"shocking reminder of the evils of sectarianism"

[Darat]

"shocking reminder of the evils of sectarianism"


The words of Irish Prime Minister Bertie Ahern after the murder of a Catholic young man at the hands of Protestants youths.

See:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/4752571.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/4752969.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/4760251.stm

My revulsion at people who use their religion as an excuse to kill others is increased when politicians like Ian Paisley (http://www.ianpaisley.org/main.asp) who have for decades promoted sectarianism and their own evil religious bigotry then have the hypocrisy to condemn these types of killings.

People like Ian Paisley at at least partially responsible for creating the environment these youths grew up in; an environment that said it was OK and in fact their religious duty to condemn people who say "amen" at a different point in their services.

:(

[David Swidler]

And what if he "saw the light" and recognized his errors? Is he not permitted to encourage others to do the same?

[Darat]

And what if he "saw the light" and recognized his errors? Is he not permitted to encourage others to do the same?

Who "he"?

[David Swidler]

Ian Paisley, for example. Or does he still promote violence when I'm not looking?

[Rolfe]

Ian Paisley recognising that he ever made any error? Is that a pig I see in a holding pattern over Gatwick?

My main concern is the constant association between this sort of behaviour and religion. Of course the association is obvious, but this is usually if not always the crystallisation of cultural and tribal enmities rather than a dispute based on genuine matters of faith.

I was brought up in a very sectarian environment, with "Catholic" being almost a bad word. I couldn't understand it at all, after all, Catholics were Christians like us, but with some differences in belief, no? Cue parental rant about how we were the tolerant ones, but it was them who wouldn't admit us to communion and so on. Well, so what, I thought, what's to fight about?

It was only as I grew up that I began to understand the complexities. In the north of Scotland, where there are indigenous populations of Scots Catholics, these problems simply don't surface. Everyone gets along fine. But in the south-west, the story is different. During the potato famine, large numbers of Irish economic migrants arrived to add further to the economic woes of the local population, who were also affected. Since they were even more desperate than the locals, they were able to undercut them for what work there was. Bitter resentment. So much so that even now, the Irish surnames and Catholic faith of the descendants of these people is enough to mark them as resented outsiders. No longer is there economic competition or threat, but the tribal memory maintains the enmity.

In Ireland, the north was a deliberate "plantation" of mainland Brits, mainly protestants from the south of Scotland, put there as a deliberate ploy to legitimise a claim to the land and the country. After all, if these people live there and they vote to be part of the UK, then that's democracy, right? In a way it's the opposite situation, with the interlopers being the Scots protestants, but they had official backing, and were so successful, that it's not that simple and again the Catholics in that area come under pressure.

I think if you look at many of these apparently sectarian disputes, they come down to a similar situation. Two different tribal groups occupying one bit of land, and often each trying to claim that bit of land as theirs (though that last doesn't apply in the case of south-west Scotland). Religious affiliation is fundamentally just the easiest way to identify the combatants. And of course some deep-fried lunatic clerics become part of it and drag the religion in deeper instead of denouncing the politics.

I wonder about Iraq, though. Is the Shia/Sunni thing entirely religious, or does that also involve territorial ambitions?

Rolfe.

[Darat]

Ian Paisley, for example. Or does he still promote violence when I'm not looking?

As far as I am aware since his last chat with Noah about some work needed to be done on the ark the "Rev" Paisley has not changed his mind about anything. ;)

[Mojo]

And what if he "saw the light" and recognized his errors? I'd need to see some pretty extraordinary evidence of that.

[David Swidler]

OK, bad example. The OP just got me wondering about the credibility of people who reverse course.

[Jaggy Bunnet]

It was only as I grew up that I began to understand the complexities. In the north of Scotland, where there are indigenous populations of Scots Catholics, these problems simply don't surface. Everyone gets along fine.

Apart from the Wee Frees. And the Wee Wee Frees.

For the Wee Wee Frees, going to a Catholic funeral is an excommunicable offence (leading to a split in the church). And suggesting including music other than psalms in their services is heresy (leading to a split in the church).

About the only good thing about them is they spend so much time on infighting and splitting that they have little time to annoy anyone else.

At the rate they are going it won't be long until they have a church each and then they will be really unhappy as they have nobody left to argue with.

[Belz...]

Woah... I read "Secretarianism".

I mean, damn those secretaries, right ?

Ugh. Must. Rest. Eyes.

[luchog]

I wonder about Iraq, though. Is the Shia/Sunni thing entirely religious, or does that also involve territorial ambitions?
It's fairly strictly religious; and is a schism nearly as old as Islam. It's based on the dispute over the "true" successor to Mohammed, and therefore the representative of Allah on earth. When Mohammed died, there was an immediate and bloody fight over the succession (which is historically very typical for the Middle East, particularly among Arabic tribes); and the supporters of each faction split off into two apparently irreconcilable sects. The Shi'a supported Ali ibn Abi Talib, Muhammed's cousin/son-in-law, as the head of the Islamic faith, while the Sunni accepted only Muhammad.

Other sects, such as the Sufis and Ishma'ilis split off later.

[a_unique_person]

I wonder about Iraq, though. Is the Shia/Sunni thing entirely religious, or does that also involve territorial ambitions?

Rolfe.

There is a lot of oil in Iraq, but not in all of Iraq.

[a_unique_person]

And what if he "saw the light" and recognized his errors? Is he not permitted to encourage others to do the same?
You must be thinking of another Ian Paisly.

[gnome]

See, it's not Sectarianism that's wrong, it's belonging to the wrong sect :P

[Elind]

People like Ian Paisley at at least partially responsible for creating the environment these youths grew up in; an environment that said it was OK and in fact their religious duty to condemn people who say "amen" at a different point in their services.

:(

Not that I disagree with you, but I'm kind of surprised to hear you say this, with such conviction directed at "Christians" and "Amen", when I recall some time ago you were of the opinion that similar or worse crimes had nothing to do with "Muslims" or "Allah U Akbar", to use the equivalent words.

Do I take it that you actually ascribe some such behaviours to deriving directly from religion, as opposed to a political label with some vague connection to a religious past?

[a_unique_person]

Although nominally Catholic vs Protestant, it is more about the remnants of a Nationalist dispute, in which one side happened to be Cathlolic, and the other Protestant. Religion is certainly how they are identified, but it's about the descendents of English Colonialism and Irish natives.

[rocketdodger]

There is a lot of oil in Iraq, but not in all of Iraq.

The people of arab nations wouldn't even know about that oil, never mind be able to get at it, if not for the industry of the west.

I have no doubt that OUR foreign policy in the middle east has alot to do with oil, but I don't think THEIR in-house feuds have much to do with it.

(this isn't a disagreement with AUP, I just wanted to continue from where that quote left off).

[Darat]

Not that I disagree with you, but I'm kind of surprised to hear you say this, with such conviction directed at "Christians" and "Amen", when I recall some time ago you were of the opinion that similar or worse crimes had nothing to do with "Muslims" or "Allah U Akbar", to use the equivalent words.

...snip...


You must be be mistaking me with someone else.

[Rolfe]

Apart from the Wee Frees. And the Wee Wee Frees.

For the Wee Wee Frees, going to a Catholic funeral is an excommunicable offence (leading to a split in the church). And suggesting including music other than psalms in their services is heresy (leading to a split in the church).

About the only good thing about them is they spend so much time on infighting and splitting that they have little time to annoy anyone else.

At the rate they are going it won't be long until they have a church each and then they will be really unhappy as they have nobody left to argue with.Well, that's true. I'd forgotten about that particular brand of whackjob, which is indeed entirely religious and not a tribal/territorial thing at all.

For the most part, as far as ireland and south-west Scotland is concerned, AUP is entirely correct however.Although nominally Catholic vs Protestant, it is more about the remnants of a Nationalist dispute, in which one side happened to be Cathlolic, and the other Protestant. Religion is certainly how they are identified, but it's about the descendents of English Colonialism and Irish natives.Except that the English colonialism utilised a lot of Scots colonists, and then the potato famine bit back-exported it back to Scotland.

Rolfe.

[Elind]

You must be be mistaking me with someone else.

Moi?? Toi?? Jamais.:cool:

Nice sidestep though.

[Darat]

Moi?? Toi?? Jamais.:cool:

Nice sidestep though.

Side step of what? You stated some opinions that I have never said so I just assumed you were confusing me with someone else. I can hardly be said to be side stepping someone else's opinions.

[Elind]

Side step of what? You stated some opinions that I have never said so I just assumed you were confusing me with someone else. I can hardly be said to be side stepping someone else's opinions.

Don't worry. I have trouble remembering everything I've said here too, but we haven't had all that many direct exchanges, so in this case I'll stick with my version of memory, and just say that you still sidestep the original question.

[Darat]

Don't worry. I have trouble remembering everything I've said here too, but we haven't had all that many direct exchanges, so in this case I'll stick with my version of memory, and just say that you still sidestep the original question.

It is not a matter of whose memory is correct.

It's a matter of you after being challenged providing any evidence for your claim.

As for the question in your original post - my OP answers it.

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Not that I disagree with you, but I'm kind of surprised to hear you say this, with such conviction directed at "Christians" and "Amen", when I recall some time ago you were of the opinion that similar or worse crimes had nothing to do with "Muslims" or "Allah U Akbar", to use the equivalent words.

Do I take it that you actually ascribe some such behaviours to deriving directly from religion, as opposed to a political label with some vague connection to a religious past?

There is a huge difference between using the generic phrase "Christians" or "Muslims" and identifying a specific individual who uses religion as a basis to divide communities and promote hatred. Implying that the opening post is directed at "Christians" generally is grossly inaccurate.

[Elind]

There is a huge difference between using the generic phrase "Christians" or "Muslims" and identifying a specific individual who uses religion as a basis to divide communities and promote hatred. Implying that the opening post is directed at "Christians" generally is grossly inaccurate.

:sigh: My question was "Do I take it that you actually ascribe some such behaviours to deriving directly from religion, as opposed to a political label with some vague connection to a religious past?"

Can you reconcile that with your post? Can you find an answer in that regard from Darat?

Spin lives, not only on Fox.

[Elind]

It is not a matter of whose memory is correct.

It's a matter of you after being challenged providing any evidence for your claim.

As for the question in your original post - my OP answers it.

"Do I take it that you actually ascribe some such behaviours to deriving directly from religion, as opposed to a political label with some vague connection to a religious past?"

Perhaps I don't understand the language well enough. Humor me. Please. It's a simple question with a simple potential answer. Why be so coy?:o

[Darat]

"Do I take it that you actually ascribe some such behaviours to deriving directly from religion, as opposed to a political label with some vague connection to a religious past?"

Perhaps I don't understand the language well enough. Humor me. Please. It's a simple question with a simple potential answer. Why be so coy?:o

Actually your question is not that clear however the part in my OP that I think answers it is:

People like Ian Paisley at at least partially responsible for creating the environment these youths grew up in; an environment that said it was OK and in fact their religious duty to condemn people who say "amen" at a different point in their services.

[Jaggy Bunnet]

:sigh: My question was "Do I take it that you actually ascribe some such behaviours to deriving directly from religion, as opposed to a political label with some vague connection to a religious past?"

Can you reconcile that with your post? Can you find an answer in that regard from Darat?

Spin lives, not only on Fox.


I can reconcile it entirely. Your question is based on an inaccurate premise - i.e. that Darat ascribes such behaviours to religion. If you read the post, specifically the bit that he has quoted for you in case you were finding it difficult to locate, it is crystal clear that he is blaming a specific individual (Paisley) and others who adopt similar behaviours (teaching people to hate those of different religions). Your assumption that this is an attack on all Christians or all religions is simply not justified by what was posted.

The only person spinning in this thread is you, trying to suggest that a thoroughly justified criticism of a truly odious individual based on his behaviour is evidence of hostility to religion as a whole. Of course if you disagree you will be able to provide evidence of how the opening post was "directed at "Christians"and "Amen"" as opposed to directed at the person who was specifically named, won't you? I wait with baited breath.....

[Rolfe]

Er, I'm a Christian, and I agreed wholeheartedly with every word of Darat's opening post. And then some.

Rolfe.