www.ditl.org

Sionnach Glic wrote:You've never heard of the Troubles?

Probably not by that name - I don't know about Austria, but nobody in America would know that term out of context. That's like the parts of the American South which refer to the American Civil War as the "recent unpleasantness."

Fair point. I hadn't actually noticed his location (d'oh).

Well, to put it simply, the Catholics and Protestants have a history of killing each other in Northern Ireland. Shankill is a part of the main city in the North - Belfast. The Troubles reffers to a 30 year long period where the (mainly Catholic) IRA carried out a terrorist campaign in the North in an attempt to force the British to relinquish control of the region and hand it over the the Republic of Ireland. There's currently a ceasefire (supposedly, anyway), but I can't imagine the two groups will ever get along.

How much were the troubles a religeious thing? My impression was that the religeous differences were tertiary to nationalistic and ethnic motivations.

sunnyside wrote: My impression was that the religeous differences were tertiary to nationalistic and ethnic motivations.

My impression is that in Ireland, religious (;-)) differences and nationalistic and ethnic motivations tend to be one and the same...

sunnyside wrote:How much were the troubles a religeious thing? My impression was that the religeous differences were tertiary to nationalistic and ethnic motivations.

It was primarily a nationalistic thing, yes, but religion played a major part in it as well. Really, it goes all the way back to before the 1916 Rising.

sunnyside wrote:How much were the troubles a religeious thing? My impression was that the religeous differences were tertiary to nationalistic and ethnic motivations.

They were, but since republicans tend to be Catholics and Unionists tend to be Protestant, minor details of peoples political affiliation (or whether they gave a shit about anything other than not getting blown up/shot/etc) were generally ignored.

Sionnach Glic wrote:It was primarily a nationalistic thing, yes, but religion played a major part in it as well. Really, it goes all the way back to before the 1916 Rising.

To be specific, the religious angle goes back to to the late 16th century, and started getting really nasty in the late 17th century.

Captain Seafort wrote:

IanKennedy wrote:Well in the UK the CofE doesn't really hate the Catholics...Religion just isn't that much of an issue in the UK.

Depends which part of the UK - I can't see a Catholic being too welcome in the Shankill, peace process or no peace process.

Yes, but that's an extreme case. Most of the UK isn't like that.

Sonic Glitch wrote:

sunnyside wrote: My impression was that the religeous differences were tertiary to nationalistic and ethnic motivations.

My impression is that in Ireland, religious (;-)) differences and nationalistic and ethnic motivations tend to be one and the same...

In a Northern Island setting a mixed marriage would be one between a Catholic and a Protestant.

Very true.

Captain Seafort wrote:To be specific, the religious angle goes back to to the late 16th century, and started getting really nasty in the late 17th century.

Yeah, the whole massacering the Catholics thing wasn't a great PR move.

Sionnach Glic wrote:Yeah, the whole massacering the Catholics thing wasn't a great PR move.

The whole "dumping shitloads of Jocks into Ulster" thing wasn't a good move full stop, PR or otherwise. I'm struggling to think of a single Irish-related policy that London hasn't managed to fuck up.

Captain Seafort wrote:I'm struggling to think of a single Irish-related policy that London hasn't managed to f**k up

That is a tough one to figure out.

Yeah, that was less a debate and more of a whupping.

On the surface, Widdicomb is a former government minister and the other guy is an Arch Bishop. They should be perfectly capable of defending themselves and their beliefs.

But come on... they were up against Hitchens, a man who is world famous for being an attack dog on religion, and Stephen Fry, who could probably lay claim to being one of the all around smartest and most well spoken men alive - seriously, you can name just about ANY subject to Fry and he will start explaining it to you as if he was a world class expert.

The approach of the pro catholics was amazing. The Arch Bishop just seemed to take a line of "Well we're the CATHOLIC CHURCH! Of COURSE we're a source for good in the world, how could it be otherwise?" In some of the analysis I've read about the debate he's been called a "Typical John Paul type - utterly convinced he's right, utterly ignorant and cluless about any opinion that might differ from church policy."

Widdicombe is... she's not the most popular person in the UK. She has a HORRIBLE speaking voice (some claim she sounds like she's drunk all the time), and tends to have a rather condescending attitude. I thought it came through in spades when somebody asked her why she's allowed to be an MP but not a Priest... and her reply was a scornful "Well you've obviously never heard of..." and named some obscure catholic doctrine. It came across as horribly arrogant, and simultaneously missed the point that what he really wanted was a justification in terms of why that particular doctrine is fair.

But that's the ultimate strength and the ultimate weakness of the catholic position on things like this. The ULTIMATE reason for the things they do basically sums up to "because GOD SAYS SO!" If you believe that, then any other argument is superfluous. If you don't, it comes across as awfully weak.

Had to say Fry nailed them when they used the "Well we did bad things then but so did everyone else" and he came back with "Well if your morality is no better than anybody elses then when the hell are you even for!"

And when Widdicombe said "Oh, I just KNEW you'd bring up the child abuse and condoms!" - oh boy, that's when I knew they were going to lose big. You do NOT get to brush away thousands of child rape victims like that. It stuns me that even now, the catholic church doesn't seem to get just how those scandals have made a lot of people look at them.

GrahamKennedy wrote:Yeah, that was less a debate and more of a whupping.

On the surface, Widdicomb is a former government minister and the other guy is an Arch Bishop. They should be perfectly capable of defending themselves and their beliefs.

As you noted everything else you refered to contradicts that proposition.

With their fundamental problem being they didn't seem to even really be trying to gear their arguments towards atheists, and if anything alienated protestants.

If the goal was to gain numbers in that poll, a high schooler in the debate club would have served better.

I suppose it's possible they were out there to speak to current and past catholics. But if not they were simply not the right people, or remotely qualified for this. They were selected for their positions, not their ability to have an argument like this.

Again, I'm a protestant and think the Catholic church has had and still does have some major issues.

But this was shooting fish in a barrel.

sunnyside wrote:

GrahamKennedy wrote:Yeah, that was less a debate and more of a whupping.

On the surface, Widdicomb is a former government minister and the other guy is an Arch Bishop. They should be perfectly capable of defending themselves and their beliefs.

As you noted everything else you refered to contradicts that proposition.

With their fundamental problem being they didn't seem to even really be trying to gear their arguments towards atheists, and if anything alienated protestants.

If the goal was to gain numbers in that poll, a high schooler in the debate club would have served better.

I suppose it's possible they were out there to speak to current and past catholics. But if not they were simply not the right people, or remotely qualified for this. They were selected for their positions, not their ability to have an argument like this.

Again, I'm a protestant and think the Catholic church has had and still does have some major issues.

But this was shooting fish in a barrel.

Anne Widdicomb is, as has been said previously, a former government minister. She's more than capable of defending her position on things. The fact that she did so badly in this is either because she has a blind spot on this topic or the position is simply untenable.

Nope, it is not