The Ulster Covenant: A Warning from History

Happyman42

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

I think you're conclusion is right. In passing, there's a thread on AH at the moment:

If rejoining the UK meant jobs and an end to austerity, would you?

Support for rejoining the UK if it was in our economic interest is running at about 40%. Far from scientific - but I think it illustrates that the things we're talking about here are coming up in everyone's mind. People feel the Republic has failed, and are questioning what happens next.

For my own part, Irishness is really just a form of identity for me. I don't see political independence as necessary for its existence, any more than fans of One Direction need an independent State (although it might be good to confine them to one). It's hard to see what we ever did with our legislative independence - apart from stitching in a load of Catholic nonsense that we've since repented. We joined the EEC without much concern from many about the loss of scope for independent action.

Chilling out is a good suggestion. And when we're well chilled, it might be good to wonder if the history of the Irish Republic suggests, in any way, that the Covenanters had any basis for their contention that an independent State "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".

:rolleyes::rolleyes: Sure why don't the Brits join us and we'll call the whole shebang Ireland.

Aw now don't be saying it wouldn't this or that, sure nobody cares, what difference does it make... chill man!

GCU Flexible Demeanour

Happyman42 wrote: »

Sure why don't the Brits join us and we'll call the whole shebang Ireland.

That's too pedestrian.

We could join up and call the whole lot Gondor. Dublin could be Minas Tirith, London could be Osgiliath, Edinburgh could be Dol Amroth. And Cardiff could be, erm, Hobbiton or something.

Happyman42

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

That's too pedestrian.

We could join up and call the whole lot Gondor. Dublin could be Minas Tirith, London could be Osgiliath, Edinburgh could be Dol Amroth. And Cardiff could be, erm, Hobbiton or something.

And the Unionists/Covenanters will still want to call whatever Derry is renamed as London

---

and there in lieth the ever present problem.
Which brings me back to my first point..their bluff will have to be called sooner or later.
My bets are on the British calling it.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

Happyman42 wrote: »

My bets are on the British calling it.

For how long have belligerent, bullying and hypocritical republicans told themselves that Unionists are more attached to the half-crown than the crown?

I'm sorry, but your views are a parody.

Happyman42

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

I'm sorry, but your views are a parody.

You will have to explain that.

Terrontress

woodoo wrote: »

A more accurate comparison would be if Scotland left the union and the people of western Scotland, Glasgow Ayr etc decided to stay with the union. So now there is Scotland and Western Scotland. Could the people of Western Scotland really get away with claiming they are not at all Scottish. E.g.. we are not Scottish we are British.

I am open to correction here but I don't think that the majority of Unionists claim they are not Irish. It is just that to them Irish means something different than it does to someone who is a citizen of the Irish state.

Chuck Stone

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

If rejoining the UK meant jobs and an end to austerity, would you?

Support for rejoining the UK if it was in our economic interest is running at about 40%.

It was an idiotic false dichotomy created by a now banned troll.

I think it illustrates that the things we're talking about here are coming up in everyone's mind.

Your citing it illustrates nothing except your lack of rigour in backing up your point.

People feel the Republic has failed, and are questioning what happens next.

You do not speak for 'people'. This is a republic - people can speak for themselves.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

Chuck Stone wrote: »

It was an idiotic false dichotomy created by a now banned troll.

And the 285 posters who agree with the proposition - now running at 41% of votes - are all banned trolls too?

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Your citing it illustrates nothing except your lack of rigour in backing up your point.

I'm explicitly not claiming it's rigorous. It just illustrates the point, by linking a contemporaneous thread in another forum.

Chuck Stone wrote: »

You do not speak for 'people'. This is a republic - people can speak for themselves.

Indeed, and my point is that they are speaking for themselves.

In fact, one of the people with a mandate to speak on behalf of the people (Michael Ring TD) said this in our national parliament nearly two years ago

http://debates.oireachtas.ie/dail/2010/10/27/00006.asp

It has been suggested that the Queen will come to Ireland on a state visit next year. Although we have our independence now, perhaps we should hand the country back to the Queen and apologise for the mess we have made of it. When Britain was running the country, at least it did not leave us in such a mess or in the hock we are in now.

So, yeah, this a conversation that people are having for themselves at the moment.

Slurryface

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?

Really, so there was no history of violent revolt, of course the Phoenix Park murders wern't murders at all, they were a British Conspiracy:D

RandomName2

Slurryface wrote: »

Really, so there was no history of violent revolt, of course the Phoenix Park murders wern't murders at all, they were a British Conspiracy:D

Well not so much the Phoenix Park murders as the Easter Rising which declared its absolute indifference to the third Home Rule Bill (and to the Irish electorate).

After the 1918 election the electorate, in favouring Sinn Fein 2 over the IPP (except in the six Ulster Counties who returned Unionist MPs), effectively turned their back on Home Rule, despite being granted it in 1920 (albeit with partition). Northern Ireland, however accepted Home Rule when offered it.

After a War of Independence we obtained dominion status (albeit with partition) instead of Home Rule status; and then we had a civil war after that over whether that was enough. Eventually Fianna Fail (splitting off from Sinn Fein 3) decided that the Dail wasn't an alien body, and that they could bring themselves to cross the threshold, after which point DeV discovered that you could go from Free State to Republic through political means alone! Perish the thought! He then ensured that Ireland would socially and economically remain in the Dark Ages, from which it only emerged in the late 80s. :pac: As for Sinn Fein, they continually had splits, never recognised the legitmacy of the Dail, became subsumed by the Sinn Fein of Northern Ireland (which also initially felt that bombs rather than politics was the way to consitutional reform) which also refused to recognise the legitimacy of the Dail (or Stormont) until they.. well.. did in 1986.

Noreen1

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

What I think you can say is they practiced a form of doublethink, where they saw no conflict between foisting their views on everyone and allowing adherents of minority religions to follow their own direction. This is my main problem with the views on this thread. It's like it's all black and white; Unionist are obviously bullies, walking around in bowler hats and the like. Whereas we're all sugar and spice.

You could equally say that Irish republicanism is a belligerent, bullying and hypocritical force in Irish politics. Look at the feck'n Constitution it drew up when it got the upper hand in the Southern State. Republican, how are ya. It took the Irish language and solemnly stuffed it down the throats of every English speaker, without particular caring what they thought. It established Roman Catholicism as the default value for religion. It made every individual freedom subject to public order, including freedom of speech.

Interesting viewpoint.

I would suggest that, given the denial of religious freedom endured by the Irish people under British rule, that it was entirely to be expected that the Catholic population would expect their right to religious freedom to be protected by the newly formed state.

To suggest that this protection was intended to oppress Protestants, rather than to ensure religious freedom for Catholics, is a somewhat biased and one-sided view of the reasoning behind that protection, imo.

murphaph

Noreen1 wrote: »

Interesting viewpoint.

I would suggest that, given the denial of religious freedom endured by the Irish people under British rule, that it was entirely to be expected that the Catholic population would expect their right to religious freedom to be protected by the newly formed state.

To suggest that this protection was intended to oppress Protestants, rather than to ensure religious freedom for Catholics, is a somewhat biased and one-sided view of the reasoning behind that protection, imo.

But the British had already removed anything that prevented RCs from practicing their faith well before the Free State came into existence.

In any case, the Free State could have ensured religious freedom for RCs without making it the default state religion in the constitution.

Noreen1

murphaph wrote: »

But the British had already removed anything that prevented RCs from practicing their faith well before the Free State came into existence.

They had indeed. What they hadn't done was wipe the discrimination from peoples memory. Hence, assurances that their religious freedom would be protected for all time would undoubtedly have been welcomed by many Catholics.

In any case, the Free State could have ensured religious freedom for RCs without making it the default state religion in the constitution.

But why wouldn't they make it the default state religion?
After all, the majority of the Irish people were Catholic.
Hence, it would make more sense to reassure the majority, while protecting the freedoms to practice their faith of the Protestant minority. I would suggest that the Irish constitution was considerably more generous to the Protestant minority, than British rule was to the Catholic majority.
In fact, considering the recent history when the Constitution was drawn up, I'd say it took conscious and deliberate effort to try to include the minority.

As an aside - what is your opinion on Sunday opening hours in Northern Ireland?

GCU Flexible Demeanour

Noreen1 wrote: »

To suggest that this protection was intended to oppress Protestants, rather than to ensure religious freedom for Catholics, is a somewhat biased and one-sided view of the reasoning behind that protection, imo.

Well, I'd say that is iyo.

I can only repeat that it's not for Catholics to determine what others do or don't find oppressive. They can ignore the views of others, as they have in the past, and impose their own views where they can. But ignoring the views of others and imposing your own is oppressive.

It's like saying "I don't mean to be offensive when I spit in your face". Your view is senseless, delusional and held by many people who need to wake up.

Happyman42

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Well, I'd say that is iyo.

I can only repeat that it's not for Catholics to determine what others do or don't find oppressive.

You wouldn't nip out and tell the Orange order the same thing, would ya?

GCU Flexible Demeanour

Happyman42 wrote: »

You wouldn't nip out and tell the Orange order the same thing, would ya?

Well, yes, that's sort of the point. You're just repeating the same delusion of "that lot are bigots, where our lot just have sincerely held beliefs".

Happyman42

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Well, yes, that's sort of the point. You're just repeating the same delusion of "that lot are bigots, where our lot just have sincerely held beliefs".

The south has been moving resolutely towards a secular government for many years now. We have moved on and modernised, can you say the same for those who celebrate the Covenant and the 12th?

junder

Happyman42 wrote: »

The south has been moving resolutely towards a secular government for many years now. We have moved on and modernised, can you say the same for those who celebrate the Covenant and the 12th?

Well yes I can, since I am one who celebrates those events

Jorah

box_car_maker wrote: »

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

This is what every imperial country thought at the time.

The Russians, the Germans, the Americans (Manifest destiny) etc.

To suggest they cannot change is stupid and simplistic.

Noreen1

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Well, I'd say that is iyo.

I can only repeat that it's not for Catholics to determine what others do or don't find oppressive. They can ignore the views of others, as they have in the past, and impose their own views where they can. But ignoring the views of others and imposing your own is oppressive.

It's like saying "I don't mean to be offensive when I spit in your face". Your view is senseless, delusional and held by many people who need to wake up.

That's a superb example of blindly ignoring and distorting historical fact.

There was a deliberate attempt at inclusiveness in the Irish Constitution - quite the opposite of the treatment of the Irish Catholics by their British "overlords".

That attempt may not have been perfect, but to blithely ignore the deliberate oppression of Catholics for generations (and for generations longer in the North!), while protesting that the newly written constitution didn't take account of every wish of the Protestant minority - is blatantly ignoring the feelings and historical experience of the majority.

The facts are that an attempt at inclusion was made.
Deny it if you can. Or perhaps a simple little Catholic like myself shouldn't dare to express an opinion?
The facts are that the attempt was made. Now, tell me where I have said that Protestants should not have felt oppressed? Just as the Catholics before them felt oppressed. Both facts.

I don't play the "Your lot are bigger ***s than my lot game.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

Noreen1 wrote: »

That's a superb example of blindly ignoring and distorting historical fact.
There was a deliberate attempt at inclusiveness in the Irish Constitution - quite the opposite of the treatment of the Irish Catholics by their British "overlords".

This is just repetition of the original delusion - simply a refusal on your part to step back and see the whole picture.

Noreen1

Noreen1 wrote: »

Interesting viewpoint.

I would suggest that, given the denial of religious freedom endured by the Irish people under British rule, that it was entirely to be expected that the Catholic population would expect their right to religious freedom to be protected by the newly formed state.

To suggest that this protection was intended to oppress Protestants, rather than to ensure religious freedom for Catholics, is a somewhat biased and one-sided view of the reasoning behind that protection, imo.

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Well, I'd say that is iyo.

I can only repeat that it's not for Catholics to determine what others do or don't find oppressive. They can ignore the views of others, as they have in the past, and impose their own views where they can. But ignoring the views of others and imposing your own is oppressive.

It's like saying "I don't mean to be offensive when I spit in your face". Your view is senseless, delusional and held by many people who need to wake up.

Noreen1 wrote: »

That's a superb example of blindly ignoring and distorting historical fact.

There was a deliberate attempt at inclusiveness in the Irish Constitution - quite the opposite of the treatment of the Irish Catholics by their British "overlords".

That attempt may not have been perfect, but to blithely ignore the deliberate oppression of Catholics for generations (and for generations longer in the North!), while protesting that the newly written constitution didn't take account of every wish of the Protestant minority - is blatantly ignoring the feelings and historical experience of the majority.

The facts are that an attempt at inclusion was made.
Deny it if you can. Or perhaps a simple little Catholic like myself shouldn't dare to express an opinion?
The facts are that the attempt was made. Now, tell me where I have said that Protestants should not have felt oppressed? Just as the Catholics before them felt oppressed. Both facts.

I don't play the "Your lot are bigger ***s than my lot game.

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

This is just repetition of the original delusion - simply a refusal on your part to step back and see the whole picture.

Ah! I see. I'm senseless, delusional, and refuse to see the whole picture?

Despite the fact that I never once said Protestants should not have felt oppressed?

I offered a perfectly reasonable suggestion, based on the political landscape at the time, as to the possible motives of those who drew up the Irish Constitution.

You interpreted that as a statement of belief on my part that Protestants should not have felt oppressed. Please quote where I said that.:mad:

I did, however, suggest that your opinion was somewhat biased.
Given your offensive response, where you accused me of being both delusional and senseless - I suspect that my original suggestion of bias was entirely correct.
You refuse to even consider anything other than your own viewpoint.
Your response to alternatives is to launch an offensive and insulting tirade, labelling Catholics as oppressive.

Do please pardon us for daring to have a different opinion to such an exalted personage as yourself.:rolleyes::rolleyes:
Personally speaking, your tirade does nothing to convince me that you are interested in genuine debate, or considering the opinions of others. Rather, it appears from your posts that you consider your opinion to be superior to that of others, and that responding with insults is an acceptable form of discussion.

I prefer a polite, and reasoned, approach.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

Noreen1 wrote: »

Ah! I see. I'm senseless, delusional, and refuse to see the whole picture?

Despite the fact that I never once said Protestants should not have felt oppressed?

Yes. The only quibble is that you clearly don't see.

Noreen1

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Yes. The only quibble is that you clearly don't see.

You see what was neither said, nor suggested - but I clearly don't see? And I'm the one that's delusional?

Ah! No. Definitely not!

GCU Flexible Demeanour

Noreen1 wrote: »

You see what was neither said, nor suggested - but I clearly don't see? And I'm the one that's delusional?

Your frame of reference is wrong, yes.

K-9

GCU Flexible Demeanour, cut out the oblique replies, explain what you mean, nobody can guess the stream of consciousness that you are thinking.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

K-9 wrote: »

GCU Flexible Demeanour, cut out the oblique replies, explain what you mean, nobody can guess the stream of consciousness that you are thinking.

Apologies if that's the impression, but I honestly don't see what's oblique in my statement

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

... it's not for Catholics to determine what others do or don't find oppressive. They can ignore the views of others, as they have in the past, and impose their own views where they can. But ignoring the views of others and imposing your own is oppressive.

It's like saying "I don't mean to be offensive when I spit in your face". ....

That's as clearly as I can put it. I actually thought the image was very clear and direct.

The point is that the intentionality is irrelevant. As far as the Orange Order is concerned, they've been upholding religious liberty all along. So does that get them off the hook, seeing as how some seem to be saying that if you're misguided that's OK?

Because we seem to be invited to accept that, if many Southern Protestants emigrated because they felt oppressed in a Catholic dominated state, that in some way that sense of oppression is invalid because the people who voted in a Constitution with a Catholic ethos never meant it to be seen like that.

So members of Maria Duce can be misguided, and that's OK, that means they aren't oppressive, but members of the Orange Order can't be given the same leeway?

Now, hopefully that expansion (which seems excessive to me, to be honest) makes it reasonable plain why I dismiss anyone turning up with yet another version of the "Protestants were always welcome" myth. Here we are, still peddling this nonsense, ninety years after Joyce posed the question "Ireland, they say, has the honour of being the only country which never persecuted the jews. Do you know that? No. And do you know why?"

Chuck Stone

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

I actually thought the image was very clear and direct.

清除在你的头上。

Noreen1

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Apologies if that's the impression, but I honestly don't see what's oblique in my statementThat's as clearly as I can put it. I actually thought the image was very clear and direct.

The point is that the intentionality is irrelevant. As far as the Orange Order is concerned, they've been upholding religious liberty all along. So does that get them off the hook, seeing as how some seem to be saying that if you're misguided that's OK?

Because we seem to be invited to accept that, if many Southern Protestants emigrated because they felt oppressed in a Catholic dominated state, that in some way that sense of oppression is invalid because the people who voted in a Constitution with a Catholic ethos never meant it to be seen like that.

So members of Maria Duce can be misguided, and that's OK, that means they aren't oppressive, but members of the Orange Order can't be given the same leeway?

Now, hopefully that expansion (which seems excessive to me, to be honest) makes it reasonable plain why I dismiss anyone turning up with yet another version of the "Protestants were always welcome" myth. Here we are, still peddling this nonsense, ninety years after Joyce posed the question "Ireland, they say, has the honour of being the only country which never persecuted the jews. Do you know that? No. And do you know why?"

I will ask you again.
Where did I say that Protestants should not have felt oppressed?

GCU Flexible Demeanour

Noreen1 wrote: »

I will ask you again.
Where did I say that Protestants should not have felt oppressed?

How is that the pivotal point?

Should I respond with a similarly oblique question, like where have you acknowledged that the objective of the Orange Order is to secure religious liberty?

Within a few years of its existence, the then Free State was stitching Roman Catholic theology into its laws. Its simply not rational to depict this as an attempt at inclusion. In the same way, we can surely say the Christian Brothers had a go at child education and development.

golden lane

religious opression is an ongoing fact of life......it has never, and will never solve any problems.....

but, it can be sidelined. as was done in the 26 counties......yes, it was there but it's importance became irrevelant.

that can be done in the 6 counties........

GCU Flexible Demeanour

golden lane wrote: »

but, it can be sidelined. as was done in the 26 counties......yes, it was there but it's importance became irrevelant.

Ah, hang on. We've still got unresolved issues around the place of religion in education and health care, complicated by religious bodies owning a lot of the properties and having a status in independent governance structures of many of the institutions in which State funded services are provided.

Church attendance is way down, and the RC Church's soft power has evaporated. But there's still an endgame to be played; it's too early to say "irrelevant".

As for the past, the gentle explanation that we got for the rapid departure of Protestants from the South just has to be set aside. It's not credible, however fond people are of it.

golden lane

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Ah, hang on. We've still got unresolved issues around the place of religion in education and health care, complicated by religious bodies owning a lot of the properties and having a status in independent governance structures of many of the institutions in which State funded services are provided.

Church attendance is way down, and the RC Church's soft power has evaporated. But there's still an endgame to be played; it's too early to say "irrelevant".

As for the past, the gentle explanation that we got for the rapid departure of Protestants from the South just has to be set aside. It's not credible, however fond people are of it.

whether it is a catholic or protestant education only matters if it is allowed to matter.....

i mentioned recently about going to the adelaide hospital in dublin......a poster pointed out that it was a protestant hospital......

amazingly, all us catholics that lived in that area and used the hospital....never seemed to notice that fact......it was a hospital, that is all that mattered...and it was free.....

GCU Flexible Demeanour

golden lane wrote: »

whether it is a catholic or protestant education only matters if it is allowed to matter.....

I actually don't follow your point, at all. There is an issue - such as the integration of religious instruction into the school day - and the resolution of that is hugely complicated by a very large proportion of schools being owned by religious groups.

Now, it's a very large issue in itself, and one that would derail the thread if we tried getting into it in any detail. All I'm saying is it's too early to say "irrelevant".

golden lane wrote: »

i mentioned recently about going to the adelaide hospital in dublin......a poster pointed out that it was a protestant hospital......

amazingly, all us catholics that lived in that area and used the hospital....never seemed to notice that fact......it was a hospital, that is all that mattered...and it was free.....

Yeah, it's actually interesting that you said "Adelaide", as you are presumably referring to the "Adelaide and Meath Hospitals incorporating the National Children's Hospital" Hospital. No wonder people just call it Tallaght. The amalgamation of those three hospitals was not easy, as the unwieldy title should indicate.

The distinction the Adelaide had was it was the only hospital in the State where a public patient could get a vasectomy. At one point, they'd a two year waiting list for this quite simple procedure.

Not that I'd be suggesting that the influence of religion has ever mattered whatsoever to people when they've been accessing health services.

murphaph

Happyman42 wrote: »

The south has been moving resolutely towards a secular government for many years now. We have moved on and modernised

Have we? To some extent perhaps, but we are not a secular state. So long as a single church dominates schools and hopitals boards of management, we can't even consider calling ourselves secular.

A proper republic should be completely secular. We aren't yet.

golden lane

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

I actually don't follow your point, at all. There is an issue - such as the integration of religious instruction into the school day - and the resolution of that is hugely complicated by a very large proportion of schools being owned by religious groups.

Now, it's a very large issue in itself, and one that would derail the thread if we tried getting into it in any detail. All I'm saying is it's too early to say "irrelevant".Yeah, it's actually interesting that you said "Adelaide", as you are presumably referring to the "Adelaide and Meath Hospitals incorporating the National Children's Hospital" Hospital. No wonder people just call it Tallaght. The amalgamation of those three hospitals was not easy, as the unwieldy title should indicate.

The distinction the Adelaide had was it was the only hospital in the State where a public patient could get a vasectomy. At one point, they'd a two year waiting list for this quite simple procedure.

Not that I'd be suggesting that the influence of religion has ever mattered whatsoever to people when they've been accessing health services.

this is the age of issues.......no issue, make one.....

the adelaide was in peter street in my childhood.....i know most of the doctors seemed to have northern ireland accent's......

as i have spent many years in the north (working)....that was a good lesson for me.....

Noreen1

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

What I think you can say is they practiced a form of doublethink, where they saw no conflict between foisting their views on everyone and allowing adherents of minority religions to follow their own direction. This is my main problem with the views on this thread. It's like it's all black and white; Unionist are obviously bullies, walking around in bowler hats and the like. Whereas we're all sugar and spice.

You could equally say that Irish republicanism is a belligerent, bullying and hypocritical force in Irish politics. Look at the feck'n Constitution it drew up when it got the upper hand in the Southern State. Republican, how are ya. It took the Irish language and solemnly stuffed it down the throats of every English speaker, without particular caring what they thought. It established Roman Catholicism as the default value for religion. It made every individual freedom subject to public order, including freedom of speech.

Unionism and Republicanism (in the Irish sense - which, as we know, has nothing really to do with belief in a republic) are like a pair of evil twins, each using the other as an excuse for its own bigotry.

But if there's one thing you might think of taking away from this thread its that Irish Catholics cannot decide on behalf of Protestants whether or not Protestants should feel oppressed by the implementation of Catholic doctrine in the laws of the State. To do so is to repeat that wonderful story about the white family in Alabama inviting their black servant to tell visitors how he felt about Martin Luther King. "Oh," he'd say, looking back and forth between his employers and their guests "Them civil rights people going to make a whole lot of trouble for us ****."

Seriously, get a sense of proportion. Ian Paisley used to pride himself on making representations on behalf of any Catholic constituent who ever approached him. Would you accept his assessment of whether the Northern State was fair to Catholics?

Noreen1 wrote: »

Interesting viewpoint.

I would suggest that, given the denial of religious freedom endured by the Irish people under British rule, that it was entirely to be expected that the Catholic population would expect their right to religious freedom to be protected by the newly formed state.

To suggest that this protection was intended to oppress Protestants, rather than to ensure religious freedom for Catholics, is a somewhat biased and one-sided view of the reasoning behind that protection, imo.

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Well, I'd say that is iyo.

I can only repeat that it's not for Catholics to determine what others do or don't find oppressive. They can ignore the views of others, as they have in the past, and impose their own views where they can. But ignoring the views of others and imposing your own is oppressive.

It's like saying "I don't mean to be offensive when I spit in your face". Your view is senseless, delusional and held by many people who need to wake up.

Noreen1 wrote: »

That's a superb example of blindly ignoring and distorting historical fact.

There was a deliberate attempt at inclusiveness in the Irish Constitution - quite the opposite of the treatment of the Irish Catholics by their British "overlords".

That attempt may not have been perfect, but to blithely ignore the deliberate oppression of Catholics for generations (and for generations longer in the North!), while protesting that the newly written constitution didn't take account of every wish of the Protestant minority - is blatantly ignoring the feelings and historical experience of the majority.

The facts are that an attempt at inclusion was made.
Deny it if you can. Or perhaps a simple little Catholic like myself shouldn't dare to express an opinion?
The facts are that the attempt was made. Now, tell me where I have said that Protestants should not have felt oppressed? Just as the Catholics before them felt oppressed. Both facts.

I don't play the "Your lot are bigger ***s than my lot game.

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

This is just repetition of the original delusion - simply a refusal on your part to step back and see the whole picture.

Noreen1 wrote: »

Ah! I see. I'm senseless, delusional, and refuse to see the whole picture?

Despite the fact that I never once said Protestants should not have felt oppressed?

I offered a perfectly reasonable suggestion, based on the political landscape at the time, as to the possible motives of those who drew up the Irish Constitution.

You interpreted that as a statement of belief on my part that Protestants should not have felt oppressed. Please quote where I said that.:mad:

I did, however, suggest that your opinion was somewhat biased.
Given your offensive response, where you accused me of being both delusional and senseless - I suspect that my original suggestion of bias was entirely correct.
You refuse to even consider anything other than your own viewpoint.
Your response to alternatives is to launch an offensive and insulting tirade, labelling Catholics as oppressive.

Do please pardon us for daring to have a different opinion to such an exalted personage as yourself.:rolleyes::rolleyes:
Personally speaking, your tirade does nothing to convince me that you are interested in genuine debate, or considering the opinions of others. Rather, it appears from your posts that you consider your opinion to be superior to that of others, and that responding with insults is an acceptable form of discussion.

I prefer a polite, and reasoned, approach.

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Yes. The only quibble is that you clearly don't see.

Noreen1 wrote: »

You see what was neither said, nor suggested - but I clearly don't see? And I'm the one that's delusional?

Ah! No. Definitely not!

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Your frame of reference is wrong, yes.

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Apologies if that's the impression, but I honestly don't see what's oblique in my statementThat's as clearly as I can put it. I actually thought the image was very clear and direct.

The point is that the intentionality is irrelevant. As far as the Orange Order is concerned, they've been upholding religious liberty all along. So does that get them off the hook, seeing as how some seem to be saying that if you're misguided that's OK?

Because we seem to be invited to accept that, if many Southern Protestants emigrated because they felt oppressed in a Catholic dominated state, that in some way that sense of oppression is invalid because the people who voted in a Constitution with a Catholic ethos never meant it to be seen like that.

So members of Maria Duce can be misguided, and that's OK, that means they aren't oppressive, but members of the Orange Order can't be given the same leeway?

Now, hopefully that expansion (which seems excessive to me, to be honest) makes it reasonable plain why I dismiss anyone turning up with yet another version of the "Protestants were always welcome" myth. Here we are, still peddling this nonsense, ninety years after Joyce posed the question "Ireland, they say, has the honour of being the only country which never persecuted the jews. Do you know that? No. And do you know why?"

Noreen1 wrote: »

I will ask you again.
Where did I say that Protestants should not have felt oppressed?

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

How is that the pivotal point?

Should I respond with a similarly oblique question, like where have you acknowledged that the objective of the Orange Order is to secure religious liberty?

Within a few years of its existence, the then Free State was stitching Roman Catholic theology into its laws. Its simply not rational to depict this as an attempt at inclusion. In the same way, we can surely say the Christian Brothers had a go at child education and development.

It is a pivotal point because you're the one throwing accusations of delusion and blindness around, despite the fact that I acknowledged that attempts at inclusion of Protestants were imperfect.

If you care to discuss how these attempts at inclusion were imperfect - we might just find some common ground. However, accusations of delusion, without having any clear idea of what my opinions actually are on the subject, will result in accusations being challenged.