jagfox Posted July 15, 2013 Share Posted July 15, 2013 Dawkins is an individual. The lol are an organisation. Dawkins has never prompted tbe throwing of petrol bombs or masonry as far as I am aware? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LongTimeLurker Posted July 15, 2013 Share Posted July 15, 2013 Should Partick Thistle be banned because of what their casuals have got up to over the years? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baxter Parp Posted July 15, 2013 Share Posted July 15, 2013 So what's the difference? He is quite strident and uncompromising in his beliefs and offends a lot of people as well. People being upset about what somebody has to say isn't enough to ban something. Seems to me that in a free and democratic society groups like the LOL inherently have the right to do their thing within reason. If they were demanding the right to hold a walk all the way up the Falls Road there would be something to what you are saying about going through areas where they are clearly not wanted, but despite all the hype they don't actually do things like that. The flash points like the Ardoyne shops are nothing like as clear cut as that. Yes, I remember the Dawkins riots well....oh wait. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saor Alba Posted July 15, 2013 Share Posted July 15, 2013 Should Partick Thistle be banned because of what their casuals have got up to over the years? You are really becoming very very silly now! "Partick Thistle casuals"?! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saor Alba Posted July 15, 2013 Share Posted July 15, 2013 He is also driven by logic and reason, as opposed to bigotry, supremacism and hatefulness. Very much so, I agree. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LongTimeLurker Posted July 15, 2013 Share Posted July 15, 2013 Partick Thistle vs Airdrie used to be quite nawty to put it in Danny Dyer terms. If the LOL were actively participating in rioting they would deserve to be banned. They are not though. Banning the LOL because there is trouble during and after walks, would be the same as banning football because of hooliganism. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doulikefish Posted July 15, 2013 Share Posted July 15, 2013 Some classic whataboutery 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saor Alba Posted July 15, 2013 Share Posted July 15, 2013 Partick Thistle vs Airdrie used to be quite nawty to put it in Danny Dyer terms. If the LOL were actively participating in rioting they would deserve to be banned. They are not though. Banning the LOL because there is trouble during and after walks, would be the same as banning football because of hooliganism. The LOL leadership actively use words and behave in such a manner as to encourage their members and followers to riot whenever the OO are refused permission to walk in specific areas. What similarity you think that the LOL leadership have to the board members of Partick Thistle FC you'll have to explain? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The OP Posted July 15, 2013 Share Posted July 15, 2013 (edited) Partick Thistle vs Airdrie used to be quite nawty to put it in Danny Dyer terms. If the LOL were actively participating in rioting they would deserve to be banned. They are not though. Banning the LOL because there is trouble during and after walks, would be the same as banning football because of hooliganism. Rather than banning them, I suppose they could just prove how 'right-on' they are by celebrating Catholic disenfranchisement and the defeat of a hegemonic monarch by a slightly less hegemonic monarch by marching round a football pitch, away from residential areas and traffic? Edited July 15, 2013 by The OP 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LongTimeLurker Posted July 15, 2013 Share Posted July 15, 2013 (edited) Presbyterians were disenfranchised as well for what it's worth and that led to all kinds of fun in 1798. Think you'll find that it isn't the Penal Laws that are being celebrated. Edited July 15, 2013 by LongTimeLurker 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The OP Posted July 15, 2013 Share Posted July 15, 2013 (edited) Presbyterians were disenfranchised as well for what it's worth and that led to all kinds of fun in 1798. Think you'll find that it isn't the Penal Laws that are being celebrated. No, it's the Protestant Ascendancy that they celebrate and strive to maintain, of which the Penal Laws were just one by-product and just one example of Catholic disenfranchisement. Edited July 15, 2013 by The OP 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LongTimeLurker Posted July 15, 2013 Share Posted July 15, 2013 (edited) It was an Anglican Ascendancy not a Protestant one. Presbyterians were discriminated against as well and are the most numerous Protestant denomination in NI. From a Presbyterian standpoint the Union of 1801 was a huge improvement on what went before and later on was greatly preferable to a UI run by clericalists like de Valera. The problem was and is that the UK predated the Enlightenment so the sorts of changes that the Presbyterian radicals of 1798 really wanted where a truly secular state along the lines of the United States or France never happened because of the way that the monarch is the head of the Church of England. Edited July 15, 2013 by LongTimeLurker 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The OP Posted July 15, 2013 Share Posted July 15, 2013 (edited) It was an Anglican Ascendancy not a Protestant one. Presbyterians were discriminated against as well and are the most numerous Protestant denomination in NI. From a Presbyterian standpoint the Union of 1801 was a huge improvement on what went before and later on was greatly preferable to a UI run by clericalists like de Valera. The problem was and is that the UK predated the Enlightenment so the sorts of changes that the Presbyterian radicals of 1798 really wanted where a truly secular state along the lines of the United States or France never happened because of the way that the monarch is the head of the Church of England. None of this world salad/potted history lecture negates the fact that the Orange Order are a bigoted organization, mainly driven by anti-Catholic sentiment, and are in favour of the maintenance and celebration of what is commonly known as 'the Protestant Ascendancy' which did indeed manifest itself in discrimination against presbyterians in the 18th century, but to nowhere near the same extent as to which it manifested itself in discrimination against Catholics. Edited July 15, 2013 by The OP 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Rob Posted July 15, 2013 Share Posted July 15, 2013 Well since you avoided my first question, why don't you tell us the good points about the Orange Order? All I am saying is that the hatred for the Orange Order is completely unjustified. There's no bad points or good points. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LongTimeLurker Posted July 15, 2013 Share Posted July 15, 2013 None of this world salad/potted history lecture negates the fact that the Orange Order are a bigoted organization, mainly driven by anti-Catholic sentiment, and are in favour of the maintenance and celebration of what is commonly known as 'the Protestant Ascendancy' which did indeed manifest itself in discrimination against presbyterians in the 18th century, but to nowhere near the same extent as to which it manifested itself in discrimination against Catholics. ...which brings us back to whether something can be banned simply because it upsets a certain group of people, which is something we are clearly going to have to agree to disagree about. What makes some of the antics at this time of year all the more absurd is when you find out what side the Pope was on during the Williamite Wars. People can google that for themselves. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The OP Posted July 15, 2013 Share Posted July 15, 2013 ...which brings us back to whether something can be banned simply because it upsets a certain group of people, which is something we are clearly going to have to agree to disagree about. What makes some of the antics at this time of year all the more absurd is when you find out what side the Pope was on during the Williamite Wars. People can google that for themselves. I personally don't think I believe that they should be banned. I believe they should be derided at every opportunity until they are consigned to the dustbin of history, and their right to antagonize and disrupt should be curtailed somewhat. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Kincardine Posted July 15, 2013 Share Posted July 15, 2013 What a shame that he'll be expelled from the Order if he attends any funerals, weddings, first communions or christenings for any of her family members, and what a shame his children probably won't be able to join this fine institution because both of their parents are not Protestants. I know you'd like to think this is true, but, in practice it was often ignored. I certainly went to 2 Catholic funerals when I was a member. One was a funeral in Burbank in about 1980 and I know 2 other Orangemen who were there (one from the same lodge as me whose mother was a Catholic). I also went to a wedding in Motherwell Cathedral around the same time. I'm not even sure if the 'rule book' still officially prohibits wedding or funeral attendance. The former Grand Wizard in Scotland, Ian Wilson, was certainly planning to revise the constitution a number of years ago, but I don't know how far that went. Even in Ireland (whose Grand Lodge has a different constitution to that in Scotland) attending a Catholic funeral is no longer a big deal, as you can read here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-13001724 The Orange Order will take no action against UUP leader and Orangeman Tom Elliott for going to Ronan Kerr's funeral Mass, the BBC understands. The rules of the Orange Order prohibit members from attending Catholic Masses. Mr Elliott and the former UUP deputy leader Danny Kennedy publicly attended the funeral of Constable Kerr in Beragh on Wednesday. When asked about their attendance an order spokesman told the BBC: "It is important that the Kerr family know they have widespread support throughout the community and the Orange Order offers sincere sympathy to them on the loss of their brave son." A former Ulster Unionist leader and Orangeman David Trimble attended a funeral Mass in Donegal for some of the victims of the Omagh bomb in 1998 without any action being taken. Away from public gaze, it is known that members do attend the funerals of Catholic friends without censure. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The OP Posted July 15, 2013 Share Posted July 15, 2013 The attendance at Ronan Kerr's funeral was an incredibly big deal, hence the news reports and furore surrounding it. Personally I think it would be just swell if they didn't have such rules, rather than having them and only enforcing them on occasion -1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaz Posted July 15, 2013 Share Posted July 15, 2013 Grand Wizard 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blanco Posted July 15, 2013 Share Posted July 15, 2013 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.