N. Ireland soccer mob beats Catholic man to death

[Mickey_Finn]

I understand why you are stating that but many would disagree. Being Jewish doesn’t have to do with race or nationality is the strictest sense, however, if a Jewish mother has a baby, it is automatically considered Jewish. The child is automatically considered to be of Jewish faith whether the child practices or not.

Yet throughout history do we not believe that in most nations, tribes produced children from various backgrounds but I am sure they are still considered members of that tribes background. In Ireland when the Danes invaded and produced children, they didn’t say, well now we are of Danish and Irish nationality. No they still identified with being Irish.

The Irish have always been Catholic and now to try and rewrite history and say, no that is not true to me is a bunch of garbage.

Thats pretty much how I see it.

 

[tomarin]

Why the “supposedly,” Jharek?

 

[tomarin]

In Ireland when the Danes invaded and produced children, they didn’t say, well now we are of Danish and Irish nationality. No they still identified with being Irish.

If you read C.S. Lewis’s autobiography Surprised By Joy you’ll see that he also didn’t think of himself as English, even though he was Protestant (and presumably his ancestors came from elsewhere, such as England and/or Scotland, just like the Danes in your example). So clearly to feel Irish you don’t have to be Catholic.

I don’t think Irish nationalism had a sectarian character until sometime in the mid-20th century or so. The claim that one must be Catholic to be truly Irish is therefore revisionist history.

 

[Mickey_Finn]

But since we are talking of history, in what way did Spain and Portugal turn out badly? When they were ruled by Franco and Salazar, they were officially Catholic countries, but yet still had religious freedom.

Well, we could use slavery as an example.

Granted being a Catholic nation has brought spain alot of bad press that historical facts don’t support. I would have done away with the mayans and aztecs as well. For example. But seeing the actions of a government as the actions of the church can and does send a mistaken message. The church has work to do on this earth. But their focus is of course the next life and Serving God. A government needs a more earthly focus. The best it can do for religion is to stay out of it’s business. Religion on the other hand has a responsibility, in keeping with it’s earthly duties, to intercede with a government as needed. Even to the point of revolution. But again not to institute a one religion government model. The Republic of Ireland could serve as a good model. Not perfect by any means. But admirable non the less.

 

[tomarin]

There’s no “supposedly” about it, as far as I can see.

For Mickey:

The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution says:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”.

 

[KC91]

But can’t governments have sanctified work? Such as helping religion to spread the gospel, or defending it?

Well like Pope Benedict I see secularism as a big threat, but maybe that’s because I’m not American and thus I do not share and oppose most American political values.

 

[ChrissiM]

My comment: I am outraged by these Protestants who are coming into the Catholic neighborhoods and murdering innocent people. This was a decent and good man with four children. Time and time again we see Protestants in N. Ireland marching and attempting to provoke Catholics. Why are they in Ireland in the first place. Ireland belongs to the Irish and that includes all of northern Ireland which was taken from them by the invading British. I don;t know why the British have been going around enslaving people and somehow think that they can get away with it. These Bristish slave master classes in n, ireland are a holdover from the penal laws intorduced in 1691 according to which no Irish Catholic could sit in the Parliament of Ireland, even though some 90% of Ireland’s population was native Irish Catholic. This ban was followed by others in 1703 and 1709 as part of a comprehensive system by Protestants enslaving the Catholics in Ireland, It established the English Protestant ruling class in Ireland.

I completly agree with you.

 

[bobzills]

I understand why you are stating that but many would disagree. Being Jewish doesn’t have to do with race or nationality is the strictest sense, and yes, if a Jewish mother has a baby, it is automatically Jewish. The child is automatically considered to be of Jewish faith whether the child practices or not.

The Pope does not recognise this. For example, there is the case of Edgardo Mortara who was a Jewish boy, the son of Jewish parents. However, a maid baptised him and the Pope authorised to have him kidnapped and forcibly seizesd at the point of a gun from his Jewish parents so that he could be brought up as a Roman Catholic. On the evening of 23 June 1858, in Bologna, then part of the Papal States, police arrived at the home of a Jewish couple, Salomone (“Momolo”) and Marianna Padovani Mortara, to forcibly seize one of their eight children, six-year-old Edgardo, and transport him to Rome to be raised as a Catholic and as a ward of the state.

 

[bobzills]

Perhaps you can let us know why in Northern Ireland the Orangemen are continuing to petition for parades in or near the Catholic areas. What is the purpose of these parades and why do they have to be so close to the Catholic areas?

 

[Mickey_Finn]

There’s no “supposedly” about it, as far as I can see.

For Mickey:

The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution says:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”.

Ha ha nothing about a seperation. What is often cited, is in the federalist papers. Written in the very early nineteenth century. Don’t have time for a link. Sorry

 

[tomarin]

Ha ha nothing about a seperation. What is often cited, is in the federalist papers. Written in the very early nineteenth century. Don’t have time for a link. Sorry

Nevertheless when most people talk about the “separation of Church and State” they are talking about the Establishment Clause, which I cited. You may be literally right in saying the word “separation” does not occur in the Constitution, but you are wrong if you mean by that that the U.S. government is not constitutionally prohibited from regulating religious life here (and thank God for that).

 

[Yellow_Belle]

Irish history and culture is (and was) much more diverse and complex than some here like to think. For example, the self-styled ‘Old English’ in 17th century Ireland (descendants of the 12th century Anglo-Norman invaders and settlers) were predominantly Catholic and mainly royalist. They didn’t get on especially well with their co-religionists, the Old Irish, but had much in common with Protestant royalists in Ireland. Confusing, isn’t it?

 

[Jon_Paul]

For example, the self-styled ‘Old English’ in 17th century Ireland (descendants of the 12th century Anglo-Norman invaders and settlers) were predominantly Catholic and mainly royalist. They didn’t get on especially well with their co-religionists, the Old Irish, but had much in common with Protestant royalists in Ireland. Confusing, isn’t it?

I am not so sure about this. It’s been sometime since I read in depth on the subject of Irish history – I have been focusing on alot of theological work lately – but I seem to recall the very reason for the bond of the Old English and Gaelic Irish originated out of the events of Protestant Government.

Not to mention, the strongest loyalist – small ‘l’ here – force in Ireland was, guess, Gaelic, Irish, Catholic. Most of the young men who put down the Republican rebellion in the late 1700s was made up of young Gaelic Irish.

I will use the Confederation of Kilkenny as an example - it rose out of a ‘rebellion’ of the Gaelic Irish of Ulster in a bid to reclaim their land that was confiscated by the Protestant Parliament in England. A rebellion that led to a union of Old English and Gaelic Irish determined to preserve their religion and defend their rights and property under the monarchy and within the constitution.

Granted, it was rather confused, and it was to an extent uneasy, not to mention it did end up becoming a third force in Charles I’s own war on the English Parliament. But you get the picture.

Something that Republican propaganda has wreaked havoc on in Irish history, is that many, many of the Gaelic Irish were desperately loyal to the Crown - indeed, it is exactly that reason that honestly accounts to much of the ferocity of the later Cromwellian supression. Sir Phelim O’Neil, the first Ulster Gaelic Irishman to take to the field, had insisted on his opening call to arms that the rebellion was in no way directed towards the king. And even before the Old English had properly joined the rebelion the leaders of the Gaelic Irish had introduced an oath of association which read: “I further swear that I will bear faith and allegiance to our sovereign lord King Charles, his heirs and successors, and that I will defend him and them as far as I may, with my life, power and estate.”… The confederation fought under the slogan ‘Pro Deo, Pro Rege, Pro Hibernia’. And by ‘king’ they meant the man who was both simultaniously king of both Ireland and England.

A seperatist nationalism was no part of their outlook: they were fighting for only what they regarded as their rights under the British Crown. Patriotic love of Ireland was to remain, wholly compatible with loyalty to a British monarch. A prime example would be Daniel O’Connell in the 1800s.

Anyway. My overall point, appears to be , that loyalty to the Crown was not exclusive to the Gaelic Irish.

 

[Yellow_Belle]

I am not so sure about this. It’s been sometime since I read in depth on the subject of Irish history – I have been focusing on alot of theological work lately – but I seem to recall the very reason for the bond of the Old English and Gaelic Irish originated out of the events of Protestant Government. It arose out of the Old English Catholics’ disillusionment with the King’s policy towards them (Basically he didn’t trust them - that old ‘double allegiance’ conundrum - but he was quite prepared to bleed them dry financially to finance his wars, and they paid up to prove their loyalty.

Not to mention, the strongest loyalist – small ‘l’ here – force in Ireland was, guess, Gaelic, Irish, Catholic. Most of the young men who put down the Republican rebellion in the late 1700s was made up of young Gaelic Irish.****I presume you mean the 1798 rebellion? Don’t know what you mean by ‘Gaelic’ in this context. The rebellion was chiefly in the north-east of the country where it was largely Presbyterian and non-conformist in character. It was put down by a mixture of local protestant (established church) militias and British army andmilitia forces. There were also other uprisings in the east (Dublin, Kildare, Wicklow) and south east (Wexford) of Ireland, largely Catholic in character but with a mixture of Catholic and Protestant leadership. Again, it was put down by local protestant militias, British mercenary forces (the Hessians) and other regular army forces and militias. Perhaps you are thinking of the North Cork militia which was sent to put down the rebellion in Wexford? The rank and file were recruited from the Kanturk area of north Cork and many spoke Irish but their commanders were protestant, often of the Orange variety. They suffered a humiliating defeat at the Battle of Oulart Hill in Wexford, at the hands of poorly armed rebels whose successful strategy was largely devised by a Catholic priest. While the North Corks might be considered ‘Gaelic’, they could hardly be described as having ‘put down’ the rebellion ****

I will use the Confederation of Kilkenny as an example - it rose out of a ‘rebellion’ of the Gaelic Irish of Ulster in a bid to reclaim their land that was confiscated by the Protestant Parliament in England. A rebellion that led to a union of Old English and Gaelic Irish determined to preserve their religion and defend their rights and property under the monarchy and within the constitution. The alliance between the Old English and the Old Irish during the Confederation of Kilkenny was an uneasy one - the two groups had little in common politically or even in the practice of their common religion. The Old English, especially those in urban areas, were foremost in the practice of counter- reformation Catholicism, while the Old Irish were little influnced by Trent.

Granted, it was rather confused, and it was to an extent uneasy, not to mention it did end up becoming a third force in Charles I’s own war on the English Parliament. But you get the picture.

Something that Republican propaganda has wreaked havoc on in Irish history, is that many, many of the Gaelic Irish were desperately loyal to the Crown - indeed, it is exactly that reason that honestly accounts to much of the ferocity of the later Cromwellian supression. Sir Phelim O’Neil, the first Ulster Gaelic Irishman to take to the field, had insisted on his opening call to arms that the rebellion was in no way directed towards the king. And even before the Old English had properly joined the rebelion the leaders of the Gaelic Irish had introduced an oath of association which read: “I further swear that I will bear faith and allegiance to our sovereign lord King Charles, his heirs and successors, and that I will defend him and them as far as I may, with my life, power and estate.”… The confederation fought under the slogan ‘Pro Deo, Pro Rege, Pro Hibernia’. And by ‘king’ they meant the man who was both simultaniously king of both Ireland and England.

A seperatist nationalism was no part of their outlook: they were fighting for only what they regarded as their rights under the British Crown. Patriotic love of Ireland was to remain, wholly compatible with loyalty to a British monarch. A prime example would be Daniel O’Connell in the 1800s.To be fair to O’Connell, while he was appalled by the violence and bloodshed of open rebellion, he nevertheless advocated self rule for Ireland through his Repeal movement (repeal of the Act of Union 1801)

Anyway. My overall point, appears to be , that loyalty to the Crown was not exclusive to the Gaelic Irish. Again, I’m confused by your use of ‘Gaelic’ here. Do you mean that loyalty to the Crown was not exclusive to the Old English Catholics and Protestants and the New English Protestants but was sometimes shared by the ‘Old Irish’?

 

[Jon_Paul]

It arose out of the Old English Catholics’ disillusionment with the King’s policy towards them (Basically he didn’t trust them - that old ‘double allegiance’ conundrum - but he was quite prepared to bleed them dry financially to finance his wars, and they paid up to prove their loyalty.

On the Old Englishmens’ part, perhaps. But the alliance would not have been possible without the threat that the Gaelic Irishmen were under, the Old English had little trust in the English parliament because of the treatment of the Gaelic Irish suffered which is crucial in their move to work closer with the Gaelic Irish. It’s 1am here, by the way, I may be taking out of my arse .

I presume you mean the 1798 rebellion? Don’t know what you mean by ‘Gaelic’ in this context. The rebellion was chiefly in the north-east of the country where it was largely Presbyterian and non-conformist in character. It was put down by a mixture of local protestant (established church) militias and British army andmilitia forces. There were also other uprisings in the east (Dublin, Kildare, Wicklow) and south east (Wexford) of Ireland, largely Catholic in character but with a mixture of Catholic and Protestant leadership. Again, it was put down by local protestant militias, British mercenary forces (the Hessians) and other regular army forces and militias. Perhaps you are thinking of the North Cork militia which was sent to put down the rebellion in Wexford? The rank and file were recruited from the Kanturk area of north Cork and many spoke Irish but their commanders were protestant, often of the Orange variety. They suffered a humiliating defeat at the Battle of Oulart Hill in Wexford, at the hands of poorly armed rebels whose successful strategy was largely devised by a Catholic priest. While the North Corks might be considered ‘Gaelic’, they could hardly be described as having ‘put down’ the rebellion

I am happy someone has kept keen on their history - I feel I need to go pick up another massive tome again and try soak more of it in. I completely forgot about the Orangeman leadership over the Cork militia. But, I don’t seem to recall however that the Rebellion was chiefly in the north. I would hazard a guess and say it was rather spread out evenly over the north-east, east and south-east in Ireland. Weren’t the United Irishmen baisically crippled in the north due to secterian tensions within their own ranks? I remember reading of a note in Tones’ diary about a Protestant Pastor who was baisically turning his unit into a unit of Peep O’ Day Boys.

Then again, I think I remember that they did seize control of some areas in the north, and were prapring to march on Dublin at any given order, which failed to come? Correct me if I am wrong please. By the way, I will explain my use of “Gaelic Irish” below.

The alliance between the Old English and the Old Irish during the Confederation of Kilkenny was an uneasy one - the two groups had little in common politically or even in the practice of their common religion. The Old English, especially those in urban areas, were foremost in the practice of counter- reformation Catholicism, while the Old Irish were little influnced by Trent.

I did hold my hands up and say it was uneasy. But, could you explain your comment on the differences in religious practice? What would Gaelic Irish nonTrentian- (that’s a new one for me !) and Old English Trentian-Catholicism look like? Would it arise from their differences and interactions with Protestants? Or is it that abuses and errors that Trent called to question would not have been fully clarified to the Irish?

To be fair to O’Connell, while he was appalled by the violence and bloodshed of open rebellion, he nevertheless advocated self rule for Ireland through his Repeal movement (repeal of the Act of Union 1801)

But he never believed in leaving the Empire, or doing away with the Queen.

Again, I’m confused by your use of ‘Gaelic’ here. Do you mean that loyalty to the Crown was not exclusive to the Old English Catholics and Protestants and the New English Protestants but was sometimes shared by the ‘Old Irish’?

Yes, when I speak of the ‘Gaelic Irish’ I am speaking of the ‘Old Irish’.

 

[Yellow_Belle]

On the Old Englishmens’ part, perhaps. But the alliance would not have been possible without the threat that the Gaelic Irishmen were under, the Old English had little trust in the English parliament because of the treatment of the Gaelic Irish suffered which is crucial in their move to work closer with the Gaelic Irish. It’s 1am here, by the way, I may be taking out of my arse . Not at all. The Old English had no trust at all in the English parliament which is why they tended to side with Protestant royalists in Ireland during the English Civil War but also with their co-religionist Old Irish. Neither party really suited their needs.

I am happy someone has kept keen on their history - I feel I need to go pick up another massive tome again and try soak more of it in. I completely forgot about the Orangeman leadership over the Cork militia. But, I don’t seem to recall however that the Rebellion was chiefly in the north. I would hazard a guess and say it was rather spread out evenly over the north-east, east and south-east in Ireland. Weren’t the United Irishmen baisically crippled in the north due to secterian tensions within their own ranks? I remember reading of a note in Tones’ diary about a Protestant Pastor who was baisically turning his unit into a unit of Peep O’ Day Boys.

Then again, I think I remember that they did seize control of some areas in the north, and were prapring to march on Dublin at any given order, which failed to come? The whole rebellion was pretty much a disaster as the United Irishmen were riven with spies and informers (despite being a secret, oath-bound society - or maybe because! ) and the presence of other agrarian secret societies, mostly sectarian in nature in the north-east. The Peep O’ Day Boys and other such societies didn’t play as big a part in the south east, the next biggest theatre of rebellion after the north-east (the rebellion petered out quickly in Kildare and Wicklow and the west and south remained ‘asleep’) However, the rebellion in Wexford also had a significant sectarian element - I’m thinking of the murder of protestant prisoners on Wexford bridge and the burning of other protestant prisoners in a barn at Scullaboge.

I did hold my hands up and say it was uneasy. But, could you explain your comment on the differences in religious practice? What would Gaelic Irish nonTrentian- (that’s a new one for me !) and Old English Trentian-Catholicism look like? Would it arise from their differences and interactions with Protestants? Or is it that abuses and errors that Trent called to question would not have been fully clarified to the Irish? It would be mostly the latter. If you can get your hands on a book, The Irish Catholic experience, by Dr (and Monsigneur) Patrick J. Corish, it explains it far better than I can. He also makes the point that while the Old English Catholics of the towns were served by secular clergy usually of Old English stock themselves, educated on the Continent and steeped in the tenets of the Council of Trent, the Old Irish generally favoured the religious orders, especially the Franciscans, who were generally of Old Irish stock. The religious orders were apparently much more lax about implementing Trents reforms.

But he never believed in leaving the Empire, or doing away with the Queen. True, though it’s difficult to know how much of this was influenced by his experiences in France during the Revolution.

Yes, when I speak of the ‘Gaelic Irish’ I am speaking of the ‘Old Irish’. OK, we’re on the same page then Just a matter of terminology.

 

[Mickey_Finn]

Nevertheless when most people talk about the “separation of Church and State” they are talking about the Establishment Clause, which I cited. You may be literally right in saying the word “separation” does not occur in the Constitution, but you are wrong if you mean by that that the U.S. government is not constitutionally prohibited from regulating religious life here (and thank God for that).

Literally right? I’ll quit while I’m ahead.

PEACE

 

[KC91]

Jhak for a good explanation of why it is necessary for the Church to have influence in the affairs of temporal states, I recommend “The Pope” by Joseph de Maistre

 

[ora_pro_nobis]

The Irish have always been Catholic and now to try and rewrite history and say, no that is not true - to me, is a bunch of garbage.

No, I’m not trying to rewrite history.I’m talking about now. All I’m saying is that not all Irish people are Catholic - are you saying they are?

 

[tomarin]

Literally right? I’ll quit while I’m ahead.

PEACE

Yeah, literally. It seems to me you’re saying “there’s no separation of church and state in America because I can’t find the exact words “separation of church and state” in the Constitution.” When I pointed you to the establishment clause in the first amendment, which does erect a wall between organized religion and organized government, you basically ignored it. Your task now should be to explain why the establishment clause doesn’t represent a separation of church and state, which you haven’t done.

Pax Christi.