With an eye to any potential for Unification I'll be watching how SF TDs and Councillors react to the Ryan report and that report's implications for changes that bring a truly secular state - not just education and healthcare, but right across the board starting with a new Constitution.
Can SF cast of the historical baggage?
Ireland should be a secular state.
Sinn Fein should take the lead on this. Religious organisations are just the same as any other vested interest. They should be treated as such.
Ivan
I have always been very clear about my feelings on sexual abuse within the Church.
It was a violation of the deepest trust.
That said I have no intention of laying the blame at the foot of every member of the religious orders and clergy.
The vast majority of whom never engaged in this kind of wanton savegry.
I am an anomoly within Sinn Féin insofar as I am quite religious.
While a lot of Sinn Féin voters would be quite traditional and religious, more so in rural areas, the party itself is quite anti-clerical.
You will not find Sinn Féin defending the Church.
I will have my own post on the Ryan report up shortly.
Real unity is not about borders. It's about hearts and minds.
You can impose a jurisdiction without winning them - for a while. Like the English did.
Chris - with respect, you may be an anomaly in SF , but historically you are hardly unusual in the RM.
It will be difficult for your party to ride two horses - claim to be secular yet venerate the 1916 Proclamation and the deeply religious men who were responsible for 1916. After all, even the Pope's blessing was sought.
Interesting times South of the Border.
Ivan
We are not talking historically, we are talking about the here and now therefore it is very relevant.
"It will be difficult for your party to ride two horses - claim to be secular yet venerate the 1916 Proclamation and the deeply religious men who were responsible for 1916"
There is no difficulty with Sinn Féin being secular yet venerating the men of 1916 or the proclamation of 1916.
The Proclaimation of 1916 is not a Catholic document, it is very much in the line of the United Irishmen and their aspiration for Protestant, Catholic and Dissenter.
"The Republic guarantees religious and civil liberty, equal rights and equal opportunities to all its citizens, and declares its resolve to pursue the happiness and prosperity of the whole nation and of all its parts, cherishing all the children of the nation equally, and oblivious of the differences carefully fostered by an alien government, which have divided a minority from the majority in the past."
Harding the words of a Catholic document.
You will find that while Sinn Féin venerate all the leaders of 1916 it is with Connolly that we attach or political evolution.
"After all, even the Pope's blessing was sought."
They didn't get it though, Ivan.
Unlike William of Orange.
Couple of problems there for you Chris mate.
A proclamation that starts " In the name of God " can hardly be described as secular.
( Please note - I am calling here for a secular state, not a non-RC state - there is quite a difference)
Connolly was hardly secular - socialist/marxist, yes - but he was after all a committed Christian who came back into the Catholic fold and called on his Protestant wife Lily to Convert.
Bunreacht Na hÉireann is of course a different matter - but I'm not sure how seriously you - singular and plural - take it ?
"Connolly was hardly secular - socialist/marxist, yes - but he was after all a committed Christian who came back into the Catholic fold and called on his Protestant wife Lily to Convert."
Newton was also a committed Christian and a Protestant to boot!
He was probably right about gravity, though.
What are your thoughts then on the proclamation Observer - is it damned as a non-secular document ? Is a new constitution needed ?
Quite a few people would no longer view Provisional Sinn Féin as a Republican party so should they not also drop the title?
I know it displeases Chris when I mention it NR, but SF's journey of the past 10 years or so mirrors and surpasses De Valera's movement away from SF then 
I kinda like the Proclamation, Ivan.
The religious references are non denominational and actually highlight the stupidity of sectarianism.
As for the constitution, why not a new one. Its going to be necessary after unification anyway
NR
Which part of the title would you drop Sinn or Fein?
Observer - How about Nua Sinn Fein a lá B.Liar's New Labour ? They even have the same sort of contacts with big business
To be serious for a moment Obs - why a new Constitution ? Because the only chance of Unification is if we see a secular state in the 26. If it's not secular - and a coat of gloss won't work - then you have no chance of getting unionist consent.
There are basic principals reflected in constitutions which, to a degree, are reflective of the era within which they were constructed.
I would certainly argue for a secular constitution and not just to please unionists
I thought we were talking about a 32 constitution, the only one unionists would have an input inti
Observer - according to many republicans (but not necessarily those here )the 1937 constitution did apply to all of the Ireland.
But here's a challenge for Sinn Féin - produce a draft Constitution for the United Ireland they want us to enter.
Let's see what they really would have on offer.
"Real unity is not about borders. It's about hearts and minds."
Sentimental tripe of the kind that the Adams Faction is all too content to peddle these days.
Going back to the content of the post, Mansergh said nothing which hasn't been the reality of FF for about fifty years or more.
"But here's a challenge for Sinn Féin - produce a draft Constitution for the United Ireland they want us to enter.
Let's see what they really would have on offer."
I'm sure they will, now that you've asked
"Real unity is not about borders. It's about hearts and minds."
"Sentimental tripe of the kind that the Adams Faction is all too content to peddle these days."
Shane
Big Ulsterman said that, not the lily livered, yellow bellied, capitalist running dog.
But thats only a fact.
I'll genuinely be interested Obs - They have talked about reaching out etc, even set up a task force -but I don't see it happening as they won't want to face up to issues like abortion which would do a lot of damage both in the party and with the elctorate - and they are struggling as it is. Spent a couple of hours on the new website - man, it's is crap IMO - loads of waffle but no beef.
Couldn't find anything about need for secular state, couldn't find any decent response to Ryan , Couldn't find anything addressing the role of the Church in childcare or health.
I know what you mean, Ivan.
There are lots of policy documents in circulation about the economy, public services etc, but they tend not to get into the public domain until they have been exhaustively dissected by hundreds of people.
For what its worth, the CICA report was sickening reading and each and every one of the swine involved should be jailed, even if some of them have to be dug up to do it.
The Catholic church should be held financially accountable for the actions of those they protected.
No religious institution should be permitted to control any section of the public service, hospitals, schools, hostels or anything else.
Their job should be to provide church services for those who wish to attend.
For a state to have the confidence of its citizens, it must be secular. There is no room for favouritism of one group over the other, or even the suspicion of it.
Most republicans accept this. The Catholic church is no friend of republicanism, although it will try to be if they ever gain political power
Religion doesn't unite people, it divides them in a way that defies rational argument.
Abortion is still a contentious issue, although the logical direction to go is an acceptance of the right to choose, however difficult that might be for a lot of people to accept.
We live in a complex society. No matter what direction you go, someone is always going to be left behind, ranting and roaring.
Cheers Obs - appreciate the straight reply!
I know who said it Observer.
Just read the letter in the Irish Times about people being asked to contribute to Dublin's Eucharistic Congress in 2012. They'll try anything to upstage the London Olympics!
Should be no contest. Everybody will be watching "Team GB" coming in fifth.
Good man, Shane.
Actually,I spent somemore time on their website earlier - man, it is terrible compared to the old one - slicker but far less user friendly - to be fair I did find this from Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin
“Finally, the separation of Church and State must be completed. We must move to a democratically controlled education system, truly representative of the community, respecting the rights of people of all religions and none and totally child-centred.”
http://www.sinnfein.ie/contents/16602
and this from Arthur Morgan
http://www.sinnfein.ie/contents/16597
Unfortunately they don't say it loudly enough, nor often enough.
I haven't noticed any great support voiced from within the party . I guess they are scared of alienating the Plastic Paddies - Seems Gerry is more interested in their dollars than addressing the realities at home .
http://www.irishtimes.com/
newspa...4249067633.html
Fianna Fáil may have declared the 26 counties a Republic but it is not the "Republic" as proclaimed by the leaders of 1916.
Actually Chris, it was your friends over at Fine Gael, in their dapper blue-shirts, that introduced the Bill that created the Republic of Ireland in 1948 (came into force into 1949), and not Fianna Fáil.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Rep...reland_Act_1948
"I haven't noticed any great support voiced from within the party ."
Which cumann are you with?
Which cumann are you with?
I'm with the Woolwich
Seriously though - Have Gerry or Martin or any other bigwigs called for a secular state ? I must have missed it.
Plenty of reports of Gerry spewing platitudes to the Yanks but comments about Ryan and the role of Church in state conspicuously absent.
An fleabite carried a report quoting Ó Caoláin and one letter referring to collared reprobates, but nothing in depth and certainly no editorial comment.
SF website ? nope. No call for separation of Church and state.
Let's be realistic - after the poor showings in the elections SF dare not alienate the Catholic zealots that Chris admitted make up at least a chunk of of SF voters.
I think they have to. If we ever want to normalise politics in this cesspit we need to show people that their religion is a matter for themselves, like their choice of clothes. It shouldn't have any more relevance than that.
Allowing a religious group an undue influence in the course of affairs is no different from encouraging the freemasons, or the mafia,
to dabble in the workings of the state.
Republicans have enough cop on to recognise that divisions based on the irrationality of religion cannot be expunged, only minimised. The way to do this is to reduce the impact of any religion on society, so that membership becomes no more relevant than membership of a football supporters club. In these circumstances other factors come to the fore, such as class allegiance, societal justice, economic policy, etc. These things can be debated, disputed and contested.
There is no substitute for rationality.
I think it's strange of Ivan to wonder if Sinn Fein, of all parties, can leave religious baggage behind. What unionist party ever has? What unionist party has EVER left any of its baggage behind and come forward with new ideas -- other than ones that involve setting fire to habeas corpus every time you turn around, that is. Where, in wanting to create an Ireland of social justice, reining in big business, and creating a federal government with provincial governments like Stormont, do you see a like-pulling-eye-teeth entrenchment in the past, much less a fierce embrace of the current Irish constitution? Frankly, aside from maybe the DUP, I can't think of another party in the whole island with less attachment to the Irish constitution than Sinn Fein.
Abortion is still a contentious issue, although the logical direction to go is an acceptance of the right to choose, however difficult that might be for a lot of people to accept.
Well that's fine; people who don't want one don't have to get one. But they should mind their own business if it's anyone else's body. It's well past time all of Ireland joined the 1960s on this one.
But here's a challenge for Sinn Féin - produce a draft Constitution for the United Ireland they want us to enter.
Let's see what they really would have on offer.
I think that's highly disingenuous. The obvious intention here is for one party to float a balloon for everyone else to shoot down in flames. If you're serious, then I think it's incumbent on YOU to come together with Sinn Fein and every other concerned party and work together to see what kind of form of union people could actually live with. In my books, it would be a federal model that would leave Stormont with pretty much the same powers it has now, but extended to Cavan, Donegal, and Monaghan... and hopefully, parallel legislatures of the same power for Leinster, Munster, and especially Connacht. Maybe the federal capital could even be moved from Dublin to some other city or town...
SF website ? nope. No call for separation of Church and state.
Ivan, really, are you living in 1970 or something? Perhaps you've heard about the Fifth Amendment to the Irish Constitution? You ought to look it up... it's a step the UK still hasn't taken with its constitution... that is, if they ever bother to formally write it down so people can actually read for themselves what it entails!
Even before 1973, Article 44 did NOT establish the Catholic Church as the state church of Ireland; merely "recognized" its "special position"... among that of others, by the way. So of course Sinn Fein isn't getting bent out of shape over the separation of church and state in Ireland because it's already a fact of life.
What's next, Ivan? Would you like Mr. Lincoln to free the slaves while we're at it?
Very Funny PC.
Some reading for you - Oracles of God by Patrick Murray.
As for the talk of
among that of others, by the way.
"subject to public order and morality"
Guess which moral code ?
Come on - The Bertie and daily phone calls to All Hallows ? The Church stranglehold on education and healthcare ? The Ferns report criticism of relationship between Church and state ?
The reason I'm asking SF to spell out EXACTLY what they want is because they now claim to be the only mainstream party that is serious about Unification. They also claim to be reaching out to my community - so they should put up or shut up
Ivan, it was your "community" of traitors and rebels that was responsible for the division of Ireland in the first place, because your ilk couldn't bear the thought of losing their long-cherished "right" to lord it over the croppies and, much worse, being governed by them. I have no regard whatsoever for the degeneracy and mental disease known as "Unionism", which has brought nothing but misery and suffering to Ireland and its people throughout its history. True Republicans owe your sort NOTHING, and I would appreciate it greatly if you took all of your nonsense away from what is a Republican-minded forum.
Shane - that is Bollix. You can only be a plastic Paddy. Nobody sane yaps about croppies.
And I think it is up to Chris to decide what is welcome here. Not a twerp like you
After all SF welcomes dialogue with people from my community.
I was simply using language familiar to someone like you, in the spirit of engaging in dialogue with someone from your "community".
Ivan, it is your sort who should be humbly asking for inclusion into a United Ireland and an end to the backward, racist and sectarian hell-hole that is "Northern Ireland", not the other way around. It is the very least you can do to make up for all the trouble your lot have caused over the past ninety years, and your responsibility for the political and social division of this country as a result of your hatred, backwardness and colonial supremacist attitudes.
Poor Shane - I really do feel sorry for you plastics
90 years ? What did we Quakers start doing in 1919 ?
Backward, sectarian and racist - That was the Gaelic Catholic Ireland demanded by the Democratic Programme of the First Dáil - but then you yanks are not so hot on history
Now run along and mourn Jacko.
"Gaelic Catholic Ireland demanded by the Democratic Programme of the First Dail".
Hmmmm. Your ignorance is quite impressive. Go and read a decent history book, Orangeman, before making such stupid comments.
Just finished reading Paul Bew's The politics of enmity, currently reading "Explaining Irish Democracy " by Bill Kissane. Finished Books like The Transformation of Ireland: 1900-2000 by Diarmaid Ferriter and Oracles Of God by Patrick Murray - give us all a laugh Shane and tell us the origins of your expertise - I'll hazard a guess at Irish American rags like the Irish Pimple and the Irish Vice and the Noraid Bumper Book of British Badness
Orange Ivan, you may have a point that the Free State/Eire/Republic of Ireland was in its early decades "backward" - I will hear no accusations of "sectarianism" from the sort of person who is loyal to a State with an Established Church that brutally persecuted Catholicism for centuries - but unlike your pustulous little Orange hell-hole, the Republic of Ireland overcame its backwardness and became a modern, prosperous, wealthy and outward-looking country. Your Orange statelet is by contrast a failed entity, kept alive by the British exchequer and can only be governed through mandatory power-sharing and involvement from Dublin, and which was in a state (more or less) of civil war for around thirty years. Even today your Orange statelet is full of the sort of fine people who hound immigrants out of their homes in a way that would have done the Brownshirts quite proud. Orange Ivan, you are a clear of the example of the kind of "moderate Unionist" who will clearly show his true anti-Irish colours when faced with a few home truths, as shown by your declared Jim Allister-style hostility towards and hatred of the notion of a "Gaelic Ireland". Scratch a "Unionist" and he will always bleed orange.
Shane
Ivan has every right not to be a republican.
This is a blogsite, not a boxing ring. You're not going to batter him, or anyone else into submission by being offensive. People just switch off the computer and go about their business, with their beliefs about the other side reinforced. We've emerged from a long and bloody conflict and unionists are just as entrenched as we are, just as convinced they are right as we are. Every time we watch the knuckledraggers marching along with their sashes, silly flags and toytown bands, we experience a surge of anger and for a wee while its harder to convince us that these people are in any way rational. When someone like Allister rants on TV, when people are forced out of their homes because they are different from their unionist neighbours, when Catholics are kicked to death and homes attacked debate becomes difficult, we are more reluctant to reach out, we want to hurt them as they are hurting others. But, Shane, we need to remember that not all unionists are knuckledraggers or racists. Many of them are rational people who are frightened of republicans, who believe they are simply waiting on a chance to punish them for past actions, lulling them into a false sense of security and preparing for payback. When we attack these people, even on blogsites, we reinforce their fears, force them back into the trench and make progress more difficult. Save the vitriol for those who are beyond rationality. There are plenty of them around. I don't believe Ivan is one of them.
He is simply a poor unfortunate, without the benefit of a Catholic education
Observer, you make some fine points, but I believe that where the following is concerned -
"But, Shane, we need to remember that not all unionists are knuckledraggers or racists. Many of them are rational people who are frightened of republicans, who believe they are simply waiting on a chance to punish them for past actions, lulling them into a false sense of security and preparing for payback."
- it applies much more to "Unionists" than it does to Republicans. After the foundation of the Free State, unless I am very much mistaken, I don't believe that "Unionists" in the South were made the victims of pogroms and hounded out of their homes by the thousands, nor were they deprived of the right to political representation (catered for by both An Dail and An Seanad) or generally live decent lives. The opposite was true, the old Ascendancy in the South (or as much of it that had survived the 1919-1923 troubles) held onto its land and its wealth.
So you'll just have to forgive me if I don't buy all this talk of the "legitimate" fears of "Unionists". Their whole creed has always been self-evidently sectarian. "Unionists" sowed the wind with their cries of "Home Rule is Rome Rule" and their oppression of Catholics and non-"Unionists" and they reaped the whirlwind between 1969 and 1997, when their vile little Orange bastard statelet was exposed for the sewer that it was, and always will be.
I'm not going to disagree with anything you've said, Shane. I've said much the same thing, worse, in fact, and I believe it.
That doesn't change the validity of any of the points I made earlier.
You misquote me when you mention "legitimate" unionist fears. I don't believe they are legitimate fears, but they are very real to the people who hold them. The sectarian state was designed to marginalise nationalists. It did so for many decades. We destroyed it. Many unionists fear equality in a statelet were they are still in the majority. Imagine how they feel about equality in a state were they are a minority.
As republicans, we oppose unionism because of what it stands for and what it did to our people. Unionism is a supremacist creed. We must oppose supremacism and the actions of supremacists - their words and their deeds. As rational people we have a responsibility to behave in a rational manner. The fact that our opponents seldom do should not deter us. We seek to unite this nation. We must ensure that no section of the people end up feeling the way nationalists trapped in the northern enclave felt for generations. Unionists can no longer harm us. They have lost their dominant position, they have even lost the right to majority rule - an acceptance by the British of the fact that they proved themselves unable to behave in a civilised manner in the past. They know they will never control their own state again. As we move toward a united Ireland, we must bring these people with us. I don't want to be associated with the behaviour characteristic of unionism in the past. We believe in justice, respect and dignity for all. We did not receive that in the sectarian state and that state has been destroyed. The least we can do is show respect for the views of others, even as we work to unify this island.
Not all unionists are the same. Some are unreconstructed supremacists, some are confused people with genuine fears. It is important to differentiate between the two in a debate.
Are you from the States? (genuine question).
Shane - you really should read the history of the FS/ ROI. The Mayo Librarian Row ? Fethard ?
De Valera's comments about Ireland being Catholic ? The virtual disappearance of the protestant minority?
Let's compare the two states - The Population of the 26 Counties - protestant and Catholic - FELL and the Population of the 6 counties -both communities - ROSE. NI was nothing like as hellish as the 26 county banana republic.
Come on Shane - what history books have you read ? Any ?
Sorry Observer - you have hugely strengthened NI - we have cast iron guarantees and we have republicans forced not only to accept NI as reality but even taking the Queen's shilling administering British Rule. SF are struggling in the ROI as seen in the last elections - and their vote plummeted by 12.8% in NI.
The unionist community should be confident - after all the people of the 26 are becoming more and more protestant in their outlook - they certainly wouldn't pass Sapientiae Christianae, the politics of Nutters like Pearse and Moran are moribund and a secular, socialist and federal EU will consign religious nationalism - be it Gaelic Catholic Irish or Orange Britishness to the Dustbin of history.
That won't wash, Ivan. The Republican Movement has gone from hunted "terrorists" to partners in government with those who used to rule this place for themselves. The British practice of majority rule has been denied to unionists at the insistence of those who were their victims. They huffed and puffed, but ended up sitting in the corner with a big lip anyway. Ireland is being slowly knitted together and there isn't a damn thing unionists can do about it.
The RUC is gone and their replacement has to positively discriminate in favour of Catholics. Not only that, but they are taking the privately held guns off former RUC and UDR men.
The UDR was unceremoniously dumped, back to the funny farm or off to Afghanistan for those with a death wish (any word on the British Army investigation into the 17 medals fraudulently awarded by UDR men to themselves out there?) Sinn Fein sharing the First Minister post with a boy that swore he would break them, the Good Friday Agreement and the Anglo Irish Agreement before that. They broke him. Long Kesh is a national monument and the Free Staters include the north in their budget.
As you rightly point out, the Brits are paying for it all. I suppose they figure its cheaper than fighting a war they couldn't win.
I see no evidence that unionists feel confident. On the contrary, the TUV have copped on and the DUP are desperately trying to convince their followers that all is well, while watching their support dripping into Allisters pocket.The unionist thugs who used to feel free to engage in pogroms against Catholics have been forced to pick on easier targets like Romanians,Poles and Chinese. Even then, the Poles came up from Dublin and gave them a good hiding.
Where did it all go wrong?
Its all over for you Quakers
Ivan, let me start by expressing my thanks at your honesty, a rare trait in any "Unionist" but you eventually got there.
The Mayo Library and Fethard affairs were of course very much isolated ones in any case, which don't begin to compare with the denial to Catholics in the Orange statelet of the right to political representation (through gerrymandering), public housing and services, and jobs in "Protestant" industries.
De Valera's comments cannot be considered either without the context of the great traitor Craigavon's rants about "a Protestant Parliament for a Protestant People" in the Orange hell-hole. The island of Ireland was at that time, after all, predominantly Catholic, like it or not.
The depletion of the Protestant minority in the Free State/Republic of Ireland occurred as a result of the breaking up of the large Protestant-owned estates, immigration and assimilation/intermarriage, nothing more malignant than these. You might try keeping in mind also that proportionally and absolutely there were always FAR less Southern Protestants than Northern Catholics (thanks in part to your forebears Carson and Craig).
I return to my original point: the ROI of this generation and the last is a modern, wealthy, peaceful and secure state while your Orange hell-hole is the beggar of the British exchequer and is incapable of self-government without mandatory coalition and outside influence.
I won't argue with you however about the abandonment of Republican principles by the Adams Faction. You at least have a point there.
Observer - no, I don't live in the States.
Thanks Shane. I was wondering why Ivan was suggesting you were American.
DOH! Shane - PLEASE read some decent books and do some research !
Craigavonn's comments - which you misquote ( ) were made in reply to De Valera's Comments in his St Patrick's Day address
What Craigavon said in the Stormont House of Commons on April 29 1934 was as follows: “The honorary member must remember that in the south they boasted of a Catholic State... All I boast of is that we are a Protestant parliament and a Protestant state.”
Earlier in the same speech Craigavon paid a warm tribute to the memory of Sir Denis Henry, the Catholic Unionist and first Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland.
Obs - Several points - notice our plastic buddy does not say he was not BORN in the USA - only that he does not reside there now And he doesn't reveal his reading list LOL
Look back - I said "unionist community" - of course there is turmoil in the Unionist parties. And a good thing too !
Doesn't diminish my point about SF vote dropping and them taking the Queen's shilling.
You know it's Ironic in the extreme - SF now occupy the ground that The Officials held 40 years ago - I'll bet the hierarchy are most displeased that having thrown their weight behind the provos they now find that SF are socialist - and one CANNOT be socialist and a good Catholic.
Forty years ago the Sticks were a twinkle in McGiolla's eye. I'm trying to remember the name of the Stick Joint First Minister and when they introduced 50/50 recruitment into the B Specials. The Sticks thought they could mobilise the working class, forgetting how entrenched sectarianism was. People don't rise up in revolution. They need to be led. The representatives of unionism were only ever going to lead their people in one direction, down the road of suppressing their neighbours. Religious affiliation was portrayed as more important than class interest.
Now that the sectarian state has been destroyed, unionist politicians continue to play their self serving little games at the expense of their working class constituents. The difference, now, is that it is much more difficult for unionists to convince people that Craigavon was right in his touching little speech.
Maybe class politics will take root in this island and people will start to take notice of the similarities between themselves and their neighbours, rather than listening to bullshit from the local lodge.
We've agreed that the Brits are happy to pay a danegeld.
We've dealt with your Blue Peter approach to election results.
I wouldn't know about Good Catholics and Socialism, most people I know are pretty anti-church. I can't imagine that Catholics would be any less likely to embrace socialism than Protestants or any other type of athiest
I've always thought Jesus Christ was a good socialist. And he was a Catholic
Straight facts in the SF election results Obs mate - a drop of 12.8 percent - and even the average turn out dip doesn't explain that drop! It's even worse when you consider the differential between turn out in Nationalist areas and unionist areas Compare East Belfast and West Belfast. Compare Strangford and North Down vs Mid Ulster and Fermanagh & South Tyrone.
Forty years ago the Sticks were a twinkle in McGiolla's eye
Tut tut – the split and formation of the Provos was 1969. 40 years ago.
Why ? The Officials were left wing and wanted parliamentary politics and recognition of the Dublin Parliament – Stages Theory - 40 years on SF are left wing, involved in parliamentary politics and not only recognise the Dáil, they sit in both Dáil and Stormont ! Partitionist Politics!
Mind you, it is difficult – can they be open about being socialist and leftist policies on abortion and risk losing the religious ? The Church hates Socialism – to quote an encyclical from the Vatican website :
“We make this pronouncement: Whether considered as a doctrine, or an historical fact, or a movement, Socialism, if it remains truly Socialism, even after it has yielded to truth and justice on the points which we have mentioned, cannot be reconciled with the teachings of the Catholic Church because its concept of society itself is utterly foreign to Christian truth. “
“If Socialism, like all errors, contains some truth (which, moreover, the Supreme Pontiffs have never denied), it is based nevertheless on a theory of human society peculiar to itself and irreconcilable with true Christianity. Religious socialism, Christian socialism, are contradictory terms; no one can be at the same time a good Catholic and a true socialist. “
Orange Ivan, your obsession with my present location/birthplace is as embarrassing as it is irrelevant. I could point out the distinctly un-Irish, un-British character of your name for example - been back to Moscow lately? - but it wouldn't be any cleverer.
"Earlier in the same speech Craigavon paid a warm tribute to the memory of Sir Denis Henry, the Catholic Unionist and first Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland."
Fine, I'm sure the said knight was an exemplary Uncle Tom.
By the way, Orange Ivan of Moscow, your lauding of Craigavon - the man who presided over the establishment of the overtly sectarian Orange hell-hole and the entrenchment of UUP rule for fifty years - only exposes you for the (typical) "Unionist" hypocrite you are when you go on about Southern "sectarianism".
Poor Plastic Shane - in a hole and keeps digging. Ivan is quite a common name in Northern Ireland
What history books have you read ?
I didn't "Laud " Craigavon - just corrected your appalling plastic ignorance over what was said in 1934!
Ever heard of Bernadette Devlin - can I suggest you read her book "The Price of My Soul" - you might learn a thing or two
For all it's faults NI was still a vastly better place than the 26 county banana republic. Certainly less repressive and better in materialistic terms for it's people, Orange and Green. That is Why the population FELL in the 26 counties and ROSE in the 6 counties.
Ivan, you surprise me. Leo xxiii made that statement in 1886! Didn't JPII more or less overturn that encyclical?
You really should try to keep up.
The SF vote dropped by 0.3%.
We've established that. Shame on you for trying to confuse the children.
Tut Obs - quoted was Pius XI Encyclical Quadragesimo Anno (May 15, 1931)- you bad Catholic you!
And as we know No Pope has ever said that a predecessor was in error !
There is some fascinating reading on the Vatican Website - such as the Catholic Action Plan for Mexico, issued in March 1937 by Pius XI in his attack on the democratically elected President Cardenas of Mexico.
The Vatican Version of What Shane's mob did in Chile 9-11 1973. ( That was why an fleabite called the second 9-11 America's foreign policy chickens coming home to roost Shane )
Now, Now - you are amongst friends here Obs , a drop 12.8% is massive - especially considering the fall in turnout was much smaller in Nationalist areas like Mid Ulster.
And just to be certain I checked out the " Catechism of The Catholic Church" on the Vatican Website - see 2425
The Church has rejected the totalitarian and atheistic ideologies associated in modem times with "communism" or "socialism."
http://www.vatican.va/archive/cc...sm/
p3s2c2a7.htm
Oh well, then.
I suppose we'll just have to drop all that socialist stuff
I'd rather be a rich capitalist anyway
Or maybe a Quaker..
Poor Chris - they also disapprove of Nationalism - I'm beginning to warm to the blighters
Cardinal Sodano as reported Vatican Press Office 1997
"The encounter with Christ must both bring our communities to repudiate every nationalist egoism, and bring us to open ourselves to universal fraternity."
Could Mary Lou and Bairbre have been affected by their support for the Catania Report in January ?
Ivan, that you should think that Irish Republicans should (or do) give a damn about the Vatican's opinions on Nationalism only confirms how dumb you are. The Vatican have never been friends of ours but that has never really been considered important. IRA men didn't throw down their guns en masse during the First War of Independence because of the Church's threat of excommunication, for example.
Ivan, here's a simple question for you, if the FS/ROI was so much worse than the Orange hell-hole, why was it that the LATTER went up in flames, and has since become one of modern Europe's greatest embarrassments? You really can't answer can you?
Unlike you "Unionists", we don't base our world-view on superstition, bigotry, Bible-whacking and a lot of "huuuurrrrr, huuuurrrr, huuuuurrrr" from "preachers" with dubious doctorates.
"Ours" ? You are not Irish
And as said earlier - a substantial section of SF voters DO care about the teachings of their Church.
Poor bhoy -
"if the FS/ROI was so much worse than the Orange hell-hole, why was it that the LATTER went up in flames "
Population dummy. If there had been a 40 percent minority in the 26 counties hostile to the state, then it would have been a very different story. But as you ignore, unlike in the civilised six, where the minority population rose, in the banana republic the minority population had a calamitous decline.
The savagery of the civil war in the 26 was far worse than what was (wrongly) done to the minority in NI. Execution by government order of hostages in reprisal ? The horrors in Kerry at Ballyseedy, Countess Bridge and Caherciveen ? Certainly De Valera's treatment of the IRA during “the emergency” was far harsher than that in the UK.
"Ours" ? You are not Irish
Actually, I am. Like my parents (and you, I might add) I am a citizen of Ireland both legally and by birthright. The difference between us is that I am not a traitor.
"And as said earlier - a substantial section of SF voters DO care about the teachings of their Church."
More fool them. I for one could not care less what the Church thinks.
"Population dummy. If there had been a 40 percent minority in the 26 counties hostile to the state, then it would have been a very different story."
So the conflict in the North was inevitable then from the very beginning because of that "hostile" 40 per cent? I'm gratified that you admit that your Orange hell-hole was rotten from the very beginning. But did it really have nothing to do with that "hostile" 40 per cent being ruled over and lorded over by an oligarchy that despised them and denied them their civil rights? You're a typical "Unionist" clown Ivan, nothing but "huuuurrrr, huuuurrrr, huuuuurrrrr!"
"in the banana republic the minority population had a calamitous decline."
Considering how small that minority was in the beginning, I hardly think calamitous is a fair description, not least also because their decline was their own choice. You might also bear in mind how Catholics, back then at least, tended to have considerably larger families than Protestants. Did that not have anything to do with it?
"The savagery of the civil war in the 26 was far worse than what was (wrongly) done to the minority in NI."
Another howler from Ivan the Clown. The Southern civil war lasted several months and claimed several hundred victims. The Northern civil war lasted for about twenty years or more and claimed thousands of victims.
"Execution by government order of hostages in reprisal ?"
How about the all the innocent Irish people murdered by the British forces in response to IRA attacks, the towns and villages the Black and Tans laid waste to "in reprisal"?
"The horrors in Kerry at Ballyseedy, Countess Bridge and Caherciveen ?"
How about Bloody Sunday, the McGurk pub bombing, the Shankill Butchers, the Greysteel massacre, the murder of the MacMahon family of Belfast, the anti-Catholic riots of 1969? Sound familiar?
"Certainly De Valera's treatment of the IRA during “the emergency” was far harsher than that in the UK."
That's a cheap one coming from you. Ever hear of the Special Powers Act, the B-Specials, Long Kesh?
You really should read some history and I don't believe you when you claim to be Irish. You really have not a clue.
Population in the South: The actal numbers of protestants declined, not just the percentage. AND you did realise that the TOTAL population of the FS/ROI declined (protestant and Catholic ) ? Nah, you are that dumb you probably didn't realise that the population in the South decreadsed while at the same time the population of both protestant and Catholic increased in NI.
We are talking of the events at the time of the Civil War and the foundations of the states.
Sure we can talk about the recent troubles. Shankill Butchers were animals but then Your heroes in the IRA went into a special needs school and abducted a boy with serious learning difficulties, tortured him , shot him in the head and left him dying in the grounds of Belfast Zoo So I don't think you are in any position to claim a position of moral superiority for your heroes Yank. Big difference is my community have not put the bastards in government.
Come on Shane what books have you read ?
Don't be shy lad!
Your community put the bastards in government for decades, Ivan.
Thats why we had the horror of the last 30 odd years.
Climb down off your high horse and try to see the other perspective. I witnessed a 13 year old shot in the head by a British soldier with a plastic bullet from about 10 feet. The child died and the Colonel was on TV that night, lying through his teeth. I'm sure the murderer is on a nice pension, now, with a clatter of medals and looking forward to Armed Forces day.
Don't try whataboutery on atrocities, mate, your community is light years ahead on that one. Think about the number of young women deliberately targeted and butchered (literally), the children (one chased around a snooker table before he was shot in the head), the old age pensioners (men and women) shot dead, not by accident, not caught in crossfire, not casualties of incompetence but deliberate "legitimate targets" to those who were armed and protected by the RUC/UDR/BA and excused by the bastards your community put in government.
I hope you have the sense not to try to contest this by naming incidents and victims. It would be in poor taste and pointless - you know its true, so please move away from the moral stance.
"You really should read some history and I don't believe you when you claim to be Irish. You really have not a clue."
I don't care about what you believe, Orangeman, that is why I haven't stooped to your level of puerile childishness, and don't intend to. I am secure enough in my Irishness to not feel the slightest need to address your insults. I realise that probably annoys you but, tough, Orangeman.
"We are talking of the events at the time of the Civil War and the foundations of the states"
No boy, that's what you want to talk about, and only because it is the only real time you can talk about savagery in the South (while conveniently overlooking the fact that the vast majority of atrocities committed across Ireland at that time were done by the British forces and their colonial proxies)- except perhaps for that nice work done by your UVF friends in Dublin and Monaghan in 1974, 32 innocent people butchered, a great triumph "for God and Ulster!" - so naturally you don't want to talk about the decades of brutal and savage and violence in the North. But I think I did refer to that period when I pointed out the B-Specials and such atrocities they committed as the slaughter of the MacMahon family of Belfast (just one horrible example of many).
"Big difference is my community have not put the bastards in government."
You seem to be implying that I am partly responsible for putting Sinn Fein/the Adams Faction in government. But how can I do that if I am in America, Ivan? Hmmmm, I don't think one can vote in Northern Irish elections in NY or Boston. Are you going to stop your nonsense now or am I severely overestimating your brainpower?
Oh and by the way, your political masters in the UUP and DUP chose to enter into "government" with "bastards" when they did, so don't come crying to me about it.
"Climb down off your high horse and try to see the other perspective."
Observer, for any "Unionist" that is an impossibility.
I think you're wrong, Shane.
It will take a long time to break down centuries of conditioning where unionists were taught they were superior to nationalists and this was reinforced by artificially created social and economic divisions. An entire state, its laws, enforcement agencies, administration and electoral system was constructed to facilitate this. It really isn't surprising that unionists panicked when that began to collapse and created their own mini version in the north. Now that this entity has collapsed they will, sooner or later, have to relinquish the myth of superiority. JB Watson found it easy to condition a baby, but it was a damn sight more difficult to remove that conditioning. Nonetheless, short of coercion, that is the requirement, on a mass scale, if a fresh start and a new, just society is to be created in Ireland.
Shane doesn't have a clue. And the "secure enough in my Irishness " is a laugh, classic Plastic Paddy, a diasporal barstool lardass wannabee hero
Bollix Observer the fact of the matter is that everybody in NI had more civil and religious liberty than anybody had in the Confessional state down South which is why Prods and Catholics stayed in the North (population increased ) and fled from the South. (population decreased). Strange hellhole when people chose to stay.
And you cannot get away from the fact that antiterrorism measures introduced in the FS/ROI when it had problems were more draconian than those in the North. And if NI had had designs on the FS and there had been a substantion Prod population down there what happened in the North would have loooked like a picnic.
Please address the Abduction and Murder of a child with sevee learning difficulties by the IRA from a school, his torture and murder before trying to claim any moral high ground.
incidentally, what was Clan na Talmhun ?
Sorry Observer, but the only thing a "Unionist" is good for is providing feed for the pigs in South Armagh.
"Please address the Abduction and Murder of a child with sevee learning difficulties by the IRA from a school, his torture and murder before trying to claim any moral high ground."
I don't know the case. If it was as you described, it was utterly appalling.
I am presuming it wasn't Patrick Benstead, because he was a Catholic with Learning Difficulties who was tortured with red hot pokers before he was shot by the UDR/UDA.
No, I'm pretty sure it wasn't him.
Wise up, Ivan.
I guess thats it, then.
Commenting by HaloScan
