How long before Irish reunification? (Part 2) Threadbans in OP

Fionn1952

Five Eighth wrote: »

Sectarian? Try this for size -

"...The report also cited the close links maintained between the (NI) government and the Orange Order, the discrimination against Catholics in Judicial appointments, the maintenance of the exclusively Protestant B Specials, the 'frankly sectarian speeches' made by (NI) ministers and the gerrymandering of electoral boundaries as tendencies which make it difficult to contradict the assertion that the Unionist government's policies has resulted in the inflammation of religious bigotry and sectarianism..."
- The National Council for Civil Liberties (UK). 1936. Quoted by Chris Ryder in his book The RUC 1922-1997 (Revised Edition, 1997) p. 71.

Open a history book.

The lad is the most obvious troll I've seen on here in ages. I wouldn't even bother responding, he won't reply and then just wade in with some other nonsense shortly after.

Five Eighth

Fionn1952 wrote: »

The lad is the most obvious troll I've seen on here in ages. I wouldn't even bother responding, he won't reply and then just wade in with some other nonsense shortly after.

Strange. He's the only Munster man I know (if he is from Kerry) to refer to Ireland as 'Southern Ireland' (#4791). Probably says a lot.

eire4

Five Eighth wrote: »

Strange. He's the only Munster man I know (if he is from Kerry) to refer to Ireland as 'Southern Ireland' (#4791). Probably says a lot.

and most likely he is not from Kerry or anywhere else in Munster either to be fair.

Fionn1952

Five Eighth wrote: »

Strange. He's the only Munster man I know (if he is from Kerry) to refer to Ireland as 'Southern Ireland' (#4791). Probably says a lot.

It isn't even subtle, pure wind up merchant.

Junkyard Tom

Far from being discriminated against Protestants/Unionists largely retained their position of privilege in civic and commercial life and were grossly over-represented in many of the more prestigious professions.

When the discussion degenerates to trolling and lying by the anti-Republicans/Nationalists/Irish then you know they're rattled. Maybe SF leading the latest poll with the cosy cartel of FF/FG topping out at 40% has agitated them.

FrancieBrady

downcow wrote: »

Here’s a few I just copied and pasted

Ne Temere decree requiring the children of mixed religious marriages be brought up Roman Catholic

• The Church of Ireland Gazette also remarks on the "forced exodus of large numbers" during the period of the early 1920s known as the Troubles.[2]

• The Catholic ethos of the Free State.[7]

• Symbols of British influence were seen as an integral part of the Protestant tradition during the interwar period between World War I and II, however the Free State's intent on removing them was viewed by southern Protestants as sectarian.[8]

• The introduction of a "Gaelicisation" policy.[8][9] The compulsory teaching of the Irish language in schools saw some Protestant parents send their children to school in the United Kingdom.[8] It also meant that Irish was compulsory for roles in the civil service,[8][9] which resulted in "the continuing emigration of young Protestants in search of jobs", with the requirement seen as "disguised discrimination" by some.[8] However, there were other Protestants who were happy to embrace the Irish language, such as Douglas Hyde who was made the first President of the Republic of Ireland partly because of his efforts to revive the Irish language.

• The influence of the Catholic Church on government policy, such as: the banning of divorce and contraception; censorship of films and books; and in the education system.[9] This reached its peak with the 1937 constitution giving the Catholic Church "special position" in the state.[9]

Why don't you read the whole Wickpedia article dowcow? It also says this:

The Irish Free State had few overt discriminatory religious policies against Protestants and prided itself on its treatment of religious minorities. Delaney argues that this was motivated by the desire to assure Protestants in Northern Ireland that they would receive equal treatment and religious liberty in a future united Ireland.

We know of the malign influence of the RC church, we separated it almost completely from the state's functions.

Leading to this happening...from the same Wicki page:

however by2002, there has been an increase in the three main Protestant denominations: Anglicanism, Presbyterianism, and Methodism.[13]

The number of Protestants belonging to the Church of Ireland in the Republic in 1991 stood at 89,197.[13] By 2006, this number was 121,229, and by 2011 129,039.

I can say my partner and children are proud members of those statistics.

downcow

jm08 wrote: »

Can you give me a link to that quote about a Catholic country for a Catholic people please?

I have told you before I have little Roi history. But was I de Valera said it and then Carson responded with a Protestant state for a Protestant people. Maybe other can help. Francie?

downcow

[Deleted User] wrote: »

By all means have special treatment,no skin off my nose


..but the critism.that your father family had to emigrate....is identical to the millions who had to emigrate across the state until 1961......yous issue,like everyone else,is at the rich/establishment here and not a preceived sectarian issue,ffg just hate poor people......you've identified a problem,but misidentified the issue behind it

So you honestly don’t see that, at best, it was a very cold house for Presbyterians?

downcow

Five Eighth wrote: »

Sectarian? Try this for size -

"...The report also cited the close links maintained between the (NI) government and the Orange Order, the discrimination against Catholics in Judicial appointments, the maintenance of the exclusively Protestant B Specials, the 'frankly sectarian speeches' made by (NI) ministers and the gerrymandering of electoral boundaries as tendencies which make it difficult to contradict the assertion that the Unionist government's policies has resulted in the inflammation of religious bigotry and sectarianism..."
- The National Council for Civil Liberties (UK). 1936. Quoted by Chris Ryder in his book The RUC 1922-1997 (Revised Edition, 1997) p. 71.

Open a history book.

Your problem is that I am not denying any of this, although you present it in a particular way.
It is you who are in denial.

JasonStatham

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

From the Torygraph, no less. With friends like this...

Damn, that's cold. i feel sorry for NI people

downcow

Fionn1952 wrote: »

It isn't even subtle, pure wind up merchant.

Shoot the messenger

downcow

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Why don't you read the whole Wickpedia article dowcow? It also says this:



We know of the malign influence of the RC church, we separated it almost completely from the state's functions.

Leading to this happening...from the same Wicki page:

I can say my partner and children are proud members of those statistics.

I am not disagreeing with the rest of that article. It was much more covert than up north. But then so was some other nasty stuff that was more prevalent in the south.
Absolutely. Covert was the name of their game

FrancieBrady

downcow wrote: »

So you honestly don’t see that, at best, it was a very cold house for Presbyterians?

You were shown writings before that stated (Protestants and Presbyterians) exiled themselves from the running of the state, it was only natural that their offspring headed off, having no attachments.

There was some discrimination and incidents of blatant sectarianism but it pales in significance to what was happening in the north.
The resulting situation speaks to that - it went up in flames and it is now in a limbo, controlled by an international agreement between two sovereign states.

downcow

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You were shown writings before that stated (Protestants and Presbyterians) exiled themselves from the running of the state, it was only natural that their offspring headed off, having no attachments.

There was some discrimination and incidents of blatant sectarianism but it pales in significance to what was happening in the north.
The resulting situation speaks to that - it went up in flames and it is now in a limbo, controlled by an international agreement between two sovereign states.

Thanks Francie for your movement, although it is like pulling teeth.
Had the population of the south been over 30% Protestant I think we all know it would have went up in flames to.

I have told you before that there is evidence when a minority is below 20% they keep their heads down.

It’s ironic that the unionists who accepted the old wafer on the tongue etc and conformed and took the little privileges, are the very type that you detest in your own community and call partionists - lol you even married into one of the conforming families - what is it you call them when the shoe is on the other foot?

Fionn1952

downcow wrote: »

I have told you before I have little Roi history. But was I de Valera said it and then Carson responded with a Protestant state for a Protestant people. Maybe other can help. Francie?

If you have so little history for the larger part of the island you live on (one that was the same country for the vast majority of that history, and the actual location for much you claim as part of your own cultural history), why do you continue to make such confident, definitive claims about it?

For the record, the De Valera quote was, 'we are a Catholic nation', he did not say a Catholic state for Catholic people (granted the Protestant state for Protestant people is also a paraphrasing of what James Craig said).

What is arguably more interesting is the follow up statement from Craig in that same speech.

"It would be rather interesting for historians of the future to compare a Catholic State launched in the South with a Protestant State launched in the North and to see which gets on the better and prospers the more. It is most interesting for me at the moment to watch how they are progressing."

downcow wrote: »

Shoot the messenger

This comment wasn't in reference to you, Downcow. I fundamentally disagree with you on....well most things, but I do believe you engage pretty honestly and share your own perceptions. While I disagree, I appreciate hearing your opinions and don't think you're on the wind up (most of the time....we probably all stick a toe across that line occasionally).

Sunny Disposition

I think northerners tend to see discrimination in the south far more than it actually exists, because they are in the habit of looking for it, and expect people down south to have prejudices, when in reality they just don’t see society through the religious prism that permeates everything in the north. Where you live, sports you watch, places you won’t work, all that is influenced by religion in the north, but its irrelevant in the 26 counties.

FrancieBrady

downcow wrote: »

Thanks Francie for your movement, although it is like pulling teeth.

What movement? Jesus you are desparate for your little victories.

Had the population of the south been over 30% Protestant I think we all know it would have went up in flames to.

I have told you before that there is evidence when a minority is below 20% they keep their heads down.

But a lot of them didn't keep their heads down they rose to prominence all over the country

It’s ironic that the unionists who accepted the old wafer on the tongue etc and conformed and took the little privileges, are the very type that you detest in your own community and call partionists - lol you even married into one of the conforming families - what is it you call them when the shoe is on the other foot?

What? No surprise that you see marriage as some kind of surrender. How archaic. Not to mention the assumption of 'marriage', when somebody mentions 'a partner'..

Fionn1952

Sunny Disposition wrote: »

I think northerners tend to see discrimination in the south far more than it actually exists, because they are in the habit of looking for it, and expect people down south to have prejudices, when in reality they just don’t see society through the religious prism that permeates everything in the north. Where you live, sports you watch, places you won’t work, all that is influenced by religion in the north, but its irrelevant in the 26 counties.

.....stretching with your massive over generalisation there, Sunny.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, people from the North are not hive mind.

downcow

Fionn1952 wrote: »

This comment wasn't in reference to you, Downcow. I fundamentally disagree with you on....well most things, but I do believe you engage pretty honestly and share your own perceptions. While I disagree, I appreciate hearing your opinions and don't think you're on the wind up (most of the time....we probably all stick a toe across that line occasionally).

I appreciate your response but I knew it wasn’t directed at me. I know very well that it is much more comfortable for you to hear stuff from a Northern prod than a southerner. That was my point. He seriously irked quite a few of you and took the wrath.

downcow

FrancieBrady wrote: »

What movement? Jesus you are desparate for your little victories.

But a lot of them didn't keep their heads down they rose to prominence all over the


What? No surprise that you see marriage as some kind of surrender. How archaic. Not to mention the assumption of 'marriage', when somebody mentions 'a partner'..

Haha. Nice twist there. I am impressed. But it won’t stick because other posters can scroll back a few posts and see that I did not say it was anything to do with marrying you, rather you married someone who’s family clearly have conformed and kept their heads down. Nice try but Francie!

Fionn1952

downcow wrote: »

I appreciate your response but I knew it wasn’t directed at me. I know very well that it is much more comfortable for you to hear stuff from a Northern prod than a southerner. That was my point. He seriously irked quite a few of you and took the wrath.

That isn't even close to my reason for that poster irking me. I know plenty of people down this end of the woods that don't support unification, I disagree with them but fully respect anyone's right to have an opinion. As I've said to many, their vote will count the same as mine.

The issue is that particular poster absolutely and unequivocally is not engaging in good faith.

I have no issue with someone holding an opinion on partition, I don't like wind up merchants and blatant trolls. If you can't see that the poster in question is on the wind up just because they're weighing in to support you....well that says more about you than it does about me.

I'll also note you managed to cut out the rest of my post regarding your misquote and lack of Irish history.....too difficult to respond to that?

downcow

FrancieBrady wrote: »

But a lot of them didn't keep their heads down they rose to prominence all over the country
..

That is all part of keeping your head down. Often in history in various countries these were the people who were sometimes hardest on the peasants in their own community

FrancieBrady

downcow wrote: »

Haha. Nice twist there. I am impressed. But it won’t stick because other posters can scroll back a few posts and see that I did not say it was anything to do with marrying you, rather you married someone who’s family clearly have conformed and kept their heads down. Nice try but Francie!

You assumed 'marriage' downcow.

My partner is a proud Protestant from a proud family who get nauseous when any comparison is made to the practice of their faith in the north. They see no connection whatsoever. Isn't that ineffably sad?

That you depict them as sellouts/conformers isn't going to do that perception any favours.

FrancieBrady

downcow wrote: »

That is all part of keeping your head down. Often in history in various countries these were the people who were sometimes hardest on the peasants in their own community

A lot of them not keeping their heads down is related to them keeping their heads down??

Fionn1952

FrancieBrady wrote: »

A lot of them not keeping their heads down is related to them keeping their heads down??

That one stood out to me as a particularly odd take.....obviously the best way to keep your head down is rising to the absolute top positions of power within your jurisdiction...

FrancieBrady

Fionn1952 wrote: »

That one stood out to me as a particularly odd take.....obviously the best way to keep your head down is rising to the absolute top positions of power within your jurisdiction...

Downcow confusing himself now he is stretching the truth so far.

Five Eighth

downcow wrote: »

Your problem is that I am not denying any of this, although you present it in a particular way.
It is you who are in denial.

I'm not debating with you. The post was in response to a particular post by another poster. It isn't an opinion, it is fact and is presented exactly as it appeared in the book I referenced.

downcow

Five Eighth wrote: »

I'm not debating with you. The post was in response to a particular post by another poster. It isn't an opinion, it is fact and is presented exactly as it appeared in the book I referenced.

Your post was not factual. You referred to ‘the exclusively Protestant B specials’. That is not factual.
So don’t bandy about inaccuracies and call them facts.

feargale

From an article by Hugo McNeill in today's Irish Times:

"Neither the time nor the circumstances are right for a Border poll on Irish unity. Many of those calling most loudly have done little to create the circumstances in which it could work. A crucially important aspect of the Belfast Agreement remains unfulfilled.
The promotion of mutual respect and understanding between the communities in Northern Ireland and across these islands. This has major consequences for any debate on unity."

At this time when people North and South are being laid low by covid it is utterly pathetic to be talking about a United Ireland. By the time this pandemic is finished Ireland may well be united when there is nobody left to divide it.

The other end of the spectrum is no better. Twelve months ago, six months ago, yesterday and today the obvious way to address the pandemic was to follow New Zealand with an all-Ireland approach and a Berlin Wall type bar on travel in and out of the island. It couldn't be done, because the Dublin government are running scared before Michael O'Leary, and because the DUP would cut off their own noses to spite their faces. If Ryanair abandoned Ireland the harm to the economy would be a fraction of the damage that has ensued. Young Paisley offered the alternative of a UK plus Ireland bubble, arguing that New Zealand, after all is two islands. How absurd can one get? There are swathes of New Zealand with little or no population. To couple ourselves with an island with a population of over 60 million is too ridiculous for words.

It is clear that both SF and the DUP have priorities over and above combatting this virus which threatens to overwhelm us and which has killed and continues to kill thousands

JasonStatham

feargale wrote: »

From an article by Hugo McNeill in today's Irish Times:

"Neither the time nor the circumstances are right for a Border poll on Irish unity. Many of those calling most loudly have done little to create the circumstances in which it could work. A crucially important aspect of the Belfast Agreement remains unfulfilled.
The promotion of mutual respect and understanding between the communities in Northern Ireland and across these islands. This has major consequences for any debate on unity."

At this time when people North and South are being laid low by covid it is utterly pathetic to be talking about a United Ireland. By the time this pandemic is finished Ireland may well be united when there is nobody left to divide it.

The other end of the spectrum is no better. Twelve months ago, six months ago, yesterday and today the obvious way to address the pandemic was to follow New Zealand with an all-Ireland approach and a Berlin Wall type bar on travel in and out of the island. It couldn't be done, because the Dublin government are running scared before Michael O'Leary, and because the DUP would cut off their own noses to spite their faces. If Ryanair abandoned Ireland the harm to the economy would be a fraction of the damage that has ensued. Young Paisley offered the alternative of a UK plus Ireland bubble, arguing that New Zealand, after all is two islands. How absurd can one get? There are swathes of New Zealand with little or no population. To couple ourselves with an island with a population of over 60 million is too ridiculous for words.

It is clear that both SF and the DUP have priorities over and above combatting this virus which threatens to overwhelm us and which has killed and continues to kill thousands

Man, what a hack.