Anthony McIntyre's Blog, page 1137
June 14, 2018
Annex Or Answers?
Brian Horner looks at the challenges posed to the DUP.
Since the DUP endorsed Brexit it has been something of slippery slope for them, despite them telling us otherwise.
The DUP have successfully ensured that the limelight is fully on them in Britain. They done this by locking down a supply and demand deal with the Conservative Party, a deal they have said will bring untold fortune to Northern Ireland.
The British Government have committed an extra £1bn to NI, over a two-year period, and have also said that they will give the Executive a bigger say on £500m is allocated; all in exchange for he DUPs 10 MPs voting with the government on a “case by case” basis.
The deal between the DUP and Conservatives is one that opposition parties don’t support on the basis that Ms May would rather pay to stay in power than help a fledging NHS and schools:
The former permanent secretary to the Treasury, Nick Macpherson ttweeted: “DUP will be back for more ... again and again. They have previous in such matters.”
The Labour first minister of Wales, Carwyn Jones, called the agreement outrageous, describing it as a “straight bung to keep a weak prime minister and a faltering government in office”.
The SNP leader, Nicola Sturgeon, expressed anger that the money was being paid outside the Barnett formula, which is designed to distribute funds fairly between devolved nations:
This £1bn is currently with the Treasury and Parliament haven’t voted on its allocation, so this raises the question for many: When will this money be timetabled for allocation and will it be released during PM Mays tenure? A question the DUP cannot answer, but they continually echo deputy leader Nigel Dodds MP, when he says that outrage at the deal was “hypocrisy of the highest order”, saying the deal would deliver for all the people of the Northern Ireland – and the United Kingdom.
The argument continues that the Conservative government has found a way of making sure the payment to the DUP isn’t ‘Barnettable’ – as described by Gina Miller.
Even before the extra cash given to Northern Ireland, the province was already benefiting from £11,000 public spending per head of population, compared to just £8,800 for England – how is this fair? A question I posed to the DUP via email, but haven’t received a reply.
The questions for the DUP don’t end with their supply and demand deal, the most prevalent at home at present is their views on abortion and the pressure the vote in the Republic of Ireland when the public voted to repeal the Eighth Amendment of the Constitution Act 1983 amended the Constitution of Ireland by inserting a subsection recognising the equal right to life of the pregnant woman and the unborn.
Abortion in Northern Ireland is being blocked by Theresa May’s deal with the DUP, Sinn Féin’s leader, Michelle O’Neill, claims, blaming the party’s confidence deal with the Conservatives for holding back women’s rights.
After meeting the Northern Ireland secretary, Karen Bradley, Ms O’Neill said she was convinced the government was unwilling to move on the issue because of the deal with the Democratic Unionists, whose MPs support May’s minority government.
Ms O’Neill's comments come as the supreme court narrowly dismissed a legal challenge to Northern Ireland’s tough abortion laws, saying there was no jurisdiction to consider the latest case because there was no actual or potential victim of an unlawful act involved in it.
A majority of judges, however, added that Northern Ireland’s abortion law was incompatible with the right to respect for private and family life as guaranteed by the European convention on human rights.
Many argue that he DUP are increasingly at odds with society on issues such as abortion and their opposition to same sex marriage. These arguments are not coming from opponents, but editors of newspapers such as The Newsletters Editor, Ben Lowry.
Mr Lowry argues that the DUP is out of step with the electorate for two reasons:
1 – DUP vote is more varied than it ever was (debateable)
2 - Society is becoming more liberal than the DUP can keep up with
DUP have also had its elected members, Jim Wells, refer to woman who get abortions as Nazis on the BBC Nolan Show. Sammy Wilson commenting in the HoC that outrageous claim that, without abortion laws, these children would have been: “Discarded and put in a bin before they were ever born” – PR disasters, a continuing theme for the DUP when it comes to societal issues, it seems.
Theresa May has praised "the Irish people" for the success of the Repeal the Eighth campaign, yet the Prime Minister is currently in a difficult situation as she strategically needs to maintain the DUP's support.
Any speculation that the Republic's victory would lead to a reconsideration of values by Northern Ireland was dispelled in another speech by Arlene Foster after the constitutional amendment, in which she condemned campaigners taking to the streets in celebration. Foster declared:
A change from Ms Fosters view in when in the UUP when she stated that Ireland’s stance on abortion as “downright insulting” to women, calling the country’s constitution “an archaic crutch to the Roman Catholic church.” No more “Home Rule is Rome Rule”
Sinn Fein’s leaders held up a sign at Dublin Castle reading ‘The North Is Next’, while in London, female ministers put pressure on Theresa May to demonstrate her feminist credentials by backing reform.
Westminster could legislate in the absence of the Northern Ireland Assembly, but this would undermine the Good Friday Agreement as much as the Brexit most of us voted to avoid in NI.
The party now finds itself in familiar hypocritical territory: threatening to self-implode if it doesn't get the same Brexit treatment as the rest of Britain, while simultaneously relishing its divergence on basic rights like same sex marriage and abortion.
The DUP have also another elephant in the room; working class Loyalism and their failure to work in their favour, despite promising them the moon and the stars during the last election.
It has been argued that the DUP have used jingoism to retain their position of power, but used the working class to ensure that their (slim) lead is retained, but this is now being challenged more and more on social media and within working groups.
Currently there is a vein of Loyalism who want to move break the stereotype that exists when working class loyalism is referred to. At present he Mitchell Peace Institute a Queens University are facilitating discussions that are allowing Republicanism and Loyalism discuss what the working a working class voice needs and how representation can be facilitated regarding social issues; at the core of some thinking is that he DUP need to earn their vote from Loyalism, not just assume that it will be given. Loyalism is asking the mature question: “What’s in it for our community?”
Then we come to Brexit. The DUP have issued all sorts of warnings over Brexit, but have failed to give any assurances on the ongoing issue.
Most recently Arlene Foster has reiterated her red-line that:
Michel Barnier responded:
Without labouring the point, DUP have only one position on Brexit; They don’t want a hard border, but are unsure on how to express their position, without alienating themselves with the British public. Again. They have jumped inboard the May Ship and have total disregard for NI and the impact a Brexit will have on its people and ultimately, the Union.
We then come to the situation of Irish reunification. The DUP leader has said she will leave the country if there is a united Ireland. In other words, she wouldn’t accept democracy via a border poll, which her predecessor Peter Robinson is in favour of (despite wanting to change he goalposts of the GFA to a “majority of one”), much to the dismay of many unionists.
The DUP have helped keep the deepening conversation of Irish reunification alive by pushing their closed agenda in Britain and in turn exposing their fault lines and what they oppose and why. One journalist on Twitter questioned why the treasury wont publish the exact money given to NI and wouldn’t this money be better divided between “the entire UK”
DUP must take heed of census figures in 2011 showing a narrowing gap between the two main religions in NI, putting the Protestant population at 48%, just 3% ahead of the Catholic one (45%).
Figures from 2016 show that among those of working age, 44% are now Catholic and 40% Protestant.
The difference is even more marked among schoolchildren, with 51% Catholic and 37% Protestant.
Only among the over-60s is there a majority of Protestants, with 57% compared to Catholics on 35%.
Ironically, three years from now we will end up on the centenary of the NI state, where we actually have a state that has a Catholic majority; Will the SoS call for a border poll in 2021 if the majority want it?
Overall, societal questions exist for the DUP to answer on Brexit, working class Loyalism, the supply and demand timetable and issues such as same sex marriage and abortion issues and a border poll; These questions aren’t going away, and as society moves on, will the DUP continue to annex itself from us or give us answers?
Brian Horner has a background in the education sector and is now retired in the Portstewart area.
Follow Brian Horner on Twitter @OtherBench
Since the DUP endorsed Brexit it has been something of slippery slope for them, despite them telling us otherwise.
The DUP have successfully ensured that the limelight is fully on them in Britain. They done this by locking down a supply and demand deal with the Conservative Party, a deal they have said will bring untold fortune to Northern Ireland.
The British Government have committed an extra £1bn to NI, over a two-year period, and have also said that they will give the Executive a bigger say on £500m is allocated; all in exchange for he DUPs 10 MPs voting with the government on a “case by case” basis.
The deal between the DUP and Conservatives is one that opposition parties don’t support on the basis that Ms May would rather pay to stay in power than help a fledging NHS and schools:
While our schools are crumbling and our NHS is in crisis, Theresa May chooses to throw cash at 10 MPs in an attempt to keep her place in Number 10 – Tim Farron, Liberal Democrat Leader.
The former permanent secretary to the Treasury, Nick Macpherson ttweeted: “DUP will be back for more ... again and again. They have previous in such matters.”
The Labour first minister of Wales, Carwyn Jones, called the agreement outrageous, describing it as a “straight bung to keep a weak prime minister and a faltering government in office”.
The SNP leader, Nicola Sturgeon, expressed anger that the money was being paid outside the Barnett formula, which is designed to distribute funds fairly between devolved nations:
In concluding this grubby, shameless deal the Tories have shown that they will stop at nothing to hold on to power – even sacrificing the very basic principles of devolution.
This £1bn is currently with the Treasury and Parliament haven’t voted on its allocation, so this raises the question for many: When will this money be timetabled for allocation and will it be released during PM Mays tenure? A question the DUP cannot answer, but they continually echo deputy leader Nigel Dodds MP, when he says that outrage at the deal was “hypocrisy of the highest order”, saying the deal would deliver for all the people of the Northern Ireland – and the United Kingdom.
The argument continues that the Conservative government has found a way of making sure the payment to the DUP isn’t ‘Barnettable’ – as described by Gina Miller.
Even before the extra cash given to Northern Ireland, the province was already benefiting from £11,000 public spending per head of population, compared to just £8,800 for England – how is this fair? A question I posed to the DUP via email, but haven’t received a reply.
The questions for the DUP don’t end with their supply and demand deal, the most prevalent at home at present is their views on abortion and the pressure the vote in the Republic of Ireland when the public voted to repeal the Eighth Amendment of the Constitution Act 1983 amended the Constitution of Ireland by inserting a subsection recognising the equal right to life of the pregnant woman and the unborn.
Abortion in Northern Ireland is being blocked by Theresa May’s deal with the DUP, Sinn Féin’s leader, Michelle O’Neill, claims, blaming the party’s confidence deal with the Conservatives for holding back women’s rights.
After meeting the Northern Ireland secretary, Karen Bradley, Ms O’Neill said she was convinced the government was unwilling to move on the issue because of the deal with the Democratic Unionists, whose MPs support May’s minority government.
Ms O’Neill's comments come as the supreme court narrowly dismissed a legal challenge to Northern Ireland’s tough abortion laws, saying there was no jurisdiction to consider the latest case because there was no actual or potential victim of an unlawful act involved in it.
A majority of judges, however, added that Northern Ireland’s abortion law was incompatible with the right to respect for private and family life as guaranteed by the European convention on human rights.
Many argue that he DUP are increasingly at odds with society on issues such as abortion and their opposition to same sex marriage. These arguments are not coming from opponents, but editors of newspapers such as The Newsletters Editor, Ben Lowry.
Mr Lowry argues that the DUP is out of step with the electorate for two reasons:
1 – DUP vote is more varied than it ever was (debateable)
2 - Society is becoming more liberal than the DUP can keep up with
DUP have also had its elected members, Jim Wells, refer to woman who get abortions as Nazis on the BBC Nolan Show. Sammy Wilson commenting in the HoC that outrageous claim that, without abortion laws, these children would have been: “Discarded and put in a bin before they were ever born” – PR disasters, a continuing theme for the DUP when it comes to societal issues, it seems.
Theresa May has praised "the Irish people" for the success of the Repeal the Eighth campaign, yet the Prime Minister is currently in a difficult situation as she strategically needs to maintain the DUP's support.
Any speculation that the Republic's victory would lead to a reconsideration of values by Northern Ireland was dispelled in another speech by Arlene Foster after the constitutional amendment, in which she condemned campaigners taking to the streets in celebration. Foster declared:
The DUP is a pro-life party and we will continue to articulate our position. Abortion is an extremely sensitive issue, and not one that should have people taking to the streets in celebration.
A change from Ms Fosters view in when in the UUP when she stated that Ireland’s stance on abortion as “downright insulting” to women, calling the country’s constitution “an archaic crutch to the Roman Catholic church.” No more “Home Rule is Rome Rule”
Sinn Fein’s leaders held up a sign at Dublin Castle reading ‘The North Is Next’, while in London, female ministers put pressure on Theresa May to demonstrate her feminist credentials by backing reform.
Westminster could legislate in the absence of the Northern Ireland Assembly, but this would undermine the Good Friday Agreement as much as the Brexit most of us voted to avoid in NI.
The party now finds itself in familiar hypocritical territory: threatening to self-implode if it doesn't get the same Brexit treatment as the rest of Britain, while simultaneously relishing its divergence on basic rights like same sex marriage and abortion.
The DUP have also another elephant in the room; working class Loyalism and their failure to work in their favour, despite promising them the moon and the stars during the last election.
It has been argued that the DUP have used jingoism to retain their position of power, but used the working class to ensure that their (slim) lead is retained, but this is now being challenged more and more on social media and within working groups.
Currently there is a vein of Loyalism who want to move break the stereotype that exists when working class loyalism is referred to. At present he Mitchell Peace Institute a Queens University are facilitating discussions that are allowing Republicanism and Loyalism discuss what the working a working class voice needs and how representation can be facilitated regarding social issues; at the core of some thinking is that he DUP need to earn their vote from Loyalism, not just assume that it will be given. Loyalism is asking the mature question: “What’s in it for our community?”
Then we come to Brexit. The DUP have issued all sorts of warnings over Brexit, but have failed to give any assurances on the ongoing issue.
Most recently Arlene Foster has reiterated her red-line that:
No Prime Minister could ever agree to any arrangement which would threaten the economic and constitutional integrity of the United Kingdom.
Michel Barnier responded:
it would not be feasible to extend the European Commission's backstop plan - under which Northern Ireland would remain part of the EU customs union after Brexit - to include the whole of the United Kingdom.
Without labouring the point, DUP have only one position on Brexit; They don’t want a hard border, but are unsure on how to express their position, without alienating themselves with the British public. Again. They have jumped inboard the May Ship and have total disregard for NI and the impact a Brexit will have on its people and ultimately, the Union.
We then come to the situation of Irish reunification. The DUP leader has said she will leave the country if there is a united Ireland. In other words, she wouldn’t accept democracy via a border poll, which her predecessor Peter Robinson is in favour of (despite wanting to change he goalposts of the GFA to a “majority of one”), much to the dismay of many unionists.
The DUP have helped keep the deepening conversation of Irish reunification alive by pushing their closed agenda in Britain and in turn exposing their fault lines and what they oppose and why. One journalist on Twitter questioned why the treasury wont publish the exact money given to NI and wouldn’t this money be better divided between “the entire UK”
DUP must take heed of census figures in 2011 showing a narrowing gap between the two main religions in NI, putting the Protestant population at 48%, just 3% ahead of the Catholic one (45%).
Figures from 2016 show that among those of working age, 44% are now Catholic and 40% Protestant.
The difference is even more marked among schoolchildren, with 51% Catholic and 37% Protestant.
Only among the over-60s is there a majority of Protestants, with 57% compared to Catholics on 35%.
Ironically, three years from now we will end up on the centenary of the NI state, where we actually have a state that has a Catholic majority; Will the SoS call for a border poll in 2021 if the majority want it?
Overall, societal questions exist for the DUP to answer on Brexit, working class Loyalism, the supply and demand timetable and issues such as same sex marriage and abortion issues and a border poll; These questions aren’t going away, and as society moves on, will the DUP continue to annex itself from us or give us answers?
Brian Horner has a background in the education sector and is now retired in the Portstewart area.
Follow Brian Horner on Twitter @OtherBench
June 13, 2018
Ireland 1981, Ukraine 2018: Support The Political Prisoners
From People And Nature. the Ukrainian film maker Oleg Sentsov, unjustly imprisoned in Russia, is going into the fifth week of a hunger strike, demanding the release of all Ukrainian political prisoners in Russia. Anthony McIntyre, a former Irish political prisoner, explains in this interview why he supports this demand. Gabriel Levy: What’s your view of the international campaign, taking place in the run-up to the World Cup finals, to draw attention to the Ukrainian political prisoners in Russia and to demand their release?
Anthony McIntyre: It resonates with the human rights campaigning ahead of the World Cup final in Argentina back in 1978. The military junta under Jorge Videla was engaged in serious human rights abuses and when an opportunity presents itself like the World Cup, where the media will concentrate, it has to be seized. So, I think it is the thing to do.
A 1981 protest in support of the Irish Republican hunger strikers, ten of whom died GL: Many of the prisoners are from Crimea, which was annexed by Russia in 2014. Some of the most well-known prisoners, including Oleg Sentsov, have been jailed on “terrorism” charges that all the international human rights organisations regard as fabricated. Another prisoner, Volodymyr Balukh, was sentenced for possessing a Ukrainian flag. Others are civil society activists from the Crimean Tatar community that has suffered discrimination since Soviet times. To what extent would you regard the prisoners as victims of imperialism?
AM: I think imperialism is a term that has been used much too liberally over the years by the Left. It now sounds like a slogan rather than something that is analytically descriptive. The prisoners are victims of an aggressive and intrusive power.
Whether that power is exercised on the grounds of pursuing markets and profit, or as part of the politics of power and security in a volatile world, is up for discussion, but its effects are catastrophic for those in Crimea.
Russia, given its geographic location and historical proximity to threatening powers, might expand outside its own borders but not necessarily for imperialist reasons as understood by Marxists. But that expansionism is necessarily unjust.
GL: There is a view widespread on the “left” that the Russian government can not be defined as imperialist, because of its anti-NATO and anti-US rhetoric. People in Ukraine, Chechnya and Syria, who have dealt with the Russian military at first hand, think otherwise. What do you think?
AM: The issue is of what drives Russian expansionism. For the victim, the difference is much like that between murder and manslaughter. Being anti-NATO and anti-USA alone do not suffice to give Russia non-imperialist credentials. Inter imperialist rivalry easily explains that. But imperialism as traditionally understood might not apply to Russia.
A picket in Kyiv last month in support of Ukrainian political prisoners
GL: You started your political life in the Irish Republican movement and spent 18 years as a political prisoner. Do you see parallels between the injustice visited on Ireland by Britain and on Ukraine by Russia?
AM: Of course. The Russian state is a pretty brutal one. I recall the great work highlighting Russian atrocities in Chechnya carried out by Anna Politkovskaya, for which she was murdered.
GL: Some of the Ukrainian prisoners in Russia are now on hunger strike. Oleg Sentsov went on hunger strike on 14 May and others have followed. Participating in a picket to support the Ukrainian prisoners reminded me of protesting in support of the Irish hunger strikers in 1981. What do you think?
AM: I agree. I fail to see how we could have supported the Irish hunger strikers in 1981 but fail to support the Ukrainians today. ■ 11 June 2018.
■ Anthony McIntyre now works as a journalist. He writes regularly at The Pensive Quill.
■ Updates on the campaign to support Ukrainian political prisoners here: #FreeSentsov #SaveOlegSentsov #TheyAreStillThere #LetMyPeopleGo.
Anthony McIntyre: It resonates with the human rights campaigning ahead of the World Cup final in Argentina back in 1978. The military junta under Jorge Videla was engaged in serious human rights abuses and when an opportunity presents itself like the World Cup, where the media will concentrate, it has to be seized. So, I think it is the thing to do.
A 1981 protest in support of the Irish Republican hunger strikers, ten of whom died GL: Many of the prisoners are from Crimea, which was annexed by Russia in 2014. Some of the most well-known prisoners, including Oleg Sentsov, have been jailed on “terrorism” charges that all the international human rights organisations regard as fabricated. Another prisoner, Volodymyr Balukh, was sentenced for possessing a Ukrainian flag. Others are civil society activists from the Crimean Tatar community that has suffered discrimination since Soviet times. To what extent would you regard the prisoners as victims of imperialism? AM: I think imperialism is a term that has been used much too liberally over the years by the Left. It now sounds like a slogan rather than something that is analytically descriptive. The prisoners are victims of an aggressive and intrusive power.
Whether that power is exercised on the grounds of pursuing markets and profit, or as part of the politics of power and security in a volatile world, is up for discussion, but its effects are catastrophic for those in Crimea.
Russia, given its geographic location and historical proximity to threatening powers, might expand outside its own borders but not necessarily for imperialist reasons as understood by Marxists. But that expansionism is necessarily unjust.
GL: There is a view widespread on the “left” that the Russian government can not be defined as imperialist, because of its anti-NATO and anti-US rhetoric. People in Ukraine, Chechnya and Syria, who have dealt with the Russian military at first hand, think otherwise. What do you think?
AM: The issue is of what drives Russian expansionism. For the victim, the difference is much like that between murder and manslaughter. Being anti-NATO and anti-USA alone do not suffice to give Russia non-imperialist credentials. Inter imperialist rivalry easily explains that. But imperialism as traditionally understood might not apply to Russia.
A picket in Kyiv last month in support of Ukrainian political prisoners GL: You started your political life in the Irish Republican movement and spent 18 years as a political prisoner. Do you see parallels between the injustice visited on Ireland by Britain and on Ukraine by Russia?
AM: Of course. The Russian state is a pretty brutal one. I recall the great work highlighting Russian atrocities in Chechnya carried out by Anna Politkovskaya, for which she was murdered.
GL: Some of the Ukrainian prisoners in Russia are now on hunger strike. Oleg Sentsov went on hunger strike on 14 May and others have followed. Participating in a picket to support the Ukrainian prisoners reminded me of protesting in support of the Irish hunger strikers in 1981. What do you think?
AM: I agree. I fail to see how we could have supported the Irish hunger strikers in 1981 but fail to support the Ukrainians today. ■ 11 June 2018.
■ Anthony McIntyre now works as a journalist. He writes regularly at The Pensive Quill.
■ Updates on the campaign to support Ukrainian political prisoners here: #FreeSentsov #SaveOlegSentsov #TheyAreStillThere #LetMyPeopleGo.
June 12, 2018
Suffer Little Children
Christopher Hudson objects to the Presbyterian Church of Ireland discriminating against gay people and their children.
For some reason that scriptural text arrived in my head when I heard the announcement the other day That the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church of Ireland had voted to disallow those in a same sex relationship from being full members of the church. The impact of the vote has other implications because it also means that the children of Gay or Lesbian couples will not be allowed to be baptised. This happened a couple of days after the PCI voted to loosen its affiliation with the Church of Scotland again over the gay issue. Well you can’t argue with democracy: the PCI could not be clearer that members of the LGBTQ Community and their children are not welcome. No ambiguity in that decision.
The scriptural quote I opened with of course is for effect - all preachers do it all of the time. The intention is to establish Biblical Authority for what you are about to say. Indeed some believe a sermon has no intrinsic value if it is not firmly based on scripture and correctly affirms the teaching of Our Lord Jesus Christ. I am sure I heard one voice saying that a majority cannot make a wrong right. Sorry, that was in regard to the referendum in the Republic and not the vote to demonise members of the Gay and lesbian Community.
As in Matthew 19:14 Then were there brought unto him little children, that he should put his hands on them, and pray: and the disciples rebuked them.
But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven.
For me it is a nice piece of scriptural writing to emphasis an image of refusing children to signal the view how could you turn away the children of any parents from baptism. However others will remind me that it Jesus telling his followers to be like little children to enter the Kingdom of God and that is true also.
Lets us briefly deal with the issues of baptism. Pope Francis when asked if the sinful state of parents is sufficient grounds to deny baptism? Now I will come back to the perceived sinful state of the parents. Pope Francis told a group of newly ordained priests: It is never necessary to refuse baptism to someone who asks for it!
However Catholic Bishop Morlino of Madison, Wisconsin, instructed his priests that when a gay couple presents a child for baptism, this matter must be referred to his office for a formal decision. It is presumed he wants to leave open the possibility that he will deny baptism in some cases. He is being opposed by other clergy.
In a perusal of the ministry of Jesus, in any of the gospels, there does not appear to be a mention of him telling anyone they need to be baptised. He was forever telling people how to have a relationship with God and these discussions are recorded in the Gospels. But I do not see in any of these Biblical texts that baptism is crucial. You would have thought he might have mentioned it at least once and to my knowledge I don’t recall Jesus baptising anyone. He did have some of his disciples perform the ceremony of baptism. Jesus usually healed, cured, advised and was on his way, no baptism. So according to some views of scripture baptism may not be central to being a follower of Christ.
However that being said, we do have baptism and in the Presbyterian Tradition both Baptism and Communion are sacraments. We only have two sacraments. They are there to be offered to all that desire them. I have no authority to refuse them to anybody nor would I desire to do so. With reference to Communion in All Souls' we clearly say all are welcome to our table. With regard to Baptism no child would ever be turned away. Also if parents choose not to baptise their child all would still be welcome no matter their form. I said I would come back to the issue of the sinful state of the parents.
How dare any one suggest that the love, affection, commitment, friendship, support of a same sex couple is a sinful state. They should have a millstone round their neck. Is it the intent to drive people from the Love of God. Please if you know of any one has been hurt by this terrible decision, please tell them they will be blessed and find sanctuary here in All Souls. It is a sad week for the Christian Community. We can only pray for God’s forgiveness.
Amen
Christopher Hudson is Unitarian Minister, All Souls Church, Belfast.
For some reason that scriptural text arrived in my head when I heard the announcement the other day That the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church of Ireland had voted to disallow those in a same sex relationship from being full members of the church. The impact of the vote has other implications because it also means that the children of Gay or Lesbian couples will not be allowed to be baptised. This happened a couple of days after the PCI voted to loosen its affiliation with the Church of Scotland again over the gay issue. Well you can’t argue with democracy: the PCI could not be clearer that members of the LGBTQ Community and their children are not welcome. No ambiguity in that decision.
The scriptural quote I opened with of course is for effect - all preachers do it all of the time. The intention is to establish Biblical Authority for what you are about to say. Indeed some believe a sermon has no intrinsic value if it is not firmly based on scripture and correctly affirms the teaching of Our Lord Jesus Christ. I am sure I heard one voice saying that a majority cannot make a wrong right. Sorry, that was in regard to the referendum in the Republic and not the vote to demonise members of the Gay and lesbian Community.
As in Matthew 19:14 Then were there brought unto him little children, that he should put his hands on them, and pray: and the disciples rebuked them.
But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven.
For me it is a nice piece of scriptural writing to emphasis an image of refusing children to signal the view how could you turn away the children of any parents from baptism. However others will remind me that it Jesus telling his followers to be like little children to enter the Kingdom of God and that is true also.
Lets us briefly deal with the issues of baptism. Pope Francis when asked if the sinful state of parents is sufficient grounds to deny baptism? Now I will come back to the perceived sinful state of the parents. Pope Francis told a group of newly ordained priests: It is never necessary to refuse baptism to someone who asks for it!
However Catholic Bishop Morlino of Madison, Wisconsin, instructed his priests that when a gay couple presents a child for baptism, this matter must be referred to his office for a formal decision. It is presumed he wants to leave open the possibility that he will deny baptism in some cases. He is being opposed by other clergy.
In a perusal of the ministry of Jesus, in any of the gospels, there does not appear to be a mention of him telling anyone they need to be baptised. He was forever telling people how to have a relationship with God and these discussions are recorded in the Gospels. But I do not see in any of these Biblical texts that baptism is crucial. You would have thought he might have mentioned it at least once and to my knowledge I don’t recall Jesus baptising anyone. He did have some of his disciples perform the ceremony of baptism. Jesus usually healed, cured, advised and was on his way, no baptism. So according to some views of scripture baptism may not be central to being a follower of Christ.
However that being said, we do have baptism and in the Presbyterian Tradition both Baptism and Communion are sacraments. We only have two sacraments. They are there to be offered to all that desire them. I have no authority to refuse them to anybody nor would I desire to do so. With reference to Communion in All Souls' we clearly say all are welcome to our table. With regard to Baptism no child would ever be turned away. Also if parents choose not to baptise their child all would still be welcome no matter their form. I said I would come back to the issue of the sinful state of the parents.
How dare any one suggest that the love, affection, commitment, friendship, support of a same sex couple is a sinful state. They should have a millstone round their neck. Is it the intent to drive people from the Love of God. Please if you know of any one has been hurt by this terrible decision, please tell them they will be blessed and find sanctuary here in All Souls. It is a sad week for the Christian Community. We can only pray for God’s forgiveness.
Amen
Christopher Hudson is Unitarian Minister, All Souls Church, Belfast.
June 11, 2018
Are YOU Brainwashed?
Uri Avnery looks at how brainwashing is an integral part of Israeli propaganda strategy.
The term "brainwashing" was born in 1950. It is a Chinese word ("xinao", literally wash brain). Originally it served to describe a technique used – so it was claimed - by Chinese masterminds to manipulate the minds of American prisoners in the Korean War. They changed their unconscious mental processes and turned them into agents of sinister forces.
Many books and movies purported to show how this works. For example, the classic film "The Manchurian Candidate" shows how the communists take an American prisoner-of-war in the Korean war, an officer, manipulate his mind and give him an order to kill the US presidential candidate. The American officer does not know that he has been turned unconsciously into a communist agent. He does not remember the order given him under hypnosis and does not know that he acts accordingly.
This Plot is ridiculous, like most of the pseudo-scientific descriptions. In practice, it is much easier to manipulate the minds of people, individuals and collectives.
For example, the Nazi "propaganda". It was invented by Adolf Hitler himself. In his book, Mein Kampf , he describes how, as a soldier on the Western front in WWI, he witnessed the extremely successful British propaganda. The British dropped leaflets over the German trenches and shattered the soldiers’ confidence in their leadership.
When Hitler came to power in Germany, he entrusted one of his faithful henchmen, Joseph Goebbels, with the creation of a Ministry of Propaganda. Goebbels turned propaganda into an art form. Among other means he turned all the German media – newspapers and the radio – into government agencies. In German that was called "Gleichschaltung" – connecting all components to one electric line. Thanks to this, Nazi Germany continued fighting long after it was clear that it had lost WWII.
One of the means was the disconnection of the German public from any other source of information. The official propaganda was blared from every medium. Listening to a foreign broadcast was a major crime, punished severely.
Thus it happened that the Germans still believed in their final victory – the Endsieg - even after the Soviets in the East and the Anglo-Saxons in the West had already crossed the borders into Germany.
Does It take a dictatorial regime – Nazi or Communist – to turn the media into a brainwashing machine? Common sense says that this is impossible in a democracy. Common sense is wrong.
It will be remembered that Hitler attained power by democratic means. Even now, fanatical nationalists are winning democratic elections in many countries. All their leaders are busy destroying the courts, stuffing the parliaments with useful idiots and – especially – turning the media into brainwashing instruments. In our country, too.
How is this done? It's quite simple, really: one has to suppress all other voices. One has to make sure that the citizen hears only one voice. One that repeats a few messages over and over, endlessly. This way the lie becomes truth.
In such a situation, the ordinary citizen becomes convinced that the official line is really their own personal opinion. This is an unconscious process. When one tells a citizen that they are brainwashed, they are deeply insulted.
This has been happening in Israel over the last few years. The citizen is not conscious that it is happening. He or she absorbs diverse newspapers, TV programs and radio broadcasts, and sees that all these media are freely arguing with each other and even quarreling with each other. The citizen is not conscious of the fact that on the one critical subject of our life – war and peace – all the media are "connected" to one singular line of brainwashing.
During The last few weeks we have been seeing a perfect example of this mechanism. The events on the Gaza Strip border have activated a mechanism of brainwashing that dictatorial regimes in the world can only envy.
Let's examine ourselves: what have we heard over the radio? What have we seen on TV? What did we read in the papers?
Within a few weeks more than a hundred human beings were shot dead, and many thousands were wounded by live fire. Why?
"We were forced to fire at them because they were storming the border fence". And indeed, did the Gazans themselves not proclaim their will to "return home" – meaning, to return to Israeli territory?
But on May 14, "Black Monday", 63 unarmed demonstrators were shot dead and over 1500 wounded by live fire. Every Israeli knows that this was necessary because the demonstrators stormed the fence and were about to swarm into Israel. Nobody paid attention to the simple fact that there was not a single photo showing such an occurrence. Not even one. In spite of the fact that on both sides of the fence there were hundreds of photographers, including Israeli army photographers, who filmed every single detail. Tens of thousands stormed, and not a single picture?
One should notice the use of the word "terror". It has turned into an adjective attached to everything. There are not just tunnels – they are all always "terror-tunnels". There are "terror-activists". There is "the Hamas terror-regime" and there are "terror-bases". Now there are "terror-kites".
Notice: not just "incendiary kites", or "destruction-kites", only "terror-kites". The same every day in all media. Someone has made the terminology decision. Of course, everyone who has the word "terror" attached to his name is "a son of death", as you say in biblical Hebrew. Another proud term of the brainwashing.
The inhabitants of the Gaza Strip are "terrorists". (In Hebrew, a special term has been invented: "Mekhablim"). All of them? Of course, no question. Especially Hamas members. But Hamas is a political party, which has won democratic elections in all of Palestine. A civilian party which has indeed a military wing. But in our media all party members and supporters are "terrorists", sons of death. Of course.
The use of these terms, hundreds of times every day, clearly constitute brainwashing, without the citizens noticing it. They are getting used to the fact that all Gazans are terrorists, mekhablim. This is a process of dehumanization, the creation of Untermenschen in the Nazi lexicon. Their killing is allowed, even desirable.
In such an atmosphere, even abominable sentences pass unnoticed. For example, this week I heard on one of the TV news programs this sentence from the mouth of a military correspondent, speaking about the coming Gaza demonstration: "Iran wants dead demonstrators, and it seems that they will get them." One has to read this sentence twice to realize what it says: that the Israeli sharpshooters serve Iranian interests.
Or a sentence that is repeated again and again, even by respected commentators: "Iran wants to destroy the State of Israel". I don't know what 80 million Iranians want, nor does the writer. But the sentence itself is ridiculous. Israel is a nuclear power. How does one annihilate a nuclear power (with submarines that can launch nuclear devices in the hour of need). Are the Iranians ready to turn their country – one of the cradles of human civilization – into a graveyard and a desert?
Or a forecast "Friday another violent demonstration will take place". "Violent"? "Another"? There is no argument about the fact that all the demonstrations along the Gaza fence were completely non-violent. The demonstrators did not shoot one single shot, when thousands of them were wounded by live fire, and more than a hundred killed. Yet the lie passes without comment.
Not a single one of the hundreds of TV news program presenters ever corrects such statements by correspondents. Because the directors, presenters, commentators and correspondents are themselves thoroughly brainwashed. The army spokesman knows the truth, of course, but he is a central cog in the brainwashing machine.
Events Reached a climax with the murder of the 21-year old female paramedic Razan Ashraf al-Najjar, when she was trying to save the life of a wounded demonstrator. The sharpshooter who shot her in the chest saw that she was a medic treating a wounded person. It was a clear war crime.
Was there a public outcry? Did the media demand an investigation? Did the media report this event in their page one headline? Did the Knesset observe a minute of silence? Nothing of the sort. A minor news item in some papers (by no means all). An excellent article by the admirable Amira Hass in Haaretz. And that's that.
A few days passed, and abroad there were outcries. The Argentine soccer team, with the admired Messi, canceled a friendly game against the Israeli team in Jerusalem.
The brainwashers realized that it was impossible not to react. So the army spokesman published a statement saying that an investigation had taken place. What did it discover? Ah, well. It was clearly established that nobody had shot Razan. She was hit by the ricochet of a bullet that had hit the ground far from her. That is such a blatant lie that even the army liar should be ashamed of producing it. It was accepted by the brainwashed public.
One of the hallmarks of brainwashing is a phenomenon that everyone can notice: the total absence of a second opinion. When a commentator voices the official line on an event, does anyone express an alternative version? Is there a debate between the official spokesman and a contrary commentator? In the democratic media, that would be commonplace. Here it is very, very rare.
What Can be done to counter such brainwashing?
Not much.
First of all: there is a vital need for a second voice. Brainwashing can be efficient only when the official voice enjoys a complete monopoly. That was one of the aims of Haolam Hazeh, the weekly which I edited for 40 years. It met every untrue government version with a contrary version. Although our voice was weak, compared to the powerful government machine (even in those days), the very fact that there are two voices, however unequal, prevents a total brainwashing. The citizen hears two versions and wonders "who is right?"
If all the peace and human rights groups in Israel set up a joint center for information, which will be heard, perhaps the monopoly of official propaganda can be broken. Perhaps.
There is in the country a tiny band of commentators who are not afraid to tell the truth, even when this is considered treason. Gideon Levy, Amira Hass and a few others. We must ensure that their voice is heard. They must be encouraged.
All the media must be pressured to present a variation of views on matters of war and peace, to let the "internal enemy" be heard, so that the citizen is able to form an opinion of their own.
The foreign media must be allowed free access to the sources of information, even when the foreign media are critical, "hostile" and "anti-Semitic". Friends of Israeli-Palestinian peace abroad must be encouraged to pressure the media in their homelands to publish the truth about what is happening here.
I don't like the word "must". But in this context, no other will do.
The Power of the truth against a brainwashing machine is always limited. But in the end, even if it takes time, truth will prevail. It needs courage.
The movie "The Manchurian Candidate" has a surprise ending: in the last minute, instead of killing the presidential candidate, the brainwashed man shoots the communist agent who was supposed to take his place.
Uri Avnery is a veteran Israeli peace activist.
He writes @ Gush Shalom
The term "brainwashing" was born in 1950. It is a Chinese word ("xinao", literally wash brain). Originally it served to describe a technique used – so it was claimed - by Chinese masterminds to manipulate the minds of American prisoners in the Korean War. They changed their unconscious mental processes and turned them into agents of sinister forces.
Many books and movies purported to show how this works. For example, the classic film "The Manchurian Candidate" shows how the communists take an American prisoner-of-war in the Korean war, an officer, manipulate his mind and give him an order to kill the US presidential candidate. The American officer does not know that he has been turned unconsciously into a communist agent. He does not remember the order given him under hypnosis and does not know that he acts accordingly.
This Plot is ridiculous, like most of the pseudo-scientific descriptions. In practice, it is much easier to manipulate the minds of people, individuals and collectives.
For example, the Nazi "propaganda". It was invented by Adolf Hitler himself. In his book, Mein Kampf , he describes how, as a soldier on the Western front in WWI, he witnessed the extremely successful British propaganda. The British dropped leaflets over the German trenches and shattered the soldiers’ confidence in their leadership.
When Hitler came to power in Germany, he entrusted one of his faithful henchmen, Joseph Goebbels, with the creation of a Ministry of Propaganda. Goebbels turned propaganda into an art form. Among other means he turned all the German media – newspapers and the radio – into government agencies. In German that was called "Gleichschaltung" – connecting all components to one electric line. Thanks to this, Nazi Germany continued fighting long after it was clear that it had lost WWII.
One of the means was the disconnection of the German public from any other source of information. The official propaganda was blared from every medium. Listening to a foreign broadcast was a major crime, punished severely.
Thus it happened that the Germans still believed in their final victory – the Endsieg - even after the Soviets in the East and the Anglo-Saxons in the West had already crossed the borders into Germany.
Does It take a dictatorial regime – Nazi or Communist – to turn the media into a brainwashing machine? Common sense says that this is impossible in a democracy. Common sense is wrong.
It will be remembered that Hitler attained power by democratic means. Even now, fanatical nationalists are winning democratic elections in many countries. All their leaders are busy destroying the courts, stuffing the parliaments with useful idiots and – especially – turning the media into brainwashing instruments. In our country, too.
How is this done? It's quite simple, really: one has to suppress all other voices. One has to make sure that the citizen hears only one voice. One that repeats a few messages over and over, endlessly. This way the lie becomes truth.
In such a situation, the ordinary citizen becomes convinced that the official line is really their own personal opinion. This is an unconscious process. When one tells a citizen that they are brainwashed, they are deeply insulted.
This has been happening in Israel over the last few years. The citizen is not conscious that it is happening. He or she absorbs diverse newspapers, TV programs and radio broadcasts, and sees that all these media are freely arguing with each other and even quarreling with each other. The citizen is not conscious of the fact that on the one critical subject of our life – war and peace – all the media are "connected" to one singular line of brainwashing.
During The last few weeks we have been seeing a perfect example of this mechanism. The events on the Gaza Strip border have activated a mechanism of brainwashing that dictatorial regimes in the world can only envy.
Let's examine ourselves: what have we heard over the radio? What have we seen on TV? What did we read in the papers?
Within a few weeks more than a hundred human beings were shot dead, and many thousands were wounded by live fire. Why?
"We were forced to fire at them because they were storming the border fence". And indeed, did the Gazans themselves not proclaim their will to "return home" – meaning, to return to Israeli territory?
But on May 14, "Black Monday", 63 unarmed demonstrators were shot dead and over 1500 wounded by live fire. Every Israeli knows that this was necessary because the demonstrators stormed the fence and were about to swarm into Israel. Nobody paid attention to the simple fact that there was not a single photo showing such an occurrence. Not even one. In spite of the fact that on both sides of the fence there were hundreds of photographers, including Israeli army photographers, who filmed every single detail. Tens of thousands stormed, and not a single picture?
One should notice the use of the word "terror". It has turned into an adjective attached to everything. There are not just tunnels – they are all always "terror-tunnels". There are "terror-activists". There is "the Hamas terror-regime" and there are "terror-bases". Now there are "terror-kites".
Notice: not just "incendiary kites", or "destruction-kites", only "terror-kites". The same every day in all media. Someone has made the terminology decision. Of course, everyone who has the word "terror" attached to his name is "a son of death", as you say in biblical Hebrew. Another proud term of the brainwashing.
The inhabitants of the Gaza Strip are "terrorists". (In Hebrew, a special term has been invented: "Mekhablim"). All of them? Of course, no question. Especially Hamas members. But Hamas is a political party, which has won democratic elections in all of Palestine. A civilian party which has indeed a military wing. But in our media all party members and supporters are "terrorists", sons of death. Of course.
The use of these terms, hundreds of times every day, clearly constitute brainwashing, without the citizens noticing it. They are getting used to the fact that all Gazans are terrorists, mekhablim. This is a process of dehumanization, the creation of Untermenschen in the Nazi lexicon. Their killing is allowed, even desirable.
In such an atmosphere, even abominable sentences pass unnoticed. For example, this week I heard on one of the TV news programs this sentence from the mouth of a military correspondent, speaking about the coming Gaza demonstration: "Iran wants dead demonstrators, and it seems that they will get them." One has to read this sentence twice to realize what it says: that the Israeli sharpshooters serve Iranian interests.
Or a sentence that is repeated again and again, even by respected commentators: "Iran wants to destroy the State of Israel". I don't know what 80 million Iranians want, nor does the writer. But the sentence itself is ridiculous. Israel is a nuclear power. How does one annihilate a nuclear power (with submarines that can launch nuclear devices in the hour of need). Are the Iranians ready to turn their country – one of the cradles of human civilization – into a graveyard and a desert?
Or a forecast "Friday another violent demonstration will take place". "Violent"? "Another"? There is no argument about the fact that all the demonstrations along the Gaza fence were completely non-violent. The demonstrators did not shoot one single shot, when thousands of them were wounded by live fire, and more than a hundred killed. Yet the lie passes without comment.
Not a single one of the hundreds of TV news program presenters ever corrects such statements by correspondents. Because the directors, presenters, commentators and correspondents are themselves thoroughly brainwashed. The army spokesman knows the truth, of course, but he is a central cog in the brainwashing machine.
Events Reached a climax with the murder of the 21-year old female paramedic Razan Ashraf al-Najjar, when she was trying to save the life of a wounded demonstrator. The sharpshooter who shot her in the chest saw that she was a medic treating a wounded person. It was a clear war crime.
Was there a public outcry? Did the media demand an investigation? Did the media report this event in their page one headline? Did the Knesset observe a minute of silence? Nothing of the sort. A minor news item in some papers (by no means all). An excellent article by the admirable Amira Hass in Haaretz. And that's that.
A few days passed, and abroad there were outcries. The Argentine soccer team, with the admired Messi, canceled a friendly game against the Israeli team in Jerusalem.
The brainwashers realized that it was impossible not to react. So the army spokesman published a statement saying that an investigation had taken place. What did it discover? Ah, well. It was clearly established that nobody had shot Razan. She was hit by the ricochet of a bullet that had hit the ground far from her. That is such a blatant lie that even the army liar should be ashamed of producing it. It was accepted by the brainwashed public.
One of the hallmarks of brainwashing is a phenomenon that everyone can notice: the total absence of a second opinion. When a commentator voices the official line on an event, does anyone express an alternative version? Is there a debate between the official spokesman and a contrary commentator? In the democratic media, that would be commonplace. Here it is very, very rare.
What Can be done to counter such brainwashing?
Not much.
First of all: there is a vital need for a second voice. Brainwashing can be efficient only when the official voice enjoys a complete monopoly. That was one of the aims of Haolam Hazeh, the weekly which I edited for 40 years. It met every untrue government version with a contrary version. Although our voice was weak, compared to the powerful government machine (even in those days), the very fact that there are two voices, however unequal, prevents a total brainwashing. The citizen hears two versions and wonders "who is right?"
If all the peace and human rights groups in Israel set up a joint center for information, which will be heard, perhaps the monopoly of official propaganda can be broken. Perhaps.
There is in the country a tiny band of commentators who are not afraid to tell the truth, even when this is considered treason. Gideon Levy, Amira Hass and a few others. We must ensure that their voice is heard. They must be encouraged.
All the media must be pressured to present a variation of views on matters of war and peace, to let the "internal enemy" be heard, so that the citizen is able to form an opinion of their own.
The foreign media must be allowed free access to the sources of information, even when the foreign media are critical, "hostile" and "anti-Semitic". Friends of Israeli-Palestinian peace abroad must be encouraged to pressure the media in their homelands to publish the truth about what is happening here.
I don't like the word "must". But in this context, no other will do.
The Power of the truth against a brainwashing machine is always limited. But in the end, even if it takes time, truth will prevail. It needs courage.
The movie "The Manchurian Candidate" has a surprise ending: in the last minute, instead of killing the presidential candidate, the brainwashed man shoots the communist agent who was supposed to take his place.
Uri Avnery is a veteran Israeli peace activist.
He writes @ Gush Shalom
Secular Treason
Provisional Sinn Fein is in danger of ripping up the Christian ethos of the 1916 Proclamation and committing secularist treason against the memory of the failed Easter Rising - that’s the accusation which controversial columnist, Dr John Coulter, has levelled against the ‘party’ following its clear pro-choice stance in the abortion debate in his Fearless Flying Column today.
How can any God-fearing Catholic now vote for Provisional Sinn Fein after the so-called republican party took a pro-choice stance in the recent abortion referendum in the republic?
Sinn Fein supporters and voters need to take a long hard look at the 1916 Proclamation of Poblacht na hEireann because it has become abundantly clear the modern day republican movement is trying to write God out of republican history.
During the Adams/McGuinness era in Sinn Fein, I always viewed the movement as being pro-life; that in spite of the many lives which its military wing took over the years, that at least the one thread of human decency was that Sinn Fein held the traditional conservative Catholic stance that life begins at conception, not birth.
I was truly shocked to see the latest republican leadership of Mary Lou and Michelle brandishing post referendum placards proclaiming that the North was next for Sinn Fein’s pro-choice bandwagon.
If I was a traditional republican voter, I’d be spitting feathers at that sight; and if I was executed devout Catholic icon Padraig Pearse, I’d be spinning in my grave and posing this question for the rest of eternity - did I and my comrades get executed by the Brits for 21st century republicans to abandon the traditional republican stance of pro-life?
Pro-choice republicans need to wise up and actually read the 1916 Proclamation. Your pro-choice stance is nothing more than treason against the Proclamation’s ideals.
Just as the secular society has changed the true meaning of Christmas by editing Christ out, if republicans go pro-choice, they are guilty of editing God out of the Proclamation and trying to airbrush Pearse’s values out of the pure republican ethos.
This is a mirror image of Unionists who ridicule the Irish language by conveniently forgetting it was devout Irish Presbyterians who kept the Gaelic tongue alive - so stick that in your curry and youghurt next time you try to convince me a rural north Antrim accent and dialect is actually an Ulster Scots ‘language’!
The 1916 Proclamation opens: “In the name of God …” How can republicans go on about returning to the Proclamation’s ideals when they push such a Godless sin as the pro-choice agenda? Indeed, some so-called republicans have wandered so far from their traditional conservative Catholic heritage, they are really nor more than a bunch of Godless Marxists, atheists, agnostics, even lapsed Catholics - but not the true descends of Pearse.
Such was the Christian ethos of the 1916 Proclamation, that while I can fully understand a fundamentalist Catholic such as PH Pearse signing the Proclamation, its ethos was powerful enough that even a hardline communist like James Connolly of the Hard Left Irish Socialist Republican Party put his signature to it.
The moral crisis facing republicans is simple - either they fully embrace the 1916 Proclamation and its clear references to God, or Sinn Fein must echo calls for a new Good Friday Agreement to kickstart devolution and have the courage to write a new secular Proclamation in 2018.
Either Sinn Fein keeps God, or dumps God. You cannot be an atheist Marxist republican and still pledge allegiance to Him! Republicans cannot support the overtly religious Holy Mother Ireland ethos of the Proclamation, yet back an anti-Christian pro-choice policy.
Since the early Seventies, Sinn Fein, the INLA and all the dissident republican factions have been making a mockery out of a core passage of the Proclamation.
It states:
So much for the Protestants slaughtered by the IRA at Tullyvallen and Kingmill, or butchered at Darkley Mission Hall by an INLA faction, and so much for all the women and children - including unborn twins - at Omagh.
And what about all the Catholics ‘disappeared’ over the years? Guarantees of ‘religious and civil liberty’ are now nothing but empty rhetoric and modern republicans are only making fools of themselves by swearing allegiance to the 1916 Proclamation.
It gets worse for the 21st century descendants of the Proclamation. It goes on: “We place the cause of the Irish Republic under the protection of the Most High God …” So much for Sinn Fein’s pro-choice stance.
When was the last time these so-called republicans attended a religious service where they genuinely prayed to God for protection?
How can republicans with a Christian faith support a party with a clear pro-choice stance? If a true republican believes in the ethos of the 1916 Proclamation, they must follow a pro-life agenda.
Perhaps forgiveness for the movement for the pain and suffering it has inflicted on the Irish nation would be a better sentiment to pray for?
And embarrassment for republicans just gets deeper with the Proclamation’s wording: “We pray that no one who serves that cause will dishonour it by cowardice, inhumanity or rapine.”
Given the number of alleged sex abusers the republican movement has hidden or moved over the generations, the time has come for republicans to face a bitter truth.
Modern republican morals bear no resemblance to the ideals of the original Proclamation.
Either tear it up and start again in 2018, or get back to basics and return God to His proper place in republican thinking. Pearse was clearly pro-life, and wanted to protect the unborn child. His successors have a lot of soul searching to do.
Dr John Coulter has been a journalist working in Northern Ireland since 1978. As well as being a former weekly newspaper editor, he has served as Religious Affairs Correspondent of the News Letter and is a past Director of Operations for Christian Communication Network television. He currently also writes political analysis articles for national newspaper titles. He is author of the ebook,
An Saise Glas’: The Road to National Republicanism,
available on Amazon Kindle.
Follow Dr John Coulter on Twitter. @JohnAHCoulter
How can any God-fearing Catholic now vote for Provisional Sinn Fein after the so-called republican party took a pro-choice stance in the recent abortion referendum in the republic?
Sinn Fein supporters and voters need to take a long hard look at the 1916 Proclamation of Poblacht na hEireann because it has become abundantly clear the modern day republican movement is trying to write God out of republican history.
During the Adams/McGuinness era in Sinn Fein, I always viewed the movement as being pro-life; that in spite of the many lives which its military wing took over the years, that at least the one thread of human decency was that Sinn Fein held the traditional conservative Catholic stance that life begins at conception, not birth.
I was truly shocked to see the latest republican leadership of Mary Lou and Michelle brandishing post referendum placards proclaiming that the North was next for Sinn Fein’s pro-choice bandwagon.
If I was a traditional republican voter, I’d be spitting feathers at that sight; and if I was executed devout Catholic icon Padraig Pearse, I’d be spinning in my grave and posing this question for the rest of eternity - did I and my comrades get executed by the Brits for 21st century republicans to abandon the traditional republican stance of pro-life?
Pro-choice republicans need to wise up and actually read the 1916 Proclamation. Your pro-choice stance is nothing more than treason against the Proclamation’s ideals.
Just as the secular society has changed the true meaning of Christmas by editing Christ out, if republicans go pro-choice, they are guilty of editing God out of the Proclamation and trying to airbrush Pearse’s values out of the pure republican ethos.
This is a mirror image of Unionists who ridicule the Irish language by conveniently forgetting it was devout Irish Presbyterians who kept the Gaelic tongue alive - so stick that in your curry and youghurt next time you try to convince me a rural north Antrim accent and dialect is actually an Ulster Scots ‘language’!
The 1916 Proclamation opens: “In the name of God …” How can republicans go on about returning to the Proclamation’s ideals when they push such a Godless sin as the pro-choice agenda? Indeed, some so-called republicans have wandered so far from their traditional conservative Catholic heritage, they are really nor more than a bunch of Godless Marxists, atheists, agnostics, even lapsed Catholics - but not the true descends of Pearse.
Such was the Christian ethos of the 1916 Proclamation, that while I can fully understand a fundamentalist Catholic such as PH Pearse signing the Proclamation, its ethos was powerful enough that even a hardline communist like James Connolly of the Hard Left Irish Socialist Republican Party put his signature to it.
The moral crisis facing republicans is simple - either they fully embrace the 1916 Proclamation and its clear references to God, or Sinn Fein must echo calls for a new Good Friday Agreement to kickstart devolution and have the courage to write a new secular Proclamation in 2018.
Either Sinn Fein keeps God, or dumps God. You cannot be an atheist Marxist republican and still pledge allegiance to Him! Republicans cannot support the overtly religious Holy Mother Ireland ethos of the Proclamation, yet back an anti-Christian pro-choice policy.
Since the early Seventies, Sinn Fein, the INLA and all the dissident republican factions have been making a mockery out of a core passage of the Proclamation.
It states:
The Republic guarantees religious and civil liberty, equal rights and equal opportunities to all its citizens, and declares its resolve to pursue the happiness and prosperity of the whole nation and all its parts …
So much for the Protestants slaughtered by the IRA at Tullyvallen and Kingmill, or butchered at Darkley Mission Hall by an INLA faction, and so much for all the women and children - including unborn twins - at Omagh.
And what about all the Catholics ‘disappeared’ over the years? Guarantees of ‘religious and civil liberty’ are now nothing but empty rhetoric and modern republicans are only making fools of themselves by swearing allegiance to the 1916 Proclamation.
It gets worse for the 21st century descendants of the Proclamation. It goes on: “We place the cause of the Irish Republic under the protection of the Most High God …” So much for Sinn Fein’s pro-choice stance.
When was the last time these so-called republicans attended a religious service where they genuinely prayed to God for protection?
How can republicans with a Christian faith support a party with a clear pro-choice stance? If a true republican believes in the ethos of the 1916 Proclamation, they must follow a pro-life agenda.
Perhaps forgiveness for the movement for the pain and suffering it has inflicted on the Irish nation would be a better sentiment to pray for?
And embarrassment for republicans just gets deeper with the Proclamation’s wording: “We pray that no one who serves that cause will dishonour it by cowardice, inhumanity or rapine.”
Given the number of alleged sex abusers the republican movement has hidden or moved over the generations, the time has come for republicans to face a bitter truth.
Modern republican morals bear no resemblance to the ideals of the original Proclamation.
Either tear it up and start again in 2018, or get back to basics and return God to His proper place in republican thinking. Pearse was clearly pro-life, and wanted to protect the unborn child. His successors have a lot of soul searching to do.
Dr John Coulter has been a journalist working in Northern Ireland since 1978. As well as being a former weekly newspaper editor, he has served as Religious Affairs Correspondent of the News Letter and is a past Director of Operations for Christian Communication Network television. He currently also writes political analysis articles for national newspaper titles. He is author of the ebook,
An Saise Glas’: The Road to National Republicanism,
available on Amazon Kindle. Follow Dr John Coulter on Twitter. @JohnAHCoulter
June 10, 2018
Kick The Poor
Anthony McIntyre is critical of a Priest Against The Poor in Co Meath.
A St Vincent de Paul member I was travelling with last week said to me "why can't they keep their mouths shut? Efforts to bring people back to the Church are up against it each time these fools speak." Not exactly verbatim as memory is rarely faithful to precision, but close enough to make no difference.
His exasperation had been prompted by yet another baleful cleric doing his bit. In retaliation for the SVP not having taken up a position on the recent referendum, priest Patrick O'Connor told the Society that it would have to remove its clothes bank from a church owned car park in County Meath. The clothes bank had been in place long before O'Connor who just prior to the referendum had been appointed parish priest at St Peter & Paul's in Dunboyne. Parachuted in, he had decided before landing that he would, from a great height, crap upon the poor.
SVP shops, sustained largely by the clothing they sell, are a vital source of income for the Society which is then turned around and put into the empty pockets, fireplaces and food cupboards of the poor. O'Connor's frothing at the mouth was nothing less than an attack on the poorest people in Irish society.
A local man hit the nail on the head. Darren Whelan said:
Very much so when it is considered that Meath voted almost 70% in favour of Repeal.
Priest O'Connor was so angered by the SVP being genuinely pro-life, that he had a rattle at the poor because the SVP didn't behave as he thought he could order it to behave. He deduced from his own warped theology of domination that by squeezing the poor he might somehow gain leverage which he could apply to have the Society think like he thinks.
While he has stood pontificating from his pulpit, for which he is paid, SVP members have, gratis, trudged the streets of this country, seeking where possible to ease the financial strain and hardship that human beings are relentlessly ground down by. What the SVP does is life affirming, carried out in the streets. It is anything but the arid, formulaic, virtue signalling boomed out from joyless pulpits. Among the Society's volunteers are people of different religious faiths and none. There was no chance that they were ever going to be whipped into some Catholic liturgical orthodoxy by a clergy steeped in a history of serial failure when it comes to children. How people should vote in the referendum in accordance with their own conscience was not something the SVP was ever going to try to influence. Were the Society volunteers to have gone out on home visitation duty with the attitude of Priest O'Connor, they would have issued assistance on the basis of how people intended to behave in the polling booth. Vote No or you can go hungry this week.
It was not that O'Connor was following Church policy as no directive came from the hierarchy. He was simply of that school of thought articulated by Bishop Kevin Doran and he felt he had a right to inflict his religious opinion on the poor.
Having on Friday just finished Jon Sobrino's passionate, No Salvation Outside the Poor, I might be excused for seeing two different religions at play here. Sobrino, a Salvadorian Jesuit, stands uncompromisingly on the side of the poor. Driven by an authentic pro life ethos, he states in unambiguous language a preference for the poor. Whereas for O'Connor, it is Purity before People.
Anthony McIntyre blogs @ The Pensive Quill.
Follow Anthony McIntyre on Twitter @AnthonyMcIntyre
A St Vincent de Paul member I was travelling with last week said to me "why can't they keep their mouths shut? Efforts to bring people back to the Church are up against it each time these fools speak." Not exactly verbatim as memory is rarely faithful to precision, but close enough to make no difference.
His exasperation had been prompted by yet another baleful cleric doing his bit. In retaliation for the SVP not having taken up a position on the recent referendum, priest Patrick O'Connor told the Society that it would have to remove its clothes bank from a church owned car park in County Meath. The clothes bank had been in place long before O'Connor who just prior to the referendum had been appointed parish priest at St Peter & Paul's in Dunboyne. Parachuted in, he had decided before landing that he would, from a great height, crap upon the poor.
SVP shops, sustained largely by the clothing they sell, are a vital source of income for the Society which is then turned around and put into the empty pockets, fireplaces and food cupboards of the poor. O'Connor's frothing at the mouth was nothing less than an attack on the poorest people in Irish society.
A local man hit the nail on the head. Darren Whelan said:
Now more than ever we have a homelessness crisis in Ireland. SVP support some of the most vulnerable in society. To ask them, at local level, to remove their clothes bank from parish property, shows the continued ignorance of the world around the Catholic Church at parish level.
Very much so when it is considered that Meath voted almost 70% in favour of Repeal.
Priest O'Connor was so angered by the SVP being genuinely pro-life, that he had a rattle at the poor because the SVP didn't behave as he thought he could order it to behave. He deduced from his own warped theology of domination that by squeezing the poor he might somehow gain leverage which he could apply to have the Society think like he thinks.
While he has stood pontificating from his pulpit, for which he is paid, SVP members have, gratis, trudged the streets of this country, seeking where possible to ease the financial strain and hardship that human beings are relentlessly ground down by. What the SVP does is life affirming, carried out in the streets. It is anything but the arid, formulaic, virtue signalling boomed out from joyless pulpits. Among the Society's volunteers are people of different religious faiths and none. There was no chance that they were ever going to be whipped into some Catholic liturgical orthodoxy by a clergy steeped in a history of serial failure when it comes to children. How people should vote in the referendum in accordance with their own conscience was not something the SVP was ever going to try to influence. Were the Society volunteers to have gone out on home visitation duty with the attitude of Priest O'Connor, they would have issued assistance on the basis of how people intended to behave in the polling booth. Vote No or you can go hungry this week.
It was not that O'Connor was following Church policy as no directive came from the hierarchy. He was simply of that school of thought articulated by Bishop Kevin Doran and he felt he had a right to inflict his religious opinion on the poor.
Having on Friday just finished Jon Sobrino's passionate, No Salvation Outside the Poor, I might be excused for seeing two different religions at play here. Sobrino, a Salvadorian Jesuit, stands uncompromisingly on the side of the poor. Driven by an authentic pro life ethos, he states in unambiguous language a preference for the poor. Whereas for O'Connor, it is Purity before People.
Anthony McIntyre blogs @ The Pensive Quill.Follow Anthony McIntyre on Twitter @AnthonyMcIntyre
Anthony McIntyre's Blog
- Anthony McIntyre's profile
- 2 followers
Anthony McIntyre isn't a Goodreads Author
(yet),
but they
do have a blog,
so here are some recent posts imported from
their feed.
