Scotlands Shame

[Donna Ferentes]

The purpose of that post escapes me.

 

[pogofish]

I don't know where the hostility comes from on the Protestant side, maybe it's just a continuation of historical racism against Irish immigrants.

Not exactly. Indeed it seems to be something home grown, although it might well share roots with aspects of Irish Sectarianism.

Another shithole Lanarkshire school I was once involved with took part in a national genealogy project & initially got full support & participation from its local Orange Lodges. Support wich was rapidly withdrawn when the kids began to turn-up records showing that many of the area's staunchly true-blue Protestant families were originated in C18-19 Irish Catholic immigrants!

This did not go down at all well!

 

[inflatable jesus]

On the Catholic side I do think the church as an organisation is part of the problem. It's overly political, and it reinforces the idea of a 'separate' Catholic community on some level.

Historically, it's true that the church has had a vested interest in keeping Irish immigrants catholic and in building a seperate community with the church at it's centre. However, the main reason why it was able to do this was because of the racism and discrimmination that Catholic Irish immigrants often faced in Scotland.

But these days I think Catholic church's involvement in this problem is very minimal. I tend to find that most people who self-identify as Catholic in Scotland are not the least bit interested in the Church's opinion on anything. Catholocism for most people these days just tends to mean going to a catholic school, supporting Celtic and listening to the Pogues too much.

I'd say you're pretty spot on with the part about the Rangers side being an extention of historical racism towards Irish immigrants though. You can still get a sense of that in some of the language that they use.

 

[snadge]

jesus, your easily pissed off - agreed that its a fasion no-no tho, might i also recommend that you steer clear of Newcastle as wearing of a football shirt is mandatory there

no it's not

 

[inflatable jesus]

If Boruc had been gay and had been getting homophobic abuse, then blew a kiss at the crowd, would he be guilty of engaging in homophobic banter? If he was muslim and had been getting islamophobic abuse, then kneeled down as if to pray in front of his tormentors, would he be guilty of engaging in islamophobic banter? Of course not.

I'm from a mixed family (dad catholic, mum protestant) and I don't support either of the old firm before anyone starts

I would start, but I really don't understand your point.

Is it that Boruc isn't guilty of banter?

Has banter now been outlawed?

 

[Sue]

Not really related, but did anyone hear what (Archbishop) Mario Conti's been saying about those firemen who were disciplined for not handing out leaflets at Pride? Was on the radio first thing this morning so wasn't too alert -- something about people having the right to refuse to do stuff if it offended their moral values or something.

Now that's exactly what you'd expect him to come out with, the question is more why the media see his opinions as worth reporting given the increasing irrelevance of the Church in most peoples lives. Why are Mario Conti and such still held up to be moral commentators worth quoting?

Still, suppose 'Moderator of the Church of Scotland says firemen should've handed out leaflets' wouldn't make much of a headline.

****BBC Newsflash: 'Vatican admits Pope is a Catholic.'*****

ETA: From the BBC website:

'Archbishop Mario Conti of Glasgow said: "We have followed this case with concern.

"They were asked, while in uniform, to hand out leaflets during a demonstration where they had legitimate concerns about being the subject of taunts and jokes, and in which in some cases, <b>their religious sensibilities would have been grossly offended by people dressed as priests and nuns lampooning the Church</b>."

He added: "That the officers concerned are being forced to undergo diversity training is alarming. The duty to obey one's conscience is a higher duty than that of obeying orders." '

 

[floopadelic]

Historically, it's true that the church has had a vested interest in keeping Irish immigrants catholic and in building a seperate community with the church at it's centre. However, the main reason why it was able to do this was because of the racism and discrimmination that Catholic Irish immigrants often faced in Scotland.

But these days I think Catholic church's involvement in this problem is very minimal. I tend to find that most people who self-identify as Catholic in Scotland are not the least bit interested in the Church's opinion on anything. Catholocism for most people these days just tends to mean going to a catholic school, supporting Celtic and listening to the Pogues too much.

I'd say you're pretty spot on with the part about the Rangers side being an extention of historical racism towards Irish immigrants though. You can still get a sense of that in some of the language that they use.

I agree with everything you've said except for the bit about the Catholic church's involvement being minimal. They resist the idea of non-denominational schools, even shared campuses, they are determinedly illiberal and anti-gay, anti-contraception, you name it they have an opinion on it!

Those views do not (as you say) reflect the views of the average nominal catholic, but they are the public face of catholics in scotland and do create an impression of difference where very little difference exists.

I can remember as a kid there were plenty of joyless right-wing protestant pastors who were politically vocal, but they don't seem to exist any more. In the Catholic church they are not only are still there, they're more politically vocal than ever.

 

[inflatable jesus]

Don't get me wrong, they're a shower of arseholes with nothing worthwhile to say. However, they are only actively involved in two ways:

Firstly, they get invited to these silly meetings with Jack McConnell and the Grand Wizard of the sash brigade where they spend their time defending catholic education. However since it should be obvious to everyone that religious intolerance is not an issue that you can solve by identifying 'leaders' and engaging them in dialougue, it's not really that important.

Secondly, thier existence itself means that many Scottish 'catholics' continue to frame these issues in religious terms. This gives some people the idea that being catholic is somehow an act of defiance against the forces that wish to take this away.

Personally, I would like to see Celtic supporters stop using the term 'Catholic' as a collective identity. I think the term is too loaded and gives some people some funny ideas about the value of being a bead rattler.

However, I would add that the vast vast majority of work on this issue has to be done on the other side. Rangers supporters need to universally recognise that the descendents of Irish immigrants are not inferior in any way (and are actually superior in terms of good looks and footballing ability) and that there's equally little value in being Protestant.

 

[floopadelic]

You really don't see the Catholic church in Scotland as a political voice and influence?

Because that's what struck me straight away on returning here. And I moved here from the Republic of Ireland

 

[forked brain]

You really don't see the Catholic church in Scotland as a political voice and influence?

And the influence of the masons in the west of Scotland is as bad, if not worse.

 

[pogofish]

But these days I think Catholic church's involvement in this problem is very minimal.

Remember that as far as the bigots are concerned, the Catholic Church is inexorably involved in this - Celtic itself was originally a Catholic institution, formed & constituted by a monk as a fund-raising instrument for Irish-mission avtivities.

 

[inflatable jesus]

I think that they are an institution with a small amount of political influence and slightly greater amount of media visibility. I think they're definitely involved in efforts to ensure the continuation of catholic education in Scotland, but that's no more than a side note in this subject for me.

What I think is more important is that they have very little influence over Celtic supporters in general and celtic supporters that engage in stupid acts of violence against Protestants in particular. So I think it's fair to say that they have very little to offer to the debate. That's why when they try, they only come up with trivial things like the anti-catholic settlement issue.

Celtic FC's links with Irishness and catholocism are well known and while I understand that certain bigots see this as a negative thing, I really don't know if there's really a problem to be adressed there. I don't think anyone is seriously asking all Scottish Catholics to stop being Catholic or for Celtic to publicly renounce it's historical links with the church.

From what I gather it's only things like the Celtic fans support for the IRA and public displays of the tricolour that are really brought up as issues to be adressed. These are things that the Church has little interest in, so I think it's innacurate to say that the Church is holding back progress in any meaningful way.

Except the Catholic education thing, but then I think there's more to that issue than is immediately obvious.

 

[david dissadent]

I fucking hate this thread. I have nothing positive to add other than I fucking hate this thread. And I have seen enough over the years to know many cunts use there making of the cross as fuck all to do with a faith in the Christ and everything to do with sectarian identification.

Self rightous cardinals and bishops apart.

If they want to defend the freedom of expression then they can defend all freedom of expression otherwise there as full of shite as always.

 

[david dissadent]

so I think it's innacurate to say that the Church is holding back progress in any meaningful way.

So long as there is religious apartheid there will be trouble. And BOTH churches are slavering mad for there 'flocks' to be segregated young.

 

[inflatable jesus]

It's true that segregation is a bad thing in general, but sectarianism predates (state sponsored) catholic education and would still exist if it was abolished.

Scotland is one of a very small amount of countries where religious educuation is considered to be contributing to a social problem. I've lived in two other countries now that have catholic education and no problems with Catholic/Protestant sectariansim. These problems are not caused by segregated schools. Segregated schools are a symptom of the problem itself.

It's also worth considering why so many Scottish Catholics choose to send their children to Catholic schools, particularly given the plummeting church attendances and increasing rejection of various church doctrines (no shagging, condoms, abortions, etc). I think for most Catholic parents is mainly down to a fear that their children will be targetted and/or attacked if placed in a School with mostly Protestants. Certainly, that's the impression I got from growing up as a Catholic in largely Protestant areas.

 

[floopadelic]

It's true that segregation is a bad thing in general, but sectarianism predates (state sponsored) catholic education and would still exist if it was abolished.

To me separate schooling has been a big factor in prolonging sectarianism. That sectarianism predated it does not mean it is not significant.

I hope it is less of a factor today, we live in a less insular world which I think helps.

 

[inflatable jesus]

It has certain polarising effect that's true. However, I feel that it's given an undue sense of importance by some people and for some very bad reasons.

The unfortunate thing about the Catholic education question is that historically there has always been a section of Scottish society that has opposed denominational schools, not because they fear it will breed bigotry, but because they object to Goverment money being used to promote the inferior Catholic religion.

What pisses me off is that whenever this subject comes up, there are always certain traditional voices like the Orange Order and Rangers football club that will attempt to lay the blame for the whole thing at the door of Catholic education. And that's it. Nothing further. It was all the taigs and their Papist schools.

It stops meaningful debate in it's tracks and just seeks to removes blame from institutions with a more active historical role in fostering sectarianism. Can you guess who I'm talking about?

A any moves towards abandoning Catholic education has to be done in the correct way. It should never be imagined as a solution for sectarianism, only as another part of the process of repairing the damage.

I think I remember saying this last time the subject come up, but on the day that Catholic education is abolished, I want Donald Findlay to be there reading a speech honouring the contribution of Irish immigrants to Scotland and sincerely apologising for Rangers FC's sectarian signing policy. Shortly afterwards, Jack MCConnell will announce his plan to eradicate the horrendous poverty in certain parts of the country, acknowledging finally the links between social deprivation and crimminal violence. The Catholic church will then apologise for theor stance on abortion, supporting the fascists in the 30s and 40s and for Daniel O'Donnell.

 

[geminisnake]

So long as there is religious apartheid there will be trouble. And BOTH churches are slavering mad for their 'flocks' to be segregated young.

What I've never understood about religion and bigottry is if you have two sets of people worshipping the same person does it really matter if their ways are a bit different?
If these people were true christians shouldn't they be turning their other cheeks? And does it really matter if their god is 'all forgiving' anyway?

Ban the lot of them as far as I'm concerned. The whole thing is full of contradictory shite

 

[nino_savatte]

What I've never understood about religion and bigottry is if you have two sets of people worshipping the same person does it really matter if their ways are a bit different?
If these people were true christians shouldn't they be turning their other cheeks? And does it really matter if their god is 'all forgiving' anyway?

Ban the lot of them as far as I'm concerned. The whole thing is full of contradictory shite

If you think the Protestant/Catholic thing is bad, you should have a look at the early Xtian church. Anyone who didn't accept the Nicene Creed (i.e. Monophysites) were expelled or worse. The Bogomils were relentlessly persecuted, as were the Cathars and the Albigensians. I suppose what this all boils down to is the fact that both of the main branches of Xtianity differ only in minor matters of doctrine. Indeed the ritual of high church CofE is little different to Catholic ritual...but without the incense and the decorative surroundings....and the transubstantiation.

Don't get me started on the East/West schism though (Rome versus Constantinople), that's a real headache.

 

[floopadelic]

A any moves towards abandoning Catholic education has to be done in the correct way. It should never be imagined as a solution for sectarianism, only as another part of the process of repairing the damage.

I'm with you there. The wider issue of division is the elephant in the room though, and few people are prepared to talk about it except to tut-tut at the old firm fans. It's convenient to put the blame on a few football fans because it avoids looking too deeply at the problem.

 

[inflatable jesus]

What I've never understood about religion and bigottry is if you have two sets of people worshipping the same person does it really matter if their ways are a bit different?
If these people were true christians shouldn't they be turning their other cheeks? And does it really matter if their god is 'all forgiving' anyway?

Ban the lot of them as far as I'm concerned. The whole thing is full of contradictory shite

I can see why it's tempting to see the whole thing as a big stupid misunderstanding, but there's just as much of a biblical precedent for sectarianism as there is for tolerence.

The unfortunate thing for we bead rattlers is that most Protestant branches offer a more faithful interpretation of biblical teaching and their criticisms of the Pagan tendencies of the Catholic church are actually quite spot on. So if this whole thing was genuinely about a disagreement about how to interpret the bible, then the prods really would be on the higher ground. Half the bible is about the various prophets saying that everything bad that happenned to the Jews was because of the incorporation on Pagan practices into Hebrew society, although personally I would argue that Judaism and all the religions that spring from it have pretty solid pagan roots (animal sacrifice, a concern with fertility, weather, disease, etc) and that the pitifully low COS church attendences are a result of trying to mix religion and common sense, but then that's just me.

However, this conflict was always been more about immigration and social class than it ever was about religion. I suspect the tendency to label it as a division between 'Catholics and Protestants' and not 'Irish and Scottish' had a lot to do with the attempts of skilled Protestant Northern Irish immigrants to try and distance themselves in the eyes of the native Scots from the unskilled catholic Irish ones, kind of a 'No wait, we're the good Irish! We're proddies like you! It's those taigs that are the real problem' thing.

So, for me it's not something that can be resolved at the religious end. Banning religions would have the opposite effect from what it was intended. The problem is something that can only be solved by economic parity between the two groups and less geographical and cultural division. It's also going to involve a serious examination of Scottish society and a widespread acknowledgement that the racism that Irish immigrants experienced was wrong.

 

[david dissadent]

Banning religions would have the opposite effect from what it was intended. The problem is something that can only be solved by economic parity between the two groups and less geographical and cultural division. It's also going to involve a serious examination of Scottish society and a widespread acknowledgement that the racism that Irish immigrants experienced was wrong.

Who wants to ban relgion. The point is that almost all secularists and many people of faith (and not just the orange order) who want segregation done awaywith. No banning of religion. Just mixing of people instead of appartheid so show who to hate and who you belong to.

The racism that Irish immigrants experianced was wrong, but so what? The meat heads use it as an excuse to justify there hate. It has nothing to do with why that hate is still felt in the west of Scotland. Irish immigrants experianced discrimination all across the UK and America and other countries.

 

[inflatable jesus]

Who wants to ban relgion. [?]

Geminisnake. Although I presumed she wasn't particularly serious.

The point is that almost all secularists and many people of faith (and not just the orange order) who want segregation done awaywith. No banning of religion. Just mixing of people instead of appartheid so show who to hate and who you belong to.

I went to a faith school and yet miraculously I don't hate protestants. You're seriously overstating the importance of this issue and to me it sounds like you're doing it because you want to blame the whole thing on the Catholics.

The racism that Irish immigrants experianced was wrong, but so what? The meat heads use it as an excuse to justify there hate.

Are you seriously suggesting that the Irish immigrants' objection to their treatment was some kind of an invention? That really they wanted discrimmination and violence just so they could hold a grudge about it?

It has nothing to do with why that hate is still felt in the west of Scotland.

That's easily the stupidest thing I've read on this thread.

Irish immigrants experianced discrimination all across the UK and America and other countries.

The main difference is in the continuing actions and attitudes of the Protestant population. In Scotland we have Orange marches, Catholic ghettos and a history of religious chauvanism. In New York being Irish isn't a stigma, it's something to be proud of.

What made the difference? Probably that New York didn't a have a violent reformation, that it didn't become a center for Northern Irish Protestant immigration, that New York was not experiencing an industrial decline during it's periods of Irish immigration.

What it absolutely was not about was a bunch of Scottish Fenians and their uniquely great love of hating proddies for no reason.

 

[david dissadent]

I went to a faith school and yet miraculously I don't hate protestants. You're seriously overstating the importance of this issue and to me it sounds like you're doing it because you want to blame the whole thing on the Catholics.

Beyer Naude was brought up in an upstanding Afrikaner family went to a Afrikaner school and was a priest in the very racist Afrikaner orientated NG Kerk. Yet he was a staunch supporter of the ANC and multi racial integration.

Sorry you had a point? Oh and no no no no. Strawman argument. I dont want to blame the whole thing on Catholics. Take your assumptions and stick em pal. I apportion part of the blame on the school system and ALL those who wish to retain the apartheid school system. Keep your accusations that I am a bigot out of this thread. Not unless you can prove it with something more substantial than disagreeing with you.

Are you seriously suggesting that the Irish immigrants' objection to their treatment was some kind of an invention?

Total strawman and an unwarranted one at that.

The racism that Irish immigrants experienced was wrong,

Where am I suggesting that the treatment was an invention in that statement?

It has nothing to do with why that hate is still felt in the west of Scotland.

That's easily the stupidest thing I've read on this thread.

Tough. Any number of immigrant communities have been subject to abuse and discrimination, even here in the UK, into the 1980s. They do not respond with the same sectarianism. Take the UKs afro Caribbean community. There is nothing like the intercommunal strife that exists in Scotland. Schools breed it, football perpetuates it.

The main difference is in the continuing actions and attitudes of the Protestant population.

You are explicitly blaming the protestant community here. Solely given your wording.

And I strongly maintain that the attitude of Glasgow protestants is largely borne of separate schooling. So even were it a one sided issue it is still segregated schooling.

In Scotland we have Orange marches, Catholic ghettos and a history of religious chauvinism. In New York being Irish isn't a stigma, it's something to be proud of.

Catholic ghettos? WHAT THE FUCK? You are going to tell me Motherwell is some kind of Ghettoized community? They have hate there people live and work side by side, but went to separate schools.

Catholic Ghettos? Get over yourself.

In New York being Irish isn't a stigma, it's something to be proud of.

What made the difference? Probably that New York didn't a have a violent reformation, that it didn't become a center for Northern Irish Protestant immigration, that New York was not experiencing an industrial decline during it's periods of Irish immigration.

What it absolutely was not about was a bunch of Scottish Fenians and their uniquely great love of hating proddies for no reason.

First London Manchester and Liverpool all had large influxes of protestant Irish and were part of the same history of religious warfare as the rest of the UK.
Second large numbers of protestant Irish did immigrate to US cities at the same time as the Irish catholics.
Third learn some US history, America was founded by protestant radicals, often virtualy expelled from the UK, and during the great awakening they were kept far more protestant and religious than there UK counterparts.
Finaly have you never heard of the Scotch Irish? Yet in areas where they settled there is no more anti Irish feeling than other parts of the US.





<edited because I was very very angry at someones insinuation that I am a bigot to score a cheap point and what I wrote was a tad rude>

 

[inflatable jesus]

Sigh

I really hate doing this nitpicky shite, but given that you either haven't understood a word I've said, or you have a wee reading problem it looks like I have to do this peice by peice.

...Strawman argument...

Just to remind you, I was writing in response to your claim that Catholic education was "appartheid so [should that have been to?] show who to hate and who you belong to." I refuted this claim on the grounds that I had a Catholic education and do not hate Protestants.

So where's the straw man?

Are you suggesting that I am the exception and that every (or almost every) other person that goes through catholic education does hate protestants?

Or are you just pretending that my statement was my attempt to prove that Catholic education has no effect on the sectarian issue, despite my many statements to the contrary on this thread, thereby deflecting attention from your stupid and pompous claim?

I apportion part of the blame on the school system and ALL those who wish to retain the apartheid school system.

This is my problem. Debate stops right there. You seem utterly unwilling to apportion blame anywhere outside of the Catholic school system. It's a remarkably similar position to that of the Orange Order and the Scottish Protestant League. Curiously, it's also the only position where it's possible to remove Scottish Protestants entirely from blame.

Total strawman and an unwarranted one at that.Where am I suggesting that the treatment was an invention in that statement?

There seems to be a wee problem with your quote there.

You didn't say "The racism that Irish immigrants experianced was wrong", you said "The racism that Irish immigrants experianced was wrong, but so what? The meat heads use it as an excuse to justify there hate."

Why the fuck would you think I wouldn't notice that little substitution?

My main problem is that when you use the terms 'so what?' and 'excuse' you're suggesting that racism and discrimmination are not important either to us when we consider the subject of sectarianism, or to Catholics when they talk about it as a problem.

Who are these meat heads incidentally? Are they Protestant or Catholic?

I read this language and can't help but thinking that you think sectarianism is a problem caused by Catholic schools and and stupid Catholics with an unreasonable, un-understanable grudge against Protestants.

Any number of immigrant communities have been subject to abuse and discrimination, even here in the UK, into the 1980s. They do not respond with the same sectarianism. Take the UKs afro Caribbean community. There is nothing like the intercommunal strife that exists in Scotland. Schools breed it, football perpetuates it.

Why do you think sectarianism is a 'response' to discrimmination? Anyone with a working brain and no grudge against Catholics would surely regard religious discrimmination as part of a sectarian problem and not something that it responded to with 'sectarianism''. Unless sectarianism is a term that only applies to the taigs.

And I strongly maintain that the attitude of Glasgow protestants is largely borne of separate schooling.

That's because you're either a bigot or an idiot. I haven't given up on either possibilities TBH.

Catholic ghettos? WHAT THE FUCK? You are going to tell me Motherwell is some kind of Ghettoized community? They have hate there people live and work side by side, but went to separate schools.

Main Entry: 1ghet·to
Pronunciation: 'ge-(")tO
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural ghettos also ghettoes
Etymology: Italian, from Venetian dialect ghèto island where Jews were forced to live, literally, foundry (located on the island), from ghetàr to cast, from Latin jactare to throw -- more at JET
1 : a quarter of a city in which Jews were formerly required to live
2 : a quarter of a city in which members of a minority group live especially because of social, legal, or economic pressure
3 a : an isolated group <a geriatric ghetto> b : a situation that resembles a ghetto especially in conferring inferior status or limiting opportunity <the pink-collar ghetto>

Traditionally, Catholics were concentrated in certain areas of the East end. Even now there are still certain areas that are known as Catholic areas and suffer from notable deprivation, Easterhouse springs immediately to mind. Even now research has shown that there still a disparity between Catholic and Protestants in terms of income and life expectancy.

Please note, that I at no point claimed that Sectarianism was solely caused by the existance of Catholic Ghettos, historical or otherwise. You've got some cheek to moan about strawmen there son.

First London Manchester and Liverpool all had large influxes of protestant Irish and were part of the same history of religious warfare as the rest of the UK.

Firstly, if I were to guess, I would say that the seperate religious traditions in Scotland and Scotland's more turbulent reformation created a different and more militant kind of Protestantism in Scotland compared to elsewhere.

Seondly, I believe that Glasgow was a much bigger centre of Protestant immigration than those other British Cities this source puts the figure at about 25% which I don't think was true elsewhere.

Second large numbers of protestant Irish did immigrate to US cities at the same time as the Irish catholics.

Third learn some US history, America was founded by protestant radicals, often virtualy expelled from the UK, and during the great awakening they were kept far more protestant and religious than there UK counterparts.
Finaly have you never heard of the Scotch Irish? Yet in areas where they settled there is no more anti Irish feeling than other parts of the US.

Firstly, I'll learn some US history when you learn some grammar you pig-ignorant cunt.

Secondly, as far as I was aware, In the USA Protestant immigration was largely centred around the early colonial period and Catholic immigration tended to centre around the mid to late 19th Century. I'm no expert and I'm quite happy to stand corrected if you produce evidence, although a quick google seems to back up that rough version of events:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_American

As such I don't feel that I necessarily need to adress your point about discrimmination from Irish protestants. By the time Catholic immigration really got going, the Scots-irish would have been assimilated Americans. They would also not have been competing for jobs with the unskilled Catholic Irish and they would have had little knowledge of the increasing tensions between Catholics and Protestants in Ireland during this period.

At this point I feel I should also point out that New York has Catholic schools and has always had Catholic schools. Given that you think Catholic education is the source of sectarianism, I'm interested in hearing about why you think there is little to no antagonism between Catholics and Protestants in New York.

Is it because the taigs in Scotland are just uniquely hateful? Let's face it, who really understands those guys anyway?

edited because I was very very angry at someones insinuation that I am a bigot to score a cheap point and what I wrote was a tad rude

Don't hold back on my account Dave. I'm curious. What were you going to say?

 

[david dissadent]

That's because you're either a bigot or an idiot. I haven't given up on either possibilities TBH.

Again you suggest I am a bigot. It is laughable, but also a very serious accusation.

I demand an apology and further demand you cease and desist from this slander.

This is getting a post all of its own because I do take the allegation very serisouly. You know nothing about me, my life and my family.

 

[david dissadent]

Just to remind you, I was writing in response to your claim that Catholic education was "appartheid so [should that have been to?] show who to hate and who you belong to." I refuted this claim on the grounds that I had a Catholic education and do not hate Protestants.

So where's the straw man?

The strawman is your deliberate misrepresentation of my position. I do not claim catholic education breed hatred, but the seperation of two groups at school is the primary causes of the continuation of sectrarianism. You create the false argument that I am opposed to catholic education only. NO no no. I see why you want to present this strawman. It is an easy position to demolish. But it is both communities being seperated that continues the hatred in both communities.

Your example is also a logical fallicy and that I was trying to demonstrate with the example of an ANC supporting Afrikaner emerging from the South African Appartheid schooling system. You take a single example and then claim to have demolished my position based on a single sample (I think this is a version of the baised sample logical fallicy).

If a general trend emerges from a social situation (in this case segregated schooling) providing a single example that does not conform to this trend does not invalidate the trend in general.

And stop rewriting my position to be more convinient. Its almost as distasteful as your persistant ad hominems.

Firstly, I'll learn some US history when you learn some grammar you pig-ignorant cunt.

cute.

I read this language and can't help but thinking that you think sectarianism is a problem caused by Catholic schools and and stupid Catholics with an unreasonable, un-understanable grudge against Protestants.

I apolgise then if my poor grammer has led to your misunderstanding. The seperation of people at school it the critical factor in the continuation of sectartianism. It is not the fault of catholics only but both sides and all the politicians that keep people appart.


Is this also anti catholic?

http://inclusion.uwe.ac.uk/csie/reasonsagstsegschooling.pdf#search="segregated schooling"


Is this report anti catholic?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1435390.stm

He said segregated schooling had emerged as a real problem.

You seem utterly unwilling to apportion blame anywhere outside of the Catholic school system. It's a remarkably similar position to that of the Orange Order and the Scottish Protestant League.

First the is not my position. Second this is the logical fallicy of guilt by association. Hitler was a vegitarian. Are all vegitarians race obsessed tyrants? Even if it was my position that counter argument is spurious.

Don't hold back on my account Dave. I'm curious. What were you going to say?

nothing worthwhile. This thread makes me angry.

 

[inflatable jesus]

Again you suggest I am a bigot. It is laughable, but also a very serious accusation.

I demand an apology and further demand you cease and desist from this slander.

This is getting a post all of its own because I do take the allegation very serisouly. You know nothing about me, my life and my family.

Firstly, fuck you. Why don't you apoloigise to me instead?

Secondly, you're correct, I know nothing about you. All I've got to go on is a handful of posts over the course of which you've suggested that racism and discrimmination are not important factors to consider when the issue of sectarianism comes up, that sectarianism is something that Catholics 'reacted' with rather than were subjected to, and then concluded that Protestant attitudes towards Catholics was largely the fault of segregated schooling. There's two possibilities for why somebody would think these things. One is that they find themselves unable to criticise Protestants in any way. The other is that they don't understand the first thing about the situation.

Maybe you're a bigot, maybe you're not. You're right, I honestly don't know. Why don't I give you an opportunity to prove it?

Whe don't you tell me one thing completely unrelated to Catholic education, the catholic church or catholic 'meat heads' that is responsible for contributing to the sectarian problem?

P.S. You get extra 'I'm not a bigot' points if you name a Protestant institution.

 

[inflatable jesus]

But it is both communities being seperated that continues the hatred in both communities.

You know what dave? I think we might actually be getting somewhere here. Congratulations on finally acknowledging that there is a problem in the Proddy camp.

Your example is also a logical fallicy and that I was trying to demonstrate with the example of an ANC supporting Afrikaner emerging from the South African Appartheid schooling system. You take a single example and then claim to have demolished my position based on a single sample (I think this is a version of the baised sample logical fallicy).

If I've misrepresented your original position, perhaps you can explain it to me.

Just mixing of people instead of appartheid so show who to hate and who you belong to.

Now when I read this, I think the person that wrote it believes that there is a rule in place that the principal effect of segregated schooling is to show a person who to hate and who they belong to.

That position is a million miles away from anything I ever experienced in the Catholic school system and I don't think I am a particularly exceptional example. The point of my comment was to question the veracity of your statement on the grounds that my experience shows that it there is not rule in place and that a more truthful statement would be along the lines of 'segregated schooling can create negative divisions between Catholics and Protestants due the reduction in social contact'.

That would be an accurate statement because you wouldn't be implying that Catholic (or non demoninational schools) are somehow bigot factories.

So, Dave. Please explain you're statement. Are you describing a rule? Is this causal effect absolute? Do you believe it's generally true with only a tiny amount of exceptions? Or were you just indulging in ill-informed hyperbole? Who is being shown who to hate? By whom? Do you mean this literally or figuratively?

And stop rewriting my position to be more convinient. Its almost as distasteful as your persistant ad hominems.

Your original statement bordered on the incomprehensible. I was trying to make sense of it.

Is this also anti catholic?

http://inclusion.uwe.ac.uk/csie/reasonsagstsegschooling.pdf#search="segregated schooling"

No, that's a leaflet dealing with the subject of children with special educational needs. Do I really need to explain these things to you?

Is this report anti catholic?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1435390.stm

No, of course not and there's even a number of parralells one can draw between the issues facing Pakistani immigrants today and those facing Irish immigrants historically.

That report mentions working on better integration within education, but it also mentions a ton of other issues including several failures of the state that it is acknowledged are contributing to this problem. Anyone with any sense can see that segregated schools and housing are intensifying an already existing problem to do with the serious social and economic problems of the area and the way in which they are affecting Muslims disproportionately.

Equally, in Scotland there are a ton of issues that people like you and the Orange Order want to completely ignore. All you want to talk about is Catholic schools.

Where are the idiots that say it's all down to segregated schooling on that page? I can see one line mentioning it and it looks like the report is not even recommending closing them.

At this point I feel I should also point out that New York has Catholic schools and has always had Catholic schools. Given that you think Catholic education is the source of sectarianism, I'm interested in hearing about why you think there is little to no antagonism between Catholics and Protestants in New York.

You still haven't answered my question.

 

[geminisnake]

Quote:
Originally Posted by david dissadent
Who wants to ban religion. [?]

Geminisnake. Although I presumed she wasn't particularly serious.

Point: I didn't say I wanted to ban it, I said they could ban it for all I care.

I really think you two should let it go.