Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,808 Year: 3,065/9,624 Month: 910/1,588 Week: 93/223 Day: 4/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   A measured look at a difficult situation
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 16 of 289 (747548)
01-15-2015 11:55 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by Theodoric
01-15-2015 10:23 PM


Re: The comment that began the debate:
The links answer your questions. Cromwell was responding to the 1641 Irish Rebellion which was a bloody attack by Catholics on Protestants. Which is described at the Guardian link. The first link gives reasons to believe that his siege, while certainly severe, most likely did not kill as many people as Catholic propaganda has claimed. It gives a portrait of a man who had integrity and good reasons for his actions within the laws of the time, not perfect by a long shot but nowhere near the smear portrait passed down by Catholics.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Theodoric, posted 01-15-2015 10:23 PM Theodoric has not replied

  
Heathen
Member (Idle past 1283 days)
Posts: 1067
From: Brizzle
Joined: 09-20-2005


(3)
Message 17 of 289 (747552)
01-16-2015 3:08 AM


Before I start I'll point out that I'm Irish. Grew up in Dublin, and studied in Belfast right about the time of the IRA ceasefire in the early nineties.
To Faith: I ask you to do some research on your claims that the IRA began the conflict, and that ONLY protestants were adversely affected. Please.. research this honestly because you are making a massive fool of yourself as it is clear you have absolutely NO IDEA what started, or what happened during the "Troubles". Your one sided view of history is beyond ridiculous to ANYONE from either side who grew up during the troubles.
There seems to be a massive assumption in this that the conflict in northern Ireland was caused by religious differences.
This isn't true, this has been about the fight for a united Ireland. Going on for some 800 years now, but good, recent waypoint/milestone is the home rule act 1886:
Government of Ireland Bill 1886 - Wikipedia
The Unionist/loyalist politicians/gunmen have redrawn the battle along religious lines over the years, (with Paisley and the Orange order at the forefront of sectarian bigotry in that time), and also redrawn political boundaries to ensure no catholic voice in government:
Gerrymandering - Wikipedia
culminating in more recent years with the pure sectarian violence we saw at places like Greysteel Greysteel massacre - Wikipedia
Shankill Road: Shankill Butchers - Wikipedia
Now I am aware of the IRA attrocities, and do not in anyway for one second condone them. But faith's notion that "this is all the IRA's fault" is beyond fantasy. Not even the most hardline loyalist would agree with that with any kind of a clear concience.
The root of the modern "armed struggle" could be said to be traced to the civil rights marches in the 60s. At this time Unionist paramilitaries were forming in supposed anticipation of an expected IRA build up (The IRA had, in 1966 blown up Nelson's Pillar in dublin as a protest about British influence)
GUsty Spence, (A british Solidier) Formed the UVF who, to coincide with Irish parades commemorating the Easter Rising:
petrol bombed a number of Catholic homes, schools and businesses. One of the fires killed an elderly Protestant widow.[52] On 21 May, the UVF issued a statement declaring "war" against the IRA and anyone helping it.[59] On 27 May the UVF fatally shot a Catholic civilian, John Scullion, as he walked home.[52] A month later it shot three Catholic civilians as they left a pub, killing one.
The Troubles - Wikipedia
At this point, the Loyalist Paramilitaries made clear that ANY catholic regardless of political persuasion was a legitimate target. (I myself was attacked in 1996 in Belfast for Merely daring to have a Dublin Accent)
A series of (Peaceful) civil rights marches followed, protesting against gerrymandering housing discrimination etc, all were targeted by the loyalist paramilitaries.
a student civil rights group — People's Democracy — was formed in Belfast.[62] In late November, O'Neill promised the civil rights movement some concessions, but they were seen as inadequate. On 1 January 1969, People's Democracy began a four-day march from Belfast to Derry, which was repeatedly harassed and attacked by loyalists. At Burntollet it was attacked by about 200 loyalists and off-duty police officers armed with iron bars, bricks and bottles in a pre-planned ambush. When the march reached Derry it was again attacked. The marchers claimed that police did nothing to protect them and that some officers helped the attackers.[68] That night, RUC officers went on a rampage in the Bogside area of Derry, attacking Catholic homes, attacking and threatening residents, and hurling sectarian abuse.[68] Residents then sealed off the Bogside with barricades to keep the police out, creating "Free Derry".
The Troubles - Wikipedia
I could go on listing the further attacks by protestants on innocent catholic civilians, but it's all information which is undisputed and available freely.
On reading Faiths comments to date It is clear her understanding is completely muddled and one-eyed. I will just caution everyone to take nothing she says at face value on this subject, but I suspect most of you already know this.
I am not going to take part in this thread to any large extent because this subject has been done to death, and there is no discussion you can have that hasn't already been had.
suffice to say the northern Ireland conflict goes way beyond Catholics versus protestants, and in no conceivable universe can be summarized as "Catholics bad, Protestants good" as Faith would have you believe.
Edited by Heathen, : No reason given.

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by petrophysics1, posted 01-16-2015 4:41 AM Heathen has replied
 Message 25 by Tempe 12ft Chicken, posted 01-16-2015 9:59 AM Heathen has replied

  
petrophysics1
Inactive Member


Message 18 of 289 (747553)
01-16-2015 4:41 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by Heathen
01-16-2015 3:08 AM


Heathen,
Would you consider this to be a more serious present time social problem in the UK than say the fact that in the US there are old laws on the books, unenforced, that say atheists can't hold public office?
Just looking for your opinion.
Thanks.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Heathen, posted 01-16-2015 3:08 AM Heathen has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by Heathen, posted 01-16-2015 5:31 AM petrophysics1 has not replied
 Message 20 by Tangle, posted 01-16-2015 5:39 AM petrophysics1 has not replied

  
Heathen
Member (Idle past 1283 days)
Posts: 1067
From: Brizzle
Joined: 09-20-2005


Message 19 of 289 (747554)
01-16-2015 5:31 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by petrophysics1
01-16-2015 4:41 AM


If you're asking: "Is Faith's claimed Catholic persecution of protestants in Northern Ireland a serious present time social problem?".
The answer is no. as I know this claim by Faith to be utterly false and one made (as per usual) without proper thought, consideration or research.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by petrophysics1, posted 01-16-2015 4:41 AM petrophysics1 has not replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 20 of 289 (747555)
01-16-2015 5:39 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by petrophysics1
01-16-2015 4:41 AM


petrophysics1 writes:
Would you consider this to be a more serious present time social problem in the UK than say the fact that in the US there are old laws on the books, unenforced, that say atheists can't hold public office?
I'd say so, yes. Anti-atheist laws don't appear to be what is preventing atheists holding public office in the USA nor are they either prolific, actioned or capable of being actioned. We sorted that one out with some reasonable discussion. (But it would be sensible to remove them anyway, if only to prevent the religious nutters shouting about them.)
As for the 'troubles,' it's beginning to look like there's real progress being made although there's still a huge sense hurt in the communities. It's also very localised now - confined to NI and only small parts of it. A far bigger problem for us now is the threat from fundamental Islam.

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed.
Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by petrophysics1, posted 01-16-2015 4:41 AM petrophysics1 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by vimesey, posted 01-16-2015 5:57 AM Tangle has not replied

  
vimesey
Member
Posts: 1398
From: Birmingham, England
Joined: 09-21-2011


Message 21 of 289 (747556)
01-16-2015 5:57 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by Tangle
01-16-2015 5:39 AM


A far bigger problem for us now is the threat from fundamental Islam.
Absolutely (although the recent crisis in the NI assembly shows that we need to keep our eye on that ball too).
What NI can show, though, is how solutions to terror involve people stepping aside from the mouth frothing hatred and fear mongering of sectarianism, and engaging with "the other side", to try to stamp out the bloodshed. We actually have a march on the NI situation, certainly in the West, in that (in my view and experience), we have a majority Muslim population which has not yet been alienated and rendered hostile by persecution of them (although, Heathen, I recognise that alienation and hostility was not universal amongst NI's Catholic population before the peace process). To hear the simplistic and fear-ridden denunciation of a huge population's faith by certain people on this site and elsewhere, I worry that we miss an opportunity to gradually remove any level of support for fundamentalist violence.
Absolutely, we fight it, and look to stamp it out - but we include in our arsenal an engagement with the majority Muslim population, who do not support such violence. That's what the majority of the Catholic and Protestant populations in NI did with each other, when they wanted the killing to stop.

Could there be any greater conceit, than for someone to believe that the universe has to be simple enough for them to be able to understand it ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Tangle, posted 01-16-2015 5:39 AM Tangle has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by Heathen, posted 01-16-2015 6:04 AM vimesey has replied

  
Heathen
Member (Idle past 1283 days)
Posts: 1067
From: Brizzle
Joined: 09-20-2005


Message 22 of 289 (747557)
01-16-2015 6:04 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by vimesey
01-16-2015 5:57 AM


I agree to a point.
The main driver in the NI peace process, as unpalatable as it seemed/may seem was direct engagement with the terrorists. secret meetings, prisoner deals etc all played a major role in bringing about the ceasefires and subsequent disarming and eventual decommissioning of those arms.
John Hume (SDLP MP) is to be singularly applauded for this work.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by vimesey, posted 01-16-2015 5:57 AM vimesey has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by vimesey, posted 01-16-2015 6:44 AM Heathen has not replied

  
vimesey
Member
Posts: 1398
From: Birmingham, England
Joined: 09-21-2011


Message 23 of 289 (747558)
01-16-2015 6:44 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by Heathen
01-16-2015 6:04 AM


Indeed - and it must have been a hellishly hard thing to do.
I think that with Muslim fundamentalism, we have more of a window of opportunity to alienate the terrorists from widespread support within the Muslim community. I don't think they have that widespread support at the moment (at least in the West) - but it's obvious to me that engagement with the Muslim population can only reduce that support - and that denunciation, hatred and fear of Islam can only increase it.
Faith et al are entitled to believe what they want, but with every hate-fueled denunciation of the Muslim faith as a "satanic cult" etc, she's actually encouraging the spread of terrorism. No wonder, I guess, that she cites Ivan Foster in her posts, who ended up denouncing Ian Paisley, for putting aside his own hatred, and entering into the power sharing arrangements with Sinn Fein. Ivan Foster seems to prefer keeping the dark flames of hatred burning.

Could there be any greater conceit, than for someone to believe that the universe has to be simple enough for them to be able to understand it ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Heathen, posted 01-16-2015 6:04 AM Heathen has not replied

  
Tempe 12ft Chicken
Member (Idle past 335 days)
Posts: 438
From: Tempe, Az.
Joined: 10-25-2012


Message 24 of 289 (747565)
01-16-2015 9:35 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by Faith
01-15-2015 7:23 PM


Re: The comment that began the debate:
Faith writes:
It doesn't even mention the Irish Rebellion of 1641 which had a reputation of being a particularly bloody attack by Catholics against Protestants, which was the reason Cromwell invaded Ireland.
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:
HandsofBlue writes:
And those who seek to rehabilitate Cromwell tend to ignore events like the taking of Wexford, where the New Model Army certainly lost control, with Cromwell being just as guilty in preventing a massacre of inhabitants as his men.
And this attack occurred when negotiations were actually taking place, meaning it breached the current rules of war.
HandsofBlue writes:
Wexford deserves study and judgement of its own accord, a sack that Cromwell either allowed or didn’t do enough to stop while negotiations were ongoing with the towns commander.
So, even if he lost control and was not responsible, you would expect punishment for those responsible, but we see:
HandsofBlue writes:
Later, at Wexford, Cromwell lost control of his troops entirely and allowed a massacre to take place, without punishment in the aftermath, a much worse atrocity then Drogheda.

The theory of evolution by cumulative natural selection is the only theory we know of that is in principle capable of explaining the existence of organized complexity. - Richard Dawkins
Creationists make it sound as though a 'theory' is something you dreamt up after being drunk all night. - Issac Asimov
If you removed all the arteries, veins, & capillaries from a person’s body, and tied them end-to-endthe person will die. - Neil Degrasse Tyson
What would Buddha do? Nothing! What does the Buddhist terrorist do? Goes into the middle of the street, takes the gas, *pfft*, Self-Barbecue. The Christian and the Muslim on either side are yelling, "What the Fuck are you doing?" The Buddhist says, "Making you deal with your shit. - Robin Williams

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Faith, posted 01-15-2015 7:23 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by Faith, posted 01-16-2015 1:18 PM Tempe 12ft Chicken has not replied
 Message 27 by Faith, posted 01-16-2015 2:44 PM Tempe 12ft Chicken has not replied

  
Tempe 12ft Chicken
Member (Idle past 335 days)
Posts: 438
From: Tempe, Az.
Joined: 10-25-2012


Message 25 of 289 (747566)
01-16-2015 9:59 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by Heathen
01-16-2015 3:08 AM


Heathen writes:
Before I start I'll point out that I'm Irish. Grew up in Dublin, and studied in Belfast right about the time of the IRA ceasefire in the early nineties.
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.
Heathen writes:
There seems to be a massive assumption in this that the conflict in northern Ireland was caused by religious differences.
This isn't true, this has been about the fight for a united Ireland. Going on for some 800 years now, but good, recent waypoint/milestone is the home rule act 1886:
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?
Heathen writes:
The Unionist/loyalist politicians/gunmen have redrawn the battle along religious lines over the years, (with Paisley and the Orange order at the forefront of sectarian bigotry in that time), and also redrawn political boundaries to ensure no catholic voice in government
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?
Heathen writes:
culminating in more recent years with the pure sectarian violence we saw at places like Greysteel Greysteel massacre - Wikipedia
Shankill Road:
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.
Heathen writes:
Now I am aware of the IRA attrocities, and do not in anyway for one second condone them. But faith's notion that "this is all the IRA's fault" is beyond fantasy. Not even the most hardline loyalist would agree with that with any kind of a clear concience.
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?
Heathen writes:
I am not going to take part in this thread to any large extent because this subject has been done to death, and there is no discussion you can have that hasn't already been had.
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?

The theory of evolution by cumulative natural selection is the only theory we know of that is in principle capable of explaining the existence of organized complexity. - Richard Dawkins
Creationists make it sound as though a 'theory' is something you dreamt up after being drunk all night. - Issac Asimov
If you removed all the arteries, veins, & capillaries from a person’s body, and tied them end-to-endthe person will die. - Neil Degrasse Tyson
What would Buddha do? Nothing! What does the Buddhist terrorist do? Goes into the middle of the street, takes the gas, *pfft*, Self-Barbecue. The Christian and the Muslim on either side are yelling, "What the Fuck are you doing?" The Buddhist says, "Making you deal with your shit. - Robin Williams

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Heathen, posted 01-16-2015 3:08 AM Heathen has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by Heathen, posted 01-19-2015 3:20 AM Tempe 12ft Chicken has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 26 of 289 (747574)
01-16-2015 1:18 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by Tempe 12ft Chicken
01-16-2015 9:35 AM


Re: The comment that began the debate:
Drogheda is always made the big issue, Tempe, not Wexford, and according to that writer there may have been as few as 700 killed in Drogheda. That there were more in Wexford is interesting, and I did read all that, but I was most interested in the fact that overall the article shows that the legend everybody believes is false however you cut it. I wasn't looking for proof that Cromwell's invasion wasn't bloody, I'd accepted that it was, but I also accepted that there was good reason for it in the bloody provocation by the Catholics, and I resent the way Cromwell's name has been smeared because I've read enough about the man to admire him as a man and as a Christian.
As I said this thread is premature for me. And I've been unable to find much in the way of research I can trust. I don't trust Wikipedia on a subject like this. I certainly don't trust anyone who says this is primarily a political conflict when I know it's religious, even someone who lived there. The pastor I linked to also lived there, it's one opinion against another.
The info put up earlier by Caffeine makes it clear that the Protestants did retaliate so that there were two sides engaged in the fighting but nevertheless there should be no doubt that the Catholic side always gets these things started. And if they'd determined earlier to live peaceably with the Protestants there might not be much of a a political side to the story anyway.
Calling such conflicts political or ethnic as if they were two-sided is also the way Muslim attacks on "infidels" are rationalized in our PC age. It's Muslims who want to rule the world and initiate violence for the honor of Allah. The papacy also wants to rule the world. Protestants don't. I also don't think the average Catholic does either, and doesn't really have a clue about any of this, particularly American Catholics, but the priesthood can get Catholics to do violent things in other parts of the world. The Catholic responsibility for the massacre in Rwanda is ignored (in that case most of their victims were also Catholic, they made a racial thing out of it there for some reason), Catholic inspiration in the Balkans is ignored, Catholic inspiration in the Holocaust is ignored, and in lots of other circumstances as well, which I referred to in the very post you used to start this discussion.
I get this information from people I trust but it would nice if it were also reported in the general media. But it isn't. The Protestant writings I trust are often old, can only cover the earlier phases of something like the conflicts in Ireland, and have a quaint feel that is also preachy. I trust them but they aren't going to go over here very well, and besides they don't always include enough information for what I'm looking for.
I'm still looking for information.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Tempe 12ft Chicken, posted 01-16-2015 9:35 AM Tempe 12ft Chicken has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 27 of 289 (747579)
01-16-2015 2:44 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by Tempe 12ft Chicken
01-16-2015 9:35 AM


Crime and its punishment aren't the same thing
I just figured out my own position in this which I haven't said clearly enough before.
Here's the quote that "began the debate" again:
First, it depends on where you're looking whether it's " no longer so." Catholics still persecute Christians in Mexico and other Catholic countries. It only gets reported in some Christian publications here and there though. The IRA up until recently was responsible for the violence in Ireland against the Protestants, and they've been behind all the violence in Ireland and elsewhere between Catholics and Protestants. I'm sure you've heard and believed the Catholic lies about it of course.
The Irish conflicts have been taken back to much earlier points by now, which is fine, but going back to this original statement of mine it's clear that I let myself get pulled into a much broader historical context than my original statement warrants.
Someone came along and showed that the Protestants did retaliate and were responsible for about half the number of deaths as the Catholics, so it wasn't as one-sided as I said, but my original point was that these conflicts are started by the Catholics and that hasn't been disproved. Catholics do persecute Protestants in Mexico for instance, there is reason to believe forms of the Inquisition are still pursued in some Catholic institutions in Catholic countries, it was a Catholic priest who instigated the murders in Rwanda and etc etc etc. My focus is on the aggression of Catholics against Protestants and others, basically continuing the RCC Inquisition wherever they can.
What I said about the IRA initiating the violence, which got taken back many centuries in the Cathoiic-Protestant conflicts, was answered in terms of the hardships the Catholics endured under the English legal restrictions that were put in place because of the Catholic violence. I'm supposed to see this as equally violent and unjust.
I don't.
As I keep saying I might regard the restrictions as excessive but my main focus, which I want to keep on the table, is that it's the Catholics who initiate the violence and the Protestants who are its victims, who may or may not retaliate, and it was the Protestant English government that levied the measures against the Catholics, which measures are being equated with Catholic violence against the Protestants. I didn't see the fallacy in this until now.
Again, even if I would judge the legal measures to be excessive I don't want to lose track of the fact that they are official legal punishment for crimes. There is a difference between crimes and punishment for crimes that I want to remain clear. It's not just a matter of which was most severe and hard on the people, the violence or the restrictive laws, it's a matter of crime and punishment. The two aren't the same thing no matter how severe the punishment.
The Jesuits were thrown out of country after country for their criminal work of subversion and assassination against kings and governments, particularly but not always in Protestant countries. Shall I sympathize with the poor Jesuits?
ABE: Likewise, the Irish Rebellion of 1641 was criminal, and Cromwell's action was justice. It doesn't matter which was the more violent, I'm trying to make the distinction between legal and illegal, crime and punishment. /ABE
So it isn't just that I want the Catholic violence condemned, I want it recognized as criminal and the government response as an expression of legal justice. Then we could perhaps discuss the excessive hardships of that justice, though for me that would be a completely other subject and not relevant to my argument.
That said I don't think there is much point in my continuing on this thread.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Tempe 12ft Chicken, posted 01-16-2015 9:35 AM Tempe 12ft Chicken has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by Son Goku, posted 01-18-2015 6:25 PM Faith has replied

  
Son Goku
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 28 of 289 (747706)
01-18-2015 6:25 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by Faith
01-16-2015 2:44 PM


Re: Crime and its punishment aren't the same thing
This strikes me as a very simplified view of Catholic and Protestant relations in Ireland.
Remember that in many of the rebellions in Ireland, there were Protestants and Catholics on both sides, especially the 1798 rebellions. Protestant vs Catholic is not the only dimension in this, but also Gaelic vs Anglo-Saxon culture. If you approach these conflicts from a solely religous angle, many decisions will seem bizarre such as the betrayal of Kilkenny, where Saxonised Catholics betrayed Gaelic Catholics. However:
ABE: Likewise, the Irish Rebellion of 1641 was criminal, and Cromwell's action was justice. It doesn't matter which was the more violent, I'm trying to make the distinction between legal and illegal, crime and punishment.
Until 1609 and the flight of the Earls, the majority of Ireland was under Gaelic Brehon law, with authority vested in local lords. Many did not see transgressing the British laws as illegal. The English crown had recently broken the native aristocracy and simply enforced English law. In the context of the local population, why are the rules of a foreign invading power "the law" when less than forty years ago the entire country operated under a different legal system with several judges of the legal system still living.
Note, I do not think the violence against Protestants was justified, I just don't understand how Cromwell can be considered to have been "just" and "legal". Cromwell had been involved in the murder of the English king, so even in England his legal authority was dubious to many, but in a different country with another legal system how were his actions backed by "the law".
Edited by Son Goku, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Faith, posted 01-16-2015 2:44 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by Faith, posted 01-18-2015 8:37 PM Son Goku has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 29 of 289 (747719)
01-18-2015 8:37 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by Son Goku
01-18-2015 6:25 PM


Re: Crime and its punishment aren't the same thing
I'm sure there are complexities to the history of all this I'm not up on but I've tried to keep my focus only on the parts I've seen identified as Catholic versus Protestant, and try to keep the parallel with similar events in other parts of the world. Even the article I linked about Cromwell's mission to quell the Irish Rebellion says there were Protestants present at Drogheda when Cromwell arrived, and yet the Rebellion was about Catholics against Protestants. And certainly the laws that Tempe keeps posting target Catholics as the perpetrators of the violence the laws were meant to punish.
Note, I do not think the violence against Protestants was justified, I just don't understand how Cromwell can be considered to have been "just" and "legal".
His role was to quell the Irish Rebellion as military leader for the government, that's what makes his action legal and a matter of justice. He was in the role of authority.
Cromwell had been involved in the murder of the English king, so even in England his legal authority was dubious to many, but in a different country with another legal system how were his actions backed by "the law".
That has not been said in anything I've read about it, it's described as his going in to put down an illegal rebellion, in the role of authority. As for "murdering" the English king, I had to look it up and I suppose you mean Charles 1 who was executed by the government, not murdered. Cromwell signed the execution order, again the role of legal authority against someone regarded as a criminal. Apparently there are other opinions, but that is in fact what happened so it wasn't murder.
Abe: There are always going to be contrary opinions. I find it interesting for instance, that Catholics who were executed for treason, I think for trying to assassinate English monarchs, such as Elizabeth for instance and James 1, though I'm really not sure what specific incidents were involved, which certainly seems right and just to me, were nevertheless treated as martyrs by the Pope when he visited England. "Martyrs" for trying to kill the queen or king? And you think the Popes don't regard themselves as above governments and nations, rightful ruler of the world etc? John Paul I think, sorry my knowledge of this is rather hazy but maybe I can find some info on it. In my opinion the Pope should have been tarred and feathered and run out of the country.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Son Goku, posted 01-18-2015 6:25 PM Son Goku has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by Son Goku, posted 01-18-2015 8:54 PM Faith has replied

  
Son Goku
Inactive Member


(2)
Message 30 of 289 (747721)
01-18-2015 8:54 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by Faith
01-18-2015 8:37 PM


Re: Crime and its punishment aren't the same thing
His role was to quell the Irish Rebellion as military leader for the government, that's what makes his action legal and a matter of justice. He was in the role of authority.
The military leader for an invading country's government, why to the average Irish person did that give him legal authority. They did not vote him in or select him, his authority had no precedence in Irish law.
If another country invaded the United States and directly contravened your laws, I assume you would view a rebellion by American citizens as illegal? Hence, I assume the American war of independence was illegal and unjust, yes?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Faith, posted 01-18-2015 8:37 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by jar, posted 01-18-2015 8:58 PM Son Goku has replied
 Message 32 by Faith, posted 01-18-2015 9:01 PM Son Goku has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024