Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 63 (9072 total)
58 online now:
candle2, PaulK, Percy (Admin) (3 members, 55 visitors)
Newest Member: FossilDiscovery
Post Volume: Total: 893,153 Year: 4,265/6,534 Month: 479/900 Week: 3/182 Day: 3/28 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   A measured look at a difficult situation
Tempe 12ft Chicken
Member (Idle past 1024 days)
Posts: 438
From: Tempe, Az.
Joined: 10-25-2012


Message 1 of 289 (747490)
01-15-2015 2:07 PM


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 Evangelicals

The People's Democracy March

Perhaps 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 here

Edited by Tempe 12ft Chicken, : No reason given.


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-end…the 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


  
Tempe 12ft Chicken
Member (Idle past 1024 days)
Posts: 438
From: Tempe, Az.
Joined: 10-25-2012


Message 2 of 289 (747497)
01-15-2015 2:20 PM


The comment that began the debate:
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.

Faith writes:

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.

Message 1017

The claims which stated that only Catholics were responsible for the violence in Ireland is what got me involved and my response followed in Message 1027

T12C writes:

What Catholic Lies Faith? That during the Great Potato Famine, there was enough food aside from potatoes to stave off many of the deaths from starvation that Irish Catholics suffered but that the Protestant English refused to share this food with Catholics, instead choosing to have some of it shipped and some of it even spoil in docked ships? Or is the Protestant system of taking land rights away from Irish Catholics for over a hundred years? What lies from the Catholics are you speaking of? While I don't agree with the IRA's resort to violence in the 1900's, the fact that they turned to violence does not negate the terrible things that were done to Irish Catholics by the Protestants for hundreds of years.

Faith 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:

Faith writes:

I agree that the potato famine was a horrible miscarriage of justice on the part of England against the Irish.

The lies concern who instigates the violence, and it's the IRA against the Protestants, always the Catholics in any such conflicts.

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 1033

T12C writes:

You are looking at only the origination of physical violence. And I would agree that the IRA made the first moves toward actually inflicting physical violence on their enemies. However, in addition to physical violence, there is violence that is more subtle, such as forcefully taking land from individuals, creating an unequal justice system, (With no land rights and the corn laws) forcing Irish farmers into a life of subsistence farming, and creating a wealth of absentee landowners so profits were funneled out of Ireland and into England. In addition to not providing for the poor during the famine and allowing a million Irish Catholics to die of starvation. Is it any surprise that the IRA resorted to violence to protect their rights after all of this? Again, I don't agree with the actions, but while the IRA (and Irish Catholics) may have started the physical violence when they decided that they had enough of being second class citizens, the main cause was the subtle violence the Protestant English had inflicted on them for several hundred years.

Faith, let's look at it from another perspective. Let's say in a hypothetical future America, a decision is made that Protestants can no longer purchase land, own land, run a small business or receive assistance when in desperate need from the majority/wealthy/land owners. A major crop failure occurs and the Protestants' crops are failing and the US government not only barely assists, but they tell other countries to not assist more (at risk of making them look bad) and let a million (or for accuracy 1/8 of the entire Protestant population of the US) die from starvation while the US government continues to export crops from the areas, while reducing assistance even more. If a Protestant uprising aimed at gaining rights back that were taken from the Protestants, would you support that movement? What if some members of the movement took a violent turn? Does that negate the needs of the basic freedoms that are being denied?

Edited by Tempe 12ft Chicken, : No reason given.


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-end…the 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


Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Tempe 12ft Chicken, posted 01-15-2015 2:44 PM Tempe 12ft Chicken has taken no action

  
Tempe 12ft Chicken
Member (Idle past 1024 days)
Posts: 438
From: Tempe, Az.
Joined: 10-25-2012


Message 3 of 289 (747505)
01-15-2015 2:44 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by Tempe 12ft Chicken
01-15-2015 2:20 PM


Re: The comment that began the debate:
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 1040

From 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.

Faith writes:

I'm reading this, Tempe, but I have to stop and object: I claim the violence is mostly, not exclusively but mostly, one-sided, Catholic against Protestant, and in any case always initiated by the Catholics, with which you agreed, while this article, like so many discussions one finds on this subject, obscures the actual causes, which has the effect of implying, no doubt falsely, that the conflicts are perpetrated more or less equally by both sides.

Here's an example:

Between 1968 and 1994, over 3,500 people died and over 35,000 were injured in Northern Ireland as a direct result of the fighting.

From what the pastor said in the sermon I linked the vast majority of these, possibly all of them, would have been Protestants, but the general statement implies something else, doesn't it? In fact the very term "fighting" implies a false view if these are Catholic attacks on Protestants.

Robberies, bombings, assassinations, and terror tactics spread to engulf Great Britain and the Irish Republic, greatly decreasing the common person's sense of security and impinging on the populace's personal freedom.

Of course, if these crimes were committed by Catholics, or predominantly by Catholics, and if the "common person" suffering the loss of a sense of security and freedom happened to be predominantly Protestant, we could never ascertain that from this description, could we?

I plan to go on reading, but would also point out that your post itself manages to imply that this is just a senseless religious conflict without any clear cause, but the fact is that drastic measures were taken by the Protestants against the Catholics for very good reason, whatever we think of the measures themselves. Bloody Mary had burned Protestants at the stake for simply being Protestants, in service to the Pope (whereas Protestant monarchs punished Catholics for actual treason against the crown), Catholics had plotted against Elizabeth 1, made twenty-something attempts to assassinate her, also plotted against James 1, requiring a small army of bodyguards for both monarchs, the attempts on James I including the Gunpowder Plot orchestrated by the Jesuits, which was aimed at blowing up Parliament along with the king. (abe: All this is in J A Wylie's History of Protestantism I think, I'll try to get to it to check it out. /abe)

I don't know what James II did to deserve being deposed besides convert to Catholicism, with which the people were thoroughly fed up by then, but I might guess that it wasn't that simple. In any case, there were REASONS Catholics were restricted, it wasn't just an irrational religious conflict but an actual matter of violent actions by Catholics against Protestants. it was recognized that Catholics would not live peaceably with Protestants but were always enacting the Inquisition against them.

There is also a popular piece of Catholic propaganda against Oliver Cromwell, for his suppression of the Irish, conveniently overlooking the fact that his mission was to stop the bloody attacks of the Catholics against the Protestants.

As long as you and others keep ignoring such causes it's hard to address the possible excesses of the Protestant or at least government reaction to them.

But I'll try to continue reading.

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:

Caffeine writes:

I'm reading this, Tempe, but I have to stop and object: I claim the violence is mostly, not exclusively but mostly, one-sided, Catholic against Protestant, and in any case always initiated by the Catholics, with which you agreed

Tempe may have agreed, but I can assure you with no reservations that this is nonsense. The first violence of the Troubles was Protestant. The IRA's campaign of violence ended in 1962. The terrorist bombing campaign of the Loyalist Protestant UVF began in 1966. The IRA at the time was following a policy of peaceful class struggle, and it was only in 1969 that frustrated members broke away to form the Provisional IRA and returned to sectarian violence.

From what the pastor said in the sermon I linked the vast majority of these, possibly all of them, would have been Protestants

Then what the pastor said was a lie. According to the data gathered by Malcolm Sutton (which you can see here), gathered from newspaper reports, coroner's records and other sources, the breakdown of all those who died in the Troubles between 1969 and 2001 is as follows:

Northern-Irish Catholic: 1,522
Northern-Irish Protestant: 1,288
Not Northern Irish: 722

and the breakdown of the organisations responsible:

Republican paramilitaries: 2,058
Loyalist paramilitaries: 1,027
British security services: 363
Irish security services: 5
Unknown: 79

My response to Faith was next:

T12C writes:

Faith writes:

I'm reading this, Tempe, but I have to stop and object: I claim the violence is mostly, not exclusively but mostly, one-sided, Catholic against Protestant, and in any case always initiated by the Catholics, with which you agreed, while this article, like so many discussions one finds on this subject, obscures the actual causes, which has the effect of implying, no doubt falsely, that the conflicts are perpetrated more or less equally by both sides.

Faith, I did not agree that the violence is always initiated by the Catholics. What I did agree to was that the IRA was responsible for terrorist attacks and more importantly to this point what I had read was that the IRA moved to violence in the Troubles first. Caffeine has said I was incorrect in this and I would be interested in reading more about the topic as I know I can never learn enough to understand something as complicated as the Troubles perfectly. I also did not agree that the violence was predominately committed by the Catholics, especially because I consider the behavior of the Protestant Parliament and the restrictive laws as a form of subtle violence (although instead of killing quickly, it kills hundreds of thousands at a slow pace).

Faith writes:

From what the pastor said in the sermon I linked the vast majority of these, possibly all of them, would have been Protestants, but the general statement implies something else, doesn't it? In fact the very term "fighting" implies a false view if these are Catholic attacks on Protestants.

And this is an obvious lie, as both sides were fighting against one another. The Northern Irish Protestants did not practice Gandhi's idea of non-violent resistance, after all. The Troubles affected both groups nearly equally according to the numbers that Caffeine just posted.

Faith writes:

Of course, if these crimes were committed by Catholics, or predominantly by Catholics, and if the "common person" suffering the loss of a sense of security and freedom happened to be predominantly Protestant, we could never ascertain that from this description, could we?

Those crimes were committed by both sides in a conflict for control of a country. The Protestants had subjugated the Irish Catholics for over four hundred years, do you honestly think they would let that power and control go without fighting back? Do you have any evidence (such as death records) to show that only Protestants died in the Troubles?

Faith writes:

I plan to go on reading, but would also point out that your post itself manages to imply that this is just a senseless religious conflict without any clear cause, but the fact is that drastic measures were taken by the Protestants against the Catholics for very good reason, whatever we think of the measures themselves. Bloody Mary had burned Protestants at the stake for simply being Protestants, in service to the Pope (whereas Protestant monarchs punished Catholics for actual treason against the crown), Catholics had plotted against Elizabeth 1, made twenty-something attempts to assassinate her, also plotted against James 1, requiring a small army of bodyguards for both monarchs, the attempts on James I including the Gunpowder Plot orchestrated by the Jesuits, which was aimed at blowing up Parliament along with the king. (abe: All this is in J A Wylie's History of Protestantism I think, I'll try to get to it to check it out. /abe)

And here is the biggest problem with your view on this topic and what got me involved in this thread. Yes, the Catholic Church was dangerous to Protestants and so you use the treatment during the Inquisition as justification for the treatment of Irish Catholics when Protestants took control from James II. However, the Protestants then went on a campaign of subtle, slow-killing violence against the Irish Catholics (Not the Catholic Church, but the Irish Catholic laypeople) and you refuse to see justification for why the IRA would react violently after the amount of suffering they had endured. If violence done to the people is your justification for Protestant treatment of Catholics, then why does this justification not follow suit for the violence done to the Irish Catholics? I don't agree with any of their decisions, not the original ones practiced by the Catholic Church during the inquisition, nor the laws implemented by the protestants to force Catholics into poverty and squalor, nor the violence committed by the IRA to gain freedoms back. However, I can honestly analyze the situation and see how each group was able to justify their reactions and gain traction. Your use of the Irish Troubles as an example of Catholics attacking Protestants ignores all of the history of the area and simply claims that the Protestants were right, so any violence against them was wrong. Again, if the Protestants were justified to subjugate their fellow human beings, then the IRA was justified in fighting for freedom.

Here is a question, If the Protestants were so angry at the Catholic Church, why did they not take these actions against the Vatican and their power, instead of taking it out on the poor Irish Catholic community, the laypeople. They don't control the stances the Church takes on issues, these answers come from Rome. Couldn't the Protestants have found another route to challenge Vatican authority without treating other humans as disposable? Couldn't they have worked to show how the groups could work together and send a much stronger message to Rome? Instead, they chose vengeance against those weaker than they. As they say, "An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind."

Use a hypothetical again, You are a member of a Protestant church during the Inquistion (this will allow you to see it from a viewpoint you agree with). The Catholic Church has continued a campaign against your people, bringing violence and death along with them. Would you feel justified in rising against this authority, possibly risking martyrdom, for the freedom to worship in the way of your forebearers? If so, then why do you consider the IRA unjustified? If not, then why are you okay with the treatment of the Irish Catholics for hundreds of years.

Then responded to Caffeine to clarify my position:

T12C writes:

Caffeine writes:

Tempe may have agreed, but I can assure you with no reservations that this is nonsense.

Hey Caffeine, just to clarify I had only agreed that the initial acts of terrorism were started by the IRA during the Troubles, but that is only from the things that I have read and could most assuredly be wrong. I would love to read more on the topic, if you would like to post some links, and make my viewpoint of this more in depth. My family history was around in Ireland until the Famine, so I'm always interested in learning more about that history, especially because we had left before the Troubles happened. I also consider the treatment of Irish Catholics by Protestants for hundreds of years as a form of subtle violence that forced them to living on meager rations and disallowed them any route to wealth or power. I also see their willful allowance of the Famine as an extreme form of violence, especially considering they denied assistance from other countries offering to help the Irish Catholics. This is willfully allowing people to die from starvation.

Caffeine writes:

The first violence of the Troubles was Protestant. The IRA's campaign of violence ended in 1962. The terrorist bombing campaign of the Loyalist Protestant UVF began in 1966. The IRA at the time was following a policy of peaceful class struggle, and it was only in 1969 that frustrated members broke away to form the Provisional IRA and returned to sectarian violence.

Could you post some links to this so that I can continue to read about the topic? Perhaps the information I have managed to find was contaminated with some bias that I could not perceive, so extra information will assist in clearing any misinformation I have received.

Caffeine writes:

Northern-Irish Catholic: 1,522
Northern-Irish Protestant: 1,288
Not Northern Irish: 722

Thank you for posting this! I knew that the violence was not completely committed by Catholics, but was having trouble locating the actual numbers. I would never have agreed with Faith's assertion that all the violence was committed by Catholics, especially considering that I see the subjugation of humans (in this case Catholics) as violence. I just wanted to clarify that I only agreed with Faith that the IRA had started the violence in the Troubles (which as you mentioned, I had tainted information on), but that if she justified the Protestant treatment of Catholics in Ireland, then the actions of the IRA were similarly justified from similar subjugation and ill treatment they suffered prior to the Troubles.

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 1066

Sorry 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?


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-end…the 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 2 by Tempe 12ft Chicken, posted 01-15-2015 2:20 PM Tempe 12ft Chicken has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by PaulK, posted 01-15-2015 2:53 PM Tempe 12ft Chicken has taken no action
 Message 5 by Faith, posted 01-15-2015 2:55 PM Tempe 12ft Chicken has taken no action
 Message 6 by Faith, posted 01-15-2015 2:57 PM Tempe 12ft Chicken has replied
 Message 12 by Faith, posted 01-15-2015 4:02 PM Tempe 12ft Chicken has taken no action

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17167
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 4 of 289 (747507)
01-15-2015 2:53 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Tempe 12ft Chicken
01-15-2015 2:44 PM


Re: The comment that began the debate:
A high profile example of a Protestant killing is the murder of Pat Finucane in 1989.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Tempe 12ft Chicken, posted 01-15-2015 2:44 PM Tempe 12ft Chicken has taken no action

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 678 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 5 of 289 (747509)
01-15-2015 2:55 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Tempe 12ft Chicken
01-15-2015 2:44 PM


Re: The comment that began the debate:
duplicate

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Tempe 12ft Chicken, posted 01-15-2015 2:44 PM Tempe 12ft Chicken has taken no action

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 678 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 6 of 289 (747510)
01-15-2015 2:57 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Tempe 12ft Chicken
01-15-2015 2:44 PM


Re: The comment that began the debate:
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.

Puhleeeze, Tempe, I haven't said anything to justify the effects of those restrictions, I'm just not yet taking your word for what happened. I've repeatedly said I might regard the restrictions as excessive but I haven't yet addressed that side of the story because of how it seems to me you keep denying that the Catholics did anything at all to provoke the restrictions, quite apart from their effect. Please get this much straight.

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?

Again I'm simply not buying your account of the story here, I still haven't been able to spend the time to study this as I would like to, and clearly what you are saying, again, simply denies the history of bloody Catholic actions against Protestants that provoked the restrictions, WHATEVER I MIGHT END UP THINKING OF THEM.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Tempe 12ft Chicken, posted 01-15-2015 2:44 PM Tempe 12ft Chicken has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by Tempe 12ft Chicken, posted 01-15-2015 3:10 PM Faith has replied

  
Tempe 12ft Chicken
Member (Idle past 1024 days)
Posts: 438
From: Tempe, Az.
Joined: 10-25-2012


Message 7 of 289 (747513)
01-15-2015 3:10 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Faith
01-15-2015 2:57 PM


Re: The comment that began the debate:
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:

An Act for the Relief of the Protestant Purchasers of the Forfeited Estates in Ireland writes:

Sec. 8: Such papist shall also be disabled to purchase any of the forfeited premises, and all estates and interests in the premises for the benefit of such person shall be void.

An Act for the Relief of the Protestant Purchasers of the Forfeited Estates in Ireland writes:

Sec. 16-17. All leases of any of the premises shall be made to protestants and none other, and any lease made to or in trust for any papist shall be void, and both the person making such lease and the person for whose benefit the lease shall be made, shall forfeit treble the yearly value of the lands, one half to her Majesty, the other half to such protestant who will sue for the same. Same proviso excepting cottages.

Both from 1702

An Act to prevent the further growth of Popery writes:

no papist shall be capable to receive any annuities chargeable on or affecting any lands etc., and all securities for such annuities as they affect lands of such papist, shall be void.

This one is from 1709

And then from 1745:

An Act for the more effectual preventing his majesty's subjects from entering into foreign service writes:

Sec. 1. Any subject of the kingdom of Ireland who shall, after the eighth day of October 1745, serve in the military of the King of France or Spain shall after the 25th day of March be disabled from holding or acquiring any lands or money or personal property or interest in the same, which real or personal estate may be sued for and recovered by any Protestant informer in the manner provided by the statute of 8 Anne c3.

And these are only a small selection of the laws that were put in place. Many more can be found at this location:
Source

Such as

Other British Laws regarding Papists writes:


Sec. 6. Every papist shall be disabled to purchase any lands, or any rents or profits of lands, or any lease of lands, other than for a term not exceeding 31 years, whereon a rent not less than two thirds of the improved yearly value, at the time of making such lease, shall be reserved during such term.

Sec. 7. No papist shall inherit or take any other interests in land owned by a Protestant, unless the papist shall conform to the protestant religion within six months of the time at which he would be entitled to said lands. But during the life of such papist the nearest protestant relation shall enjoy such land without being accountable for the profits, subject only to charges for the maintenance of the children of such disabled papist as the chancellor shall see fit to allow until they reach the age of 18.

Sec. 10. All lands owned by a papist, and not sold during his lifetime for valuable consideration, really and bona fide paid, shall descend in gavelkind, that is to all of his sons, share and share alike, and not to the eldest son only, and lacking sons, to all his daughters, and lacking issue, to all kin of the papist's father in equal degree, etc.; notwithstanding any grant, settlement or disposition made by such papist, by will or otherwise, subject however to all debts and incumbrances charging such estate.

Sec. 12. If the eldest son or heir at law of a papist be a protestant at the time of the decease of such papist, the lands of the papist shall descend to that eldest son or heir at law according to the rules of the common law, provided that the bishop's certificate of his being protestant be enrolled within 3 months after the decease of such papist,
And if that eldest son or heir at law become a protestant within one year after the decease of such papist, he shall be entitled to the real estate of such papist, as he might have done had he been a protestant at the time of such papist's decease.
And the estate shall be chargeable with such sums for the maintenance and portions of the daughters and younger sons of such papist as the court of chancery shall appoint, not to exceed the value of one third of the estate. (Notice the specification that to receive inheritance the child must be, or become, Protestant)

Sec. 30. Any protestant may prefer a bill in the court of chancery or exchequer against any persons concerned in the sale, lease, mortgage, or incumbrance of lands to papists, or in trust for papists, and to compel such person to discover such trusts and to answer all matters relating thereto to which bill no plea or demurrer shall be allowed, but the defendant shall answer the same under oath, which answer shall be good evidence against such defendant.
And all issues to be tried under this Act shall be tried by none but known protestants.

Would you like me to keep going?


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-end…the 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 6 by Faith, posted 01-15-2015 2:57 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by Faith, posted 01-15-2015 3:15 PM Tempe 12ft Chicken has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 678 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 8 of 289 (747514)
01-15-2015 3:15 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by Tempe 12ft Chicken
01-15-2015 3:10 PM


Re: The comment that began the debate:
Thanks for spelling all that out. I've saved it. There is too much to take in, you know, that will take time.

But you want me to take a position on the laws against the Catholics when it hasn't really been acknowledged that they deserved severe treatment. SEVERE. I will eventually get to whether or not the severity that actually occurred was excessive. It may well have been, but I continue to believe that the actual evils perpetrated by the Catholics have not been appreciated.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Tempe 12ft Chicken, posted 01-15-2015 3:10 PM Tempe 12ft Chicken has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by Faith, posted 01-15-2015 3:22 PM Faith has taken no action
 Message 10 by Tempe 12ft Chicken, posted 01-15-2015 3:32 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 678 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 9 of 289 (747516)
01-15-2015 3:22 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Faith
01-15-2015 3:15 PM


Re: The comment that began the debate:
This thread is premature for me. The other discussion was too. I need to stay off it until I have more information.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Faith, posted 01-15-2015 3:15 PM Faith has taken no action

  
Tempe 12ft Chicken
Member (Idle past 1024 days)
Posts: 438
From: Tempe, Az.
Joined: 10-25-2012


Message 10 of 289 (747518)
01-15-2015 3:32 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Faith
01-15-2015 3:15 PM


Re: The comment that began the debate:
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 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-end…the 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 8 by Faith, posted 01-15-2015 3:15 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Faith, posted 01-15-2015 3:42 PM Tempe 12ft Chicken has taken no action

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 678 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 11 of 289 (747520)
01-15-2015 3:42 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by Tempe 12ft Chicken
01-15-2015 3:32 PM


Re: The comment that began the debate:
I'm not for vengeance and I don't accept the idea that the restrictions were vengeance, they were necessary prevention, very likely done to great excess and with unintended consequences, that's my best guess at the moment but all I have is YOUR sources and YOUR analysis. Got to stay off this thread until I have other sources of information.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Tempe 12ft Chicken, posted 01-15-2015 3:32 PM Tempe 12ft Chicken has taken no action

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 678 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 12 of 289 (747527)
01-15-2015 4:02 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Tempe 12ft Chicken
01-15-2015 2:44 PM


Re: The comment that began the debate:
It's hard to research all this because Catholic propaganda is everywhere. They do their job effectively. Here's an example from the Washington Post that gives the Catholic propaganda about the Cromwell incident, obviously just some kind of unprovoked viciousness on Cromwell's part. Oh far be it from those nice Catholics to have committed the atrocities that Cromwell was sent to put down.

It does trace the "Troubles" back a very long way, however, just heavily slanted.

I'll let you know if I find anything I can regard as an objective account of the history.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Tempe 12ft Chicken, posted 01-15-2015 2:44 PM Tempe 12ft Chicken has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by Theodoric, posted 01-15-2015 4:29 PM Faith has replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 7309
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.0


(2)
Message 13 of 289 (747530)
01-15-2015 4:29 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by Faith
01-15-2015 4:02 PM


Re: The comment that began the debate:
Please tell us what provoked Cromwell to massacre people in Drogheda and Wexford. What was the provocation that made Cromwell responsible for the deaths of almost 50% of the Irish population?

Why is the Washington Post biased? Because it does not agree with what you want to be the truth? If you cannot find any sources to back up your claims it may be that your claims are not valid. To claim it is because of Catholic propaganda is delusional and I would say probably a sing of some mental health issues.

Please give list of atrocities that make it ok for a christian to order a massacre.


Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Faith, posted 01-15-2015 4:02 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Faith, posted 01-15-2015 7:23 PM Theodoric has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 678 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 14 of 289 (747539)
01-15-2015 7:23 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by Theodoric
01-15-2015 4:29 PM


Re: The comment that began the debate:
The W Post treats the whole history as a matter of English aggression.

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.

HERE is an account of Cromwell's attack on Drogheda which seems more objective than most, concluding that it wasn't a great massacre as it had been reputed to be.

This story in the Guardian about the recent release of 6depositions on the 1641 uprising is also interesting.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Theodoric, posted 01-15-2015 4:29 PM Theodoric has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by Theodoric, posted 01-15-2015 10:23 PM Faith has replied
 Message 24 by Tempe 12ft Chicken, posted 01-16-2015 9:35 AM Faith has replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 7309
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 15 of 289 (747547)
01-15-2015 10:23 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Faith
01-15-2015 7:23 PM


Re: The comment that began the debate:
You did not address my post. Here it is again.
me writes:

Please tell us what provoked Cromwell to massacre people in Drogheda and Wexford. What was the provocation that made Cromwell responsible for the deaths of almost 50% of the Irish population?

Why is the Washington Post biased? Because it does not agree with what you want to be the truth? If you cannot find any sources to back up your claims it may be that your claims are not valid. To claim it is because of Catholic propaganda is delusional and I would say probably a sing of some mental health issues.

Please give list of atrocities that make it ok for a christian to order a massacre.


Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.


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 16 by Faith, posted 01-15-2015 11:55 PM Theodoric has taken no action

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022