

There were none with private islands, yachts or racehorses derived from a public servant's salary.

A 32 county republic from the off would have ironed out the worst excesses from each side and we would not all be in the mess that each side finds itself today.

The idiots of independence forced the issue too early rather than allowing it to evolve. Now we have two failed states with some of the greatest agricultural land on earth, a homogeneous society where 99% white Christians still find division, great innovation and thinkers consigned to debt and misery.

Happyman42

Terrontress wrote: »

A 32 county republic from the off would have ironed out the worst excesses from each side and we would not all be in the mess that each side finds itself today.

Could you demonstrate how that would have been 'inevitable'.

Terrontress

Happyman42 wrote: »

Could you demonstrate how that would have been 'inevitable'.

Why do you put the word inevitable in quotes?

I am simply expressing my opinion.

A 32 county Republic would not have had sectarian legislation or drawing of electoral boundaries.

A Daíl Eireann with staunch presbyterians in it would not have sat by and let moneygrabbing politicos feather their nests while a sizeable majority of the electorate which put them there was in dire straits financially.

Happyman42

Terrontress wrote: »

Why do you put the word inevitable in quotes?

I am simply expressing my opinion.

A 32 county Republic would not have had sectarian legislation or drawing of electoral boundaries.

A Daíl Eireann with staunch presbyterians in it would not have sat by and let moneygrabbing politicos feather their nests while a sizeable majority of the electorate which put them there was in dire straits financially.

You made a statement that was absolute. I assumed that what you meant was that a government with Unionists would inevitably be uncorrupt.

The Unionists had just organised illegal and treasonous gun-running and threatened war with the King they where 'loyal' too. They did the very thing they would lambast the IRA for just a few short years after.
They ran a corrupt statelet that discriminated against a huge amount of people.
Where is the evidence that they would have been honourable and fair in any government?

SaoriseBiker

Terrontress wrote: »

As opposed to the money grabbing theocracy south of the border, a model for how to run a country.

Yep, and the unionist statelet was not grossly sectarian and discriminatory similair to the worst in the Deep South of the US such as Alabama :rolleyes: And of course let's ignore that still the head of state of Britain cannot be a Catholic or that seats are reserved for the Church of England in the British parliament i.e. in the House of Lords :rolleyes:

SaoriseBiker

Happyman42 wrote: »

You made a statement that was absolute. I assumed that what you meant was that a government with Unionists would inevitably be uncorrupt.

The Unionists had just organised illegal and treasonous gun-running and threatened war with the King they where 'loyal' too. They did the very thing they would lambast the IRA for just a few short years after.
They ran a corrupt statelet that discriminated against a huge amount of people.
Where is the evidence that they would have been honourable and fair in any government?

But that's the golden rule of unionists and their supposed ' loyalty ' to Britain, unionists are only loyal to Britain so long as the British are only loyal to them.

Terrontress

Happyman42 wrote: »

You made a statement that was absolute. I assumed that what you meant was that a government with Unionists would inevitably be uncorrupt.

The Unionists had just organised illegal and treasonous gun-running and threatened war with the King they where 'loyal' too. They did the very thing they would lambast the IRA for just a few short years after.
They ran a corrupt statelet that discriminated against a huge amount of people.
Where is the evidence that they would have been honourable and fair in any government?

I made a statement which was absolute but did not use the word inevitable so you should not put it in inverted commas. Every statement I make should be taken as my thoughts of what was most likely to have happened but none of us can rewrite history. Countries fall and split, get invaded, wars happen. Nothing is, as you put it, inevitable.

The corruption in Dail Eireann of which I speak is not the gun running, terrorist supporting type, although it did go on. I am talking about bribes, cosy relationships with corrupt businessmen which stifled genuine enterprise, misleading of the electorate.

The only high profile example of this in NI which I can think of has been Irish Robinson. Politics south of the border has been tainted with it at every level.

Furthermore, Protestant politicians in Dail Eireann would not have passed all responsibility for the wellbeing of the nation's children to Catholic priests and many abuses would have been prevented.

I am struggling to understand your political viewpoint. You are obviously not a nationalist as you seem to have an objection to embracing Ulster protestantism in Ireland. You are not a Unionist as you speak of them in such unflattering terms. Maybe you are keen to deport all who don't believe in your viewpoint and operate an isolationist state similar to North Korea...?

Happyman42

Terrontress wrote: »

I made a statement which was absolute but did not use the word inevitable so you should not put it in inverted commas. Every statement I make should be taken as my thoughts of what was most likely to have happened but none of us can rewrite history. Countries fall and split, get invaded, wars happen. Nothing is, as you put it, inevitable.

The corruption in Dail Eireann of which I speak is not the gun running, terrorist supporting type, although it did go on. I am talking about bribes, cosy relationships with corrupt businessmen which stifled genuine enterprise, misleading of the electorate.

The only high profile example of this in NI which I can think of has been Irish Robinson. Politics south of the border has been tainted with it at every level.

Furthermore, Protestant politicians in Dail Eireann would not have passed all responsibility for the wellbeing of the nation's children to Catholic priests and many abuses would have been prevented.

Protestant politicians had no regard for Catholic welfare, fullstop. Are you missing something? Haven't you noticed that they had to be forced, kicking and screaming, to have regard? And that they still think it 'normal and righteous' to hold public demonstrations of the supremacy of their religious and political beliefs without regard for the feelings and rights of their catholic co-citizens.
There is corruption here but there is corruption in every country in the world. There is no evidence for your 'opinion' whatsoever.

I am struggling to understand your political viewpoint. You are obviously not a nationalist as you seem to have an objection to embracing Ulster protestantism in Ireland. You are not a Unionist as you speak of them in such unflattering terms. Maybe you are keen to deport all who don't believe in your viewpoint and operate an isolationist state similar to North Korea...?

I am struggling to see why you can't look at historical fact with honesty*


*p.s. Actually, I'm not struggling. I have seen your overweening desire to vindicate Unionist 'core moral values' :rolleyes: before...so many times.

SaoriseBiker

Happyman42 wrote: »

Protestant politicians had no regard for Catholic welfare, fullstop. Are you missing something? Haven't you noticed that they had to be forced, kicking and screaming, to have regard? And that they still think it 'normal and righteous' to hold public demonstrations of the supremacy of their religious and political beliefs without regard for the feelings and rights of their catholic co-citizens.
There is corruption here but there is corruption in every country in the world. There is no evidence for your 'opinion' whatsoever.



I am struggling to see why you can't look at historical fact with honesty*


*p.s. Actually, I'm not struggling. I have seen your overweening desire to vindicate Unionist 'core moral values' :rolleyes: before...so many times.

From what I can gather, Terrontress may be a ULAer and may well be a victim of the Trots attempt at ' balance '

E.g. their policy on Ireland - " Ireland as part of a free and voluntary socialist federation of Ireland, Scotland, England and Wales. "
http://www.socialistpartyni.net/what-we-stand-for

box_car_maker

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Unionists traditionally hate democracy. That's why they suppressed the civil rights movement and were born of and engaged in continuous gerrymandering.

Unionists had the option of being civil with the Catholic minority but they chose to make the north into a sectarian cesspit up to and including living with a nasty conflict rather than have a taig about the place.

the nothern unionist mindset as espoused even today by the likes of jim alliester , has its roots in ninetenth century british imperilism , an inherent belief in british - protestant priveledge and superiority , to hell with the other ( irish catholic , indian sikh , hindu , muslim , kenyan native etc ) side

tollerance and pluralism is not one of their strongpoints ,the idea that unionists would have moulded the south into some kind of progressive liberal scandanavian bastian of social democracy is laughable , more like alabama with less horse flies and moonshine , ironically the southern irish media are forever attacking citizens of the republic for past shortcomings when it came to pluralist thinking etc , seems that one group is to be held to an altogether different standard than the other

box_car_maker

Terrontress wrote: »

Well they had a home rule parliament almost instantly in Stormont and didn't seem too concerned then.

But the subsequent actions of the free state will have made them feel justified in their signing of the covenant. Home rule really was Rome rule.

I think if Ireland had gained independence as a whole, the unionist politicians would have kept the southerners on a tight leash in terms of the corruption and favouritism which was allowed to flourish in the free state and Republic.

yes , the old argument that you need calvinists in charge so the feckless catholics dont end up wrecking the gaff after a night of fornication and drinking

no wonder terms like the " PIIGS " are so easily entertained by the intelegensia and political elite in europe

Nodin

Terrontress wrote: »

There were none with private islands, yachts or racehorses derived from a public servant's salary..

Considering the vast wealth some of them had, why would they need a public servants salary to indulge themselves. They still managed to indulge themselves in cronyism and nepotism where it suited, however. And they did invent that party game where you try to find out where the Ulster Unionist Party began and the Orange Order ended.

Terrontress wrote: »

The idiots of independence ..

Lovely.

Terrontress wrote: »

a homogeneous society where 99% white Christians still find division,

Whatever about the corner of the world you might be in (wherever it is) you'll find the pkace hasn't been "homogeneous" in quite some time.

Nodin

box_car_maker wrote: »

yes , the old argument that you need calvinists in charge so the feckless catholics dont end up wrecking the gaff after a night of fornication and drinking

no wonder terms like the " PIIGS " are so easily entertained by the intelegensia and political elite in europe

Well put Sir, well put.

woodoo

Happyman42 wrote: »

Are you for real? Favoritism? Over 3000 people are dead because the Unionists couldn't run a piss up in a brewery. Those chickens came home to roost a long time ago.
Whatever about political corruption, the free state never came near the abuses of human rights that the Unionists thought was normality.

The unionists have forfeited any right to moral outrage over the IRA campaign after they marched in commemoration of the ulster covenant that was basically a call to arms if they didn't get what they want.

woodoo

SaoriseBiker wrote: »

Yep, and the unionist statelet was not grossly sectarian and discriminatory similair to the worst in the Deep South of the US such as Alabama :rolleyes:

And do you know what NI and the deep south areas have in common. They were both largely settled by Scots.

Happyman42

woodoo wrote: »

The unionists have forfeited any right to moral outrage over the IRA campaign after they marched in commemoration of the ulster covenant that was basically a call to arms if they didn't get what they want.

To my mind they where re-iterating the original 'threat'. Let the British make of that what they want. But I suspect they have made up their minds about the calibre of people they where dealing with, a long time ago. The long steady pushing away continues.

RandomName2

paky wrote: »

In every democracy there are majorities and minorities. Those people who claim to be British are entitled to be so but let there be no doubht that they exist as a minority amongst Irish people.

That was their whole argument. :pac:

Hell IT WAS OUR ARGUMENT! We were a SIGNIFICANT minority in the UK!

Aah... anyway NI is a Home Rule state... that was also part of the problem because... (where's this going hmm ?)... because there was a minority in NI, and the fact that NI had Home Rule gave the Unionists enough independence to persecute that minority - which had been EXACTLY their argument as to why they didn't want to be in a Home Rule Ireland in the first place!

Geeeez

murphaph

Happyman42 wrote: »

Whatever about political corruption, the free state never came near the abuses of human rights that the Unionists thought was normality.

Plllleeeeaassse.. We did much worse wrt abuses of civil rights in the Free State/RoI. We allowed as a society the physical and sexual abuse of vulnerable children. We covered up these crimes and completely failed to investigate others, destroying the lives (sometimes literally) of countless innocents. The Protestant parliament was discriminatory right up until direct rule was reinstated, but for heaven's sake, don't try to say that they were worse than we were.

Happyman42

murphaph wrote: »

Plllleeeeaassse.. We did much worse wrt abuses of civil rights in the Free State/RoI. We allowed as a society the physical and sexual abuse of vulnerable children. We covered up these crimes and completely failed to investigate others, destroying the lives (sometimes literally) of countless innocents. The Protestant parliament was discriminatory right up until direct rule was reinstated, but for heaven's sake, don't try to say that they were worse than we were.

It happened in many many other countries too including Northern Ireland (Kincora etc) and there are societal reasons for that happening. However I have yet to see where it was an official policy of any government to allow the abuse of children.
Can you say the same thing about the North? Education, Gerrymandering, physical force and discrimination in employment where all official policies of succesive administrations there that nobody has ever been made answerable for.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

Happyman42 wrote: »

Whatever about political corruption, the free state never came near the abuses of human rights that the Unionists thought was normality.

What would you base that judgment on? Protestants left the Southern State in droves. The State was only in existence a couple of years, when it passed blatantly sectarian laws banning divorce. It might be worthwhile recalling Yeats famous speech on that topic

http://historical-debates.oireachtas.ie/S/0005/S.0005.192506110009.html

Seanad Éireann - Volume 5 - 11 June, 1925
SEANAD RESUMES. - DEBATE ON DIVORCE LEGISLATION RESUMED.


Dr Yeats: <...>I think it is tragic that within three years of this country gaining its independence we should be discussing a measure which a minority of this nation considers to be grossly oppressive. I am proud to consider myself a typical man of that minority. We against whom you have done this thing, are no petty people. We are one of the great stocks of Europe. We are the people of Burke; we are the people of Grattan; we are the people of Swift, the people of Emmet, the people of Parnell. <...>

Of course, more than a few are asking what motivation for Irish independence exists if we now share the view that Catholicism is an oppressive force, and if we've no interest in reviving the Irish language.

Chuck Stone

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

The State was only in existence a couple of years, when it passed blatantly sectarian laws banning divorce.

You're all over the place here with your interpretation of what the word 'sectarian' means. I agree that we had some major dysfunction but banning things across the board is not sectarian - it's just banning.

If Protestants had been prevented from getting a divorce and not Catholics or vice versa then that would be sectarian. Both Catholics and Protestants were oppressed by that ban. In my estimation it was Catholics who suffered most from the institutional dysfunction of the RCC.

Happyman42

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

What would you base that judgment on? Protestants left the Southern State in droves. The State was only in existence a couple of years, when it passed blatantly sectarian laws banning divorce. It might be worthwhile recalling Yeats famous speech on that topicOf course, more than a few are asking what motivation for Irish independence exists if we now share the view that Catholicism is an oppressive force, and if we've no interest in reviving the Irish language.

I see very little in the republics past that specifically discriminated against Protestants. Banning divorce was quite a natural thing for a Catholic country to do, it wasn't done to discriminate against or drive out Protestants.
Some states where very slow to separate from church, for instance, can a Cathoilic be the King or Queen of England? We have had several people in the highest position in the Republic of that religious persuasion.

newmug

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

more than a few are asking what motivation for Irish independence exists if we now share the view that Catholicism is an oppressive force, and if we've no interest in reviving the Irish language.

Who thinks Cathloicism is oppressive? 84% of Irish people declared themselves Catholic in the last census. Who has no interest in revivng their own language? Every government since the foundation of the state has made it mandatory in schools.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

Chuck Stone wrote: »

If Protestants had been prevented from getting a divorce and not Catholics or vice versa then that would be sectarian.

Happyman42 wrote: »

Banning divorce was quite a natural thing for a Catholic country to do, it wasn't done to discriminate against or drive out Protestants.

Pretending there is no significance in stitching religious doctrine into State law is quite delusional. By 1946, there were only half the number of Protestants left in the country as there were in 1911.

newmug wrote: »

Who thinks Cathloicism is oppressive? 84% of Irish people declared themselves Catholic in the last census. Who has no interest in revivng their own language? Every government since the foundation of the state has made it mandatory in schools.

Oh, clearly I'm mistaken. Obviously, commitment to both Catholicism and revival of the Irish language have never been higher.

At what stage do you think people will actually be able to openly discuss our shared experience, or at least discuss how much of our experience is shared, without people feeling they need to fight a corner?