| Title: | Celt Notefile |
| Moderator: | TALLIS::DARCY |
| Created: | Wed Feb 19 1986 |
| Last Modified: | Tue Jun 03 1997 |
| Last Successful Update: | Fri Jun 06 1997 |
| Number of topics: | 1632 |
| Total number of notes: | 20523 |
From the North
by Rev. Des Wilson, Director, Springhill Community, Belfast
The leaders of the "four main churches" in Ireland recently decided to
visit America. Archbishop Eames of the Church of Ireland admitted that
they are going to try to persuade President Clinton not to send a peace
envoy to Ireland.
They had no mandate to say this, having been elected by no one. The
decision to send or not send a peace envoy to Ireland is a political one
in which the church leaders should not have interfered. Within days of
the announcement of the visit, over 300 Irish citizens sent a message to
President Clinton and to American church leaders saying these churchmen
had no right to speak on their behalf. It ws assumed that the
churchmen, including Cardinal Daly, would continue their campaign of
opposition to the MacBride Principles. Their opposition had to be
slightly modified because so many cities and states in America had
accepted the Principles and during the election campaign Bill Clinton
had approved of them.
The church leaders aimed then to persuade the Clinton administration to
support British policy in general, their (failed) fair employment laws
in particular, and to not send a peace envoy to Ireland. It was a
daring program for four men who did not consult their fellow citizens
before going, nor reveal anything but the most meager detail of their
intentions - especially as they have a minimal following.
In what the British government calls "Protestant areas," 20% or less are
even registered church members. No more than 15% attend services. In
urban Catholic areas about 25% attend Church. The four church leaders
have a lot of influence but few followers.
Their decision to visit the United States was almost certainly designed
to neutralize the effects of recent discussions between Mr. Clinton and
concerned Americans. It was also to discourage the appointment of a
peace envoy.
If this seems like strange behavior for men said to be dedicated to
peace, one has to reflect that these men have consistently opposed
almost every initiative for peace that Irish citizens have made.
Opposition to integrated schools came from all the church leaders, and
from the Orange order which is controlled by Presbyterian clergy.
Opposition to MacBride was spearheaded by Catholic Church authorities
and the Presbyterians who allowed an ordained minister a year's leave to
travel in the United States to oppose the MacBride Principles.
Opposition to integrated marriage is a clerical prohibition, although by
now a high proportion of Catholics marry Protestants in spite of the
church leaders' opposition.
These church leaders have consistently opposed any move to compel the
British government to talk to the elected representatives of 30% of the
Catholics in Northern Ireland. From the foundation of the northern
state, Protestant church leaders approved and supported the system which
excluded Catholics from any part in government.
In view of this - and of the fact that their policies have not
substantially changed in 25 years - the present coalition between the
four church leaders seems strange. It is a coalition of convenience.
Since the mid-nineteenth century, Protestant groups coalesced with each
other in opposition to what they saw as Catholic power. The coalition
was unnatural because the churches had serious quarrels among themselves
about doctrine and policies. It was a pragmatic political union.
The present coalition of churchmen is also pragmatic but even more
bizarre. The four disagree on everything that divides Christians
elsewhere, but are united in opposition to republicanism and change.
Irish democrats are wondering which saying describes the churchmen most
aptly: Birds of a feather flock together, or Necessity makes strange
bedfellows?
(Ed. Note: President Clinton did not meet with the above religious
leaders)
| T.R | Title | User | Personal Name | Date | Lines |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1194.1 | WOULD YOU SPEAK TO THEM | MACNAS::SMORAN | Thu Mar 11 1993 19:02 | 50 | |
In reply to the question of talking to the representatives of the
30% of Catholics (bit high), read the following and maybe you see
why they are excluded.
Joe Hendron MP SDLP
Following the outcome of the recent court case challenging the
electoral returns for the Westminster election in West Belfast, we had
numerous allegations and moralistic statements from the Provisional
Sein Fein leadership. Firstly, the fact is that the verdict of the High
Court was to conclude "that the election court reports that no illegal
practices have been committed". Secondly, with regard to Provisional
Sein Fein's attack on the judgement and their defence of "democracy,
integrity, fairness, justice, and decency" I ask the following
questions:
What is "democratic" about the following practices of the so called
republican movement?
* Dropping concrete blocks on arms of SDLP polling agents who stopped
the so called Provisional Movement from engaging in a mass
vote-stealing exercise.
* Armed and masked "freedom fighters" threatening SDLP polling agents
the night before elections to ensure that they would not inhibit the
widespread personification of the Provos.
* Wrecking SDLP election offices.
* Hawking sackfuls of forged medical cards around at election time to
facilitate mass vote- stealing.
* Dragging an elderly SDLP polling agent out of a polling station and
beating him up because he dares to challange the personation efforts of
the Provos.
* Indeed it is a peculiar definition of democracy which tries to stop
SDLP meetings by riddling with bullets the venue in which the meeting
was taking place.
It is peculiar, then, that Provisional Sinn Fein leadership should wax
so elequently about " integrity, fairness, decency and justice". With
the background of Provo violence against the entire community, it is
sickening hypocrisy. Since when did it ever become "fair" or "decent"
to deprive famalies of a loved one or to blow up peoples jobs? Since
when was there ever any "entegrity" associated with Provisional Sein
Fein trooping through the British courts to assert their civil rights
yet at the same time fully endorsing a campaign of violence which
deprives the individual, judges included, of the most fundamental
humane right - the right to life?
Most people are totally sickened by the gross hypocricy of the Sein
Fein leadership and I would take this opportunity to thank thousands of
people in West Belfast and further afield who expressed their goodwill.
Despite the efforts against us, I will continue to do my utmost for and
on behalf of all the people of West Belfast.
Spoken like a TRUE IRISHMAN
| |||||
| 1194.2 | People who really want peace, talk to those they consider their enemies | KOALA::HOLOHAN | Fri Mar 12 1993 12:14 | 28 | |
re. .1
"WOULD YOU SPEAK TO THEM"
Of course, anyone who really wants peace, is willing
to talk to those they consider their enemies. Why is
this concept so difficult to grasp?
"What is "democratic" about the following practices of
the so called republican movement?"
What is democratic about political censorship?
What is democratic about a colonial occupation force
consistently violating human rights?
I'd like to hear Mr. Hendron quote his sources for
the alleged practices of Sinn Fein supporters. One
has to wonder who in the British propoganda machine
wrote this script for him. Ah, but that's probably to
harsh, as we all know the British government would
never do a thing like that (or try to influence the
outcome of a U.S. election, or try to steal industry
from a fellow EC member).
"Spoken like a TRUE IRISHMAN"
More like a dupe, I'd say.
Mark
| |||||
| 1194.3 | WHO IS THE DOPES | MACNAS::SMORAN | Fri Mar 12 1993 14:43 | 5 | |
re .2
Thats why 80+ of the Nationalist People in the North support
these Dopes. I think its about time for us Dopes to start
supporting the so called Nationalists....I think not.
| |||||
| 1194.4 | KOALA::HOLOHAN | Fri Mar 12 1993 15:59 | 10 | ||
re. .3
The word I used was dupe, not dope.
As for who you should support, that's a decision
you should make in your own conscience. As for
the 80% supporting Joe Hendron, I here that Neville
Chamberlain was quite popular also, for a while.
Mark
| |||||