A measured look at a difficult situation

Well, I thought I would try and find some more information on this topic to continue learning and I found a really well-written piece regarding Ian Paisley's involvement in the Troubles. Also, I thought we were slightly driving the Multiculturalism thread off topic.This piece tries to determine if Paisley was guilty of several different factors, including committing violence, preaching violence, inciting violence, or creating a culture where violence could thrive. First off, to Faith's points that it was all Catholic violence, there are several mentions in this piece of violence started by both the UDA and UVF members, including mentions of violence initiated prior to the IRA's separation into a paramilitary group. However, it does come to the conclusion that Paisley specifically did preach peaceful solutions and that violence wasn't the answer. It questioned some of the company he kept while he was preaching this, but there is a lack of evidence that he was actually involved when these people would commit violent acts. The primary takeaway from the piece was that Paisley did not commit or incite violence, but that he did have something to do with creating a culture in Northern Ireland where violence could take hold, even bringing reporters to see the new paramilitary groups with all their weaponry. Most important is the examples of violence committed by the UVF and UDA against the Nationalists, which serves to show more that Ivan Foster is lying when he says the violence was only against the Protestants. Especially notice the discussion of Paisley's good friend and his involvement in the incident at the Burntollet Bridge. Religion and Violence: The Case of Paisley and Ulster EvangelicalsThe People's Democracy MarchPerhaps we could move the discussion about the Troubles in Ireland and their causes and participants into this separated thread? I can bring in and post some of the pertinent arguments from the previous thread as well to carry on the discussion.Not sure if this should be in Coffee House or Social Issues, but I will leave it up to the Mods to decide. Please bring the conversation from the other thread into hereEdited by Tempe 12ft Chicken, : No reason given.

Here is the initial comment from Faith that began this debate in regards to actions that had occurred during the Troubles and that which preceded the Troubles. Message 1017The claims which stated that only Catholics were responsible for the violence in Ireland is what got me involved and my response followed in Message 1027Faith retorted with a sermon by Ivan Foster, a well known preacher and member of the Unionists in Northern Ireland. The link is contained in Message 1030 to listen to the sermon and Faith's main point is below: I began trying to explain that the origination of the violence doesn't begin in the 1900's with the Troubles, but had been brewing in that country for centuries following laws that restricted Irish Catholics unjustly. Message 1033Edited by Tempe 12ft Chicken, : No reason given.

Once we got to this point, Faith was asking for evidence that violence was from both sides. I misinterpreted her and assumed she meant throughout history and responded with evidence of the laws that had been forced on the Nationalists since the 1600's. In addition, I used examples of how the Unionists turned a blind eye while hundreds of thousands of Irish Catholics perished in the Great Famine. I also pointed out how the damage from the famine was heavily confined into areas that were strongly Catholic, showing how the Protestants had specifically targeted Catholics through the laws and then refused to help when these laws risked starvation for the people forced to live under them. Message 1040From here on....I will let each individual continue in their own words instead of creating summations of their points because I do not want to be accused of misinterpreting someone's ideas. Caffeine joined the conversation here and thankfully had statistics that showed that the idea that a vast majority of the violence was committed by Catholics was inaccurate according to newspaper counts and death records: My response to Faith was next: Then responded to Caffeine to clarify my position: This process then continues for a few more messages, which can be found here:
Message 1046
Message 1047
Message 1048
Message 1049
Message 1050
Message 1051
Message 1053
Message 1054
Message 1055
Message 1056
Message 1057
Message 1058
Message 1059
Message 1060
Message 1062
Message 1063
Message 1064
Message 1065
Message 1066Sorry for getting lazy and not bringing each and every argument in as a quote. However, one question that Faith has yet to answer from this discussion is this:Faith, you see it as okay that the Protestants put extremely restrictive laws on the Irish Catholics because of the horrible treatment of the Protestants during the Reformation and Inquisition, even if these laws go so far as to force the Irish Catholic laypeople into subsistence farming, starvation and an inability to better their lives. In other words, it was a subtle period of violence that is less noticeable because of its slow speed. Your reasoning is that the crimes were so heinous that it was warranted.Why is it then unjustified for the IRA to attempt to regain their freedoms, even using violence, when their rights, freedoms and lives have been trampled on for over four hundred years?Why is it okay for the Protestants to right the injustices visited upon them, but the Irish are not justified to take action against the injustices and death that had been visited upon them for hundreds of years?

Faith, the laws that I posted are the exact wordings of the laws imposed by the British on the Irish Catholics. I even gave you the link that would have shown you more examples of the laws that were imposed. If you think that these are incorrect, then perhaps you should take this up with the British Parliament that codified these laws. Here, I will give you a refresher on the laws that I am talking about which took away the rights from all Irish Catholics, unless they willingly gave up their faith: Both from 1702 This one is from 1709And then from 1745: And these are only a small selection of the laws that were put in place. Many more can be found at this location:
SourceSuch as Would you like me to keep going?

But are the Irish Catholics to blame for that? If so, then can I claim that any atrocity perpetuated by a Protestant as making all Protestants guilty? These laws were not the Protestants taking action against the Catholic Church, but rather against a small subset of the Catholic Church, primarily comprised of peasants and farmers. If the actions are justified against the Catholic laypeople, instead of against the Catholic Church, then are not the actions of the IRA justified against the Protestant laypeople, instead of simply taking it out on the elite?What you are asking for is special consideration for the Protestants because they were treated extremely poorly, while there are examples of the Protestants treating people very poorly as well, including allowing over a million to die in famine (note; there were two big famines in Ireland, both under Protestant rule. The first killed around 400,000, while the second killed over a million). The restrictive laws directly led to these deaths because of the forced exportation of goods and wealth out of Ireland and into the British Empire in addition to the lack of wealth for Catholics leaving no options to mitigate the consequences of a famine.What would you like me to say for you to understand that I appreciate the evils of the Catholic Church throughout history? I do not agree with you that their motives still include starting another inquisition, but throughout history they have conquered many peoples through blood and violence. They have usurped roles of power and used them to gain influence and control over many people. However, what you seem to be asking for is that because the Catholic Church was violent, then Protestants should be allowed to be violent as well, whether through subtle actions (the laws creating massive poverty) or through violent actions (those taken during the Troubles as evidenced by the over 1,000 recorded Catholic deaths during the conflict). If you're always looking for vengeance against someone (or group) that wronged you, eventually you become almost a shadow version of that individual(or group). The Protestants showed that in Ireland for hundreds of years as they browbeat Catholics into submission and the IRA showed that when they decided that violence and terror was the best route to freedom.

The Irish Rebellion was a bloody affair, at least from everything I can find on it, but the death toll is thought to be around 4,000 for the entire rebellion. Plus, if you are going to justify Cromwell's attack based on the Rules of War during the time, why would the Irish be required to show quarter after the British refused to surrender? This number is right around the amount of people killed by Cromwell in the attack on Drogheda. Also, wouldn't it be expected of a native peoples to attempt to stop invasion/occupation from an outside force attempting to govern their lives?However, Faith, I think that you did not read your source deeply enough because you failed to realize that this post from Irish Skeptics is only in reference to Cromwell's actions and even mentions that only this battle should not be sued to prove how bloody Cromwell's attacks on Ireland were. Had you read all the way through the piece, you would have seen some interesting discussion that began to mention the battle at Wexford, where Cromwell and his men did go overboard.From your link: And this attack occurred when negotiations were actually taking place, meaning it breached the current rules of war. So, even if he lost control and was not responsible, you would expect punishment for those responsible, but we see:

Please do join in on this conversation, especially considering your first hand knowledge of the situation over there. In the US (at least in my schools) the Troubles, and the causes that led to them, were not really discussed much more than a simple mention, which I believe leads to all sorts of incorrect ideas because individuals must take it upon themselves to find any information, which risks finding and falling for biased reports. So, the religious aspect was not as prominent a determining factor in the earlier stages, even considering the laws that were placed on the books specifically aimed at Catholics? I knew that there were two primary camps, but I thought the religious aspect took precedence even above and beyond the nationlist/loyalist reasoning because of how neatly separated the religions were within these two camps. With the consistent lawful exclusion of the Irish Catholics, did it simply serve to build a large Catholic Nationalist group through the anti-British views? So, the religious tenor was added later, more so during the twentieth century? Was this added because the individuals actually wanted to act along religious lines or were they simply using religion as a more acceptable excuse for sectarian violence? Thank you for those links, these are the types of things that we do not hear about in our education when we learn about the Troubles. Rather, we simply get an extremely broad view of what occurred, with little more than basic labels for each group. This one brings up some questions for me, especially considering I also do not condone the violence and terror used by the IRA (or UVF of course). While trying to find new information as I was discussing with Faith, I came across a thread on James Randi's website where people were discussing the IRA. Someone was pointing out that primarily the targets the IRA chose had some sort of value, which could include military, police or criminal. Is this a fact that most of the attacks the IRA is responsible were aimed at actual civil war-esque targets? Another question, as it seems there are two time periods when the IRA was active, were they violent during both time periods of strife in Ireland? From what you and others have posted, I understand that it wasn't until peaceful protest was met consistently with violence that the IRA picked up their weapons, but during the time in the early 1900's when they were first formed were they also using violent acts to draw attention and fight those in power or were they are more peaceful group at first? I know that you see this topic as something which has already been done to death, but I find that your insight into the actual situation will be invaluable and I would love it if you are willing to help clear up any errors that arise or answer any questions people have. I know my friend who was born and raised in a Protestant family in Northern Ireland in the 70's (His father was a policeman too) has said that the violence the IRA did could be understood and that there were justifiable reasons why it went the route that it did. It seems that had the peaceful protests been allowed, the violence could have been averted, but once the decision was made to deny that, the fate would seem to be written. I also found a great comparison from the civil rights marches in the US, where just how the treatment of the Nationalists at the hands of Loyalists was brought to the forefront through attempting peaceful means just how peaceful marches in the South brought attention to how much discrimination was actually happening in those areas.One last question, I heard that violence continued after the Belfast Agreement, but that once September 11th occurred, the IRA fully decommissioned their weapons. Was the idea of being connected with that type of terrorism a big push toward this decommissioning?

First off, it wasn't an attack on only defenseless Protestants, but also on the defenders of the city and those who refused to surrender. According to your statements supporting Cromwell, the Irish were simply following the era's rules of war and when the defenders refused to surrender, no quarter was required to be offered. If it is allowed for Cromwell, then the same rules of war apply for the Irish fighting for their freedom. So, just like Cromwell, the Irish rebellion killed some civilians along with killing the Defenders. It was not, by any means, all innocent Protestants.What that article says about the Irish Rebellion is packed full of lies written to move a Protestant cause forward. No serious scholars give any credence to the propaganda that was written by John Temple. Most scholars put the total death count for the Irish Rebellion between 4,000 and 12,000 (with a majority leaning toward the number 4,000).Let's unpack this statement from the article: First off, John Temple's book is entitled The Irish Rebellion, not the "True Impartial History of the Irish Rebellion" and it was published in 1646, not 1644. We have already discussed the total death counts and, outside of his assumption of numbers, it is important to note that most scholars do not accept his counts as accurate (or even anywhere close to accurate). Also, with John Temple we are dealing with an individual who expressed disgust at the Irish race, should we expect him to be impartial? According to Kathleen Noonan's "Martyrs in Flames": So, what is the next step in Plaisted's analysis of the death toll: Here we have Hassell citing 400,000 as the number but without any evidence (or link to where he is getting this information from contained in the document). One good point to mention is how many the rebellion was said to kill in a specific town, such as Portadown, which is considered the worst massacre during this time period. Portadown is considered to have the highest death toll for any activity during the Irish Rebellion. So, what was the death toll for Portadown? 100 Protestants. Now, even if there was a battle in every single city, borough and town that currently exists in the Republic of Ireland (hint, there are 85 Source) and if each battle equaled the massacre at Portadown, there would be a death toll of less than 10,000 for the entire rebellion. So again, I ask you, where are these individuals getting these numbers from? The 100 death toll from Portadown was included in those thousands of documents that were recently released for review, which you had posted as evidence earlier in the thread. According to the BBC, which gives a higher total number than most scholars accept: Now, how are these two groups of scholars getting such a huge disparity on these numbers and why are the ones who return extremely high numbers (especially for the population density in the 1600's) always Protestants? Could they possibly have some reason to mask the truth or to make the Irish look worse (or more savage) than they actually were? Again, this is a great calculation, other than the fact that he does not show where any of his variables are pulled from, with the exception of starting population. Why should there be such a consistent population increase, when we are dealing with the Little Ice Age, or a time known to be rife with famine and war. SourceSo, apparently it was not only Ireland that was suffering from situations which led to increased death rates, as all of Europe saw a reduction in population of 1/3. Where was the rest of Europe's 30% population increase that Temple places as a requirement on the Irish?Finally, Faith, this was their land and the British Protestants were an invading force who had come to take this land from them. Why should they greet these conquerors as friends? If China invades the United States and implements a new government, would you fault a militia that fought to have their freedoms restored? Why is it only Catholics fighting for their freedom that you have an issue with, yet when the Protestants fight back violently against a Catholic ruler you consider it just?Other Sources:
Irish Rebellion of 1641Martyrs in FlamesBBC History - Wars and Conflicts - Plantation of UlsterEdited by Tempe 12ft Chicken, : No reason given.

Then why do you speak of the American Revolutionaries as good individuals? They were exactly the same as the Irish in wanting to be in charge of their own destinies and wanting to have the same freedoms afforded to others who were under the Crown. The Americans even began fighting before war was declared against the Crown, so they were attacking those who had actual authority. According to you, England should have sent all of her forces and decimated the Americans as a lesson, just as they did with Cromwell in Ireland.

I understand that you said that the Americans won the war....but what you are missing is that so did the Irish after the rebellion of 1641. In fact, from 1642-1649, after the rebellion, the Irish ruled the country as the Confederate Ireland.From the wiki: SourceSo, when Cromwell arrives, it is not that he has legitimate authority (The Irish had already expelled the British for approximately 7 years. In this case, I think our use of the American War of Independence as a similar case is incorrect. Rather, your backing of Cromwell would be similar to backing the British during the War of 1812, when they attempted to reclaim the American colonies. What legitimate authority did Cromwell have as Ireland was considered a free country, vowing loyalty only if the rightful king was returned, after their rebellion? First off, yes I am sure there were some civilians killed in cruel ways, however you came in with a resource that was very suspect, especially considering he claims that Ireland should have increased it's population by 30% during a time when all of Europe's population decreased by 33%. How does that makes sense, why would Ireland not be subject to similar hardships in terms of effects of the Little Ice Age. While I am sure some horrible crimes were committed, most scholars do not agree with the extent of them and state that the total death toll was around 4,000 for the Irish rebellion. That is a point you need to deal with, and not simply by quoting the person you did, but also explaining why his choices of variables (such as the expected 30% increase) are accurate. As for other scholars, they do not agree that it was a massive slaughter when the Irish rebelled: And Cromwell and his men were just as guilty of cruel and unusual punishment against both the Irish Catholics and the Irish Protestant Nationalists. You try to ignore Wexford, and at the same time diminishing the 4,000 killed at Drogheda (2,500 soldiers and 1,500 civilians) as just a casualty of war. I'm pretty sure those 1,500 civilians included some women and children too. Negotiations the following day slowed down, and when a wall was breached (as Cromwell's men were still attacking during negotiations) the commander of the castle agreed to surrender before the assault was launched. I'm hoping that you would agree that the burning of the monks was definitely related to the religion that they practiced? SourceSourceSourceAnd...you have the nerve to talk about forcing people to starve to death, yet all you can say about the million who starved because of Royalist actions during the Great Famine is that it may have been a bit heavy-handed. I find it amusing how easily you are able to forgive Protestant transgressions, but not Catholic ones. Especially considering that you refuse to see that the Irish rebellion of 1641 came after nearly 100 years of Irish Catholics being denied equal rights. This was also when the English began to forcefully take lands from Irish peasants and grant it to Protestants from England and Scotland. These penal laws are similar to those put in place following the Cromwellian reconquest and were specifically designed to put pressure on conversion to Protestantism. The Irish won their rebellion. They had gotten nearly all Royalists out of Ireland through their actions during the uprising. They governed themselves as the Confederate Ireland for 7 years....until Great Britain decided that they belonged under the crown again. So, again, what legitimate authority did Cromwell possess, since Ireland was actually a free nation during his seige.Edited by Tempe 12ft Chicken, : No reason given.Edited by Tempe 12ft Chicken, : No reason given.

However, Faith you only refer to these as unprovoked because you have even admitted that you don't care to learn about the entire context that surrounded the conflicts in Ireland. You complain that we are mentioning things that are far removed from your point, but the reason we mention these items is that provide context for why there has been ongoing conflict within the country. Sure....if you start in 1640, the Irish rebellion was unprovoked. However, if you add in the context of the penal laws that had been put in place to restrict the Irish (both Royalists and Nationalists, which included primarily Catholics), the removal of lands from the control of those who owned them and donation of said lands to Protestant land owners, and the denial of any sort of political recourse which occurred for over one hundred years prior to the rebellion, it makes it look less like the religious conflict and more like individuals looking to take back their land from usurpers. Of course, the fact that loyalists and nationalists break down roughly along religious lines makes it difficult to see that the problem is more complex and even I fall into, as I did at the beginning of this thread, only looking at the conflict in the religious terms.Likewise, the IRA was unprovoked only if you remove the previous 700-800 years of history, and more importantly, if you remove the attacks that occurred against Irish Nationalists by groups such as the IVF or British Security Forces during peaceful protest marches, such as what occurred on Bloody Sunday.What you want us to do is agree that it was solely protestant persecution and avoid the other difficult factors that must be considered to understand why the aggression was so fever-pitched and why/how religious structures have had a hand in either mediating or exacerbating the problem that seems more concerned with whether or not Ireland should be sovereign or controlled by another country.Finally, you said after my last message you said: Ireland won the rebellion prior to Cromwell's invasion, not after. The rebellion was in 1641 and from 1642-1649 Ireland was Confederate Ireland and ruled by people within the country. Cromwell arrived to reclaim the lands for the British in 1649, so his authority was not from the rulers of Ireland but from another group trying to invade the country again and implement penal laws once more. And I agree, the murder of innocent protestants is immoral, to say otherwise is horrible, but the rebellion was more about land ownership, the ability to have a say in governance of the country, and the freedoms to own homes and property. Did they go overboard in some isolated cases? Yes, they did. The total death count was 4,000, including soldiers and defenders, during the Irish rebellion according to most major historical sources. Portadown (considered one of the worst massacres) was 100 individuals. What percentage were innocent civilians and what percentage were soldiers/defenders? Why would they have attacked Catholic civilians, who were similar to them with no land rights or property to confiscate back to the Irish people?

The settling in Northern Ireland, combined with the forced removal of family lands and donation of said lands to incoming Protestant landowners (or even absentee landlords), while simultaneously removing any rights of the native population to vote or have control in the political process and future outcomes of their lives and forcing them into a position of inferiority with low survival rates, being forced to live on minimal crops because of forced exportation of foodstuffs. I'm sure religion played a part for some individuals and it was definitely used as a way to justify the actions taken during the tumultuous times.

Had these actions been enacted to affect the responsible parties I could see reasonable justification for the laws. However, the laws predominately affected the poor, working class Irish Catholics and drove them further into poverty, while not affecting the Vatican, and the power structure of the Catholic Church one iota. Remember, the penal laws were not put in place only after the Irish Rebellion, but were actually enacted over a hundred years before the rebellion. In this instance, I would classify this as throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Sure, the Protestants did not want Catholics to wrest power from their control once Protestants had taken it, but taking action against those who had no hand in it seems unjust to me. Again, I can see how they justified it, but because of the lack of effect on those who persecuted Protestants I would not consider the conditions deserved by the peasant population in Ireland that was placed under them.And before you say that I am taking the Catholic Church's side on this, don't forget that I don't agree with their justification of their violent actions either. This is why I said the famous quote, "An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind", earlier. Any group can find a way to justify something, but simply because they justify it through previous actions does not make it moral, just, or proper treatment of fellow human beings.Also, don't forget that I did agree that religion was at the heart of it for some people, just how it is for those practicing radical Islam or bombing abortion clinics. They use religion to justify actions that are abhorrent, which does not alter the moral standing of the actions taken. That quote was just in the previous message: Finally, you did not answer the question about Cromwell. You stated that he had legitimate authority because Ireland was controlled by England when he brought his troops over. I have shown you that this is not the case, as Ireland won their freedom in 1642 and Cromwell did not arrive until 1649. So, what legitimate authority did Oliver Cromwell have when he brought troops over into a sovereign nation?Edited by Tempe 12ft Chicken, : No reason given.Edited by Tempe 12ft Chicken, : No reason given.

So, you also side with Great Britain coming to quell a rebellion in the United States in 1812?

Okay, I will spell it out then. Both the Americans and the Irish rebelled against Great Britain and won their rebellions. America in 1783, Ireland in 1641. Both operated with their own government for a number of years, meaning authority transferred to them according to you by winning the rebellion. However, in the case of Ireland, you agree with the actions taken by Cromwell after Ireland was already free from Great Britain. Would you also then agree with Great Britain's attempt in 1812 (The War of 1812) to put America back under its control? After all, you claim Cromwell was putting down a violent rebellion, but that rebellion had ended years before Cromwell arrived on the scene. Doesn't that mean Great Britain was right to try and quell the American rebellion regardless of the fact that they were free for a number of years? First off, I'm sure some poor people did join the army in the rebellion, but you continue to miss the important detail that the penal laws were implemented prior to the rebellion. So, no...I do not agree with preemptively punishing people for the sins of their religion in other countries by other people. The penal laws really got initiated strongly under James I, although they had been used (first use I can find a mention of is under Henry VIII and specifically designed toward the Gaelic Irish) prior to that just not as strictly because Great Britain needed the wealthy Irish Catholics to help them defeat the Gaelic people. After the gunpowder plot, an English Catholic attempt (Notice that English is not Irish), James I began tightening the screws on the Irish Catholics. This is still almost forty years before the rebellion occurred. Not because of their fault, but because of the actions of individuals of the same faith in a different country. So, no I do not agree with the implementation of the penal laws and actually see them as a cause for the Irish Rebellion that would occur 38 years later. These laws and reducing Irish Catholics to poverty and no legal recourse, especially during a century known for poor growing seasons and especially harsh winters, is a legitimate reason for the Irish to want to reclaim their homeland from an invading force, regardless of religion. Remember, the primary divides were nationlist/royalist versus loyalist, which means the Catholics did not kill all Protestants, only those who were loyal to the country that had invaded theirs. However, this divide does roughly fall along religious lines, so religion was used sometimes to incite anger or justify actions that would otherwise be deplorable. Both sides did this, which is why I say this is a much more difficult topic than you have tried to make it. It is not so simple as only Catholics were bad and the Protestants were kindly folk, nor vice versa. It is a complicated 800 year history and should not be used in debate as an example of Catholic violence, because there was much more involved that a view like that loses sight of.