Glasgow re-routes Protestant order's Easter march to avoid Catholic churches

[trotsky]

https://cruxnow.com/church-in-uk-and-ireland/2019/04/16/glasgow-re-routes-protestant-orders-easter-march-to-avoid-catholic-churches/

An Easter Sunday march by a Protestant fraternal order in Scotland will be re-routed to avoid a Catholic church where a priest was assaulted during a similar parade last year. The route was also moved to avoid a second Catholic church.

The decision was made on Tuesday by the Glasgow City Council after police voiced concerns that the event by the Apprentice Boys of Derry would potentially pose a “significant risk to public order” if the route wasn’t changed.

The Apprentice Boys of Derry is a fraternal Protestant order founded in Derry – now in Northern Ireland – in 1814. Like the more widely-known Orange Order, it organizes parades to celebrate the defeat of the Catholic King James II in the 17th century to the Protestant King William of Orange.

The parades organized by Protestant fraternal orders often lead to tensions with Catholics, both in Northern Ireland and Scotland, which is home to a large Irish diaspora of both religious backgrounds.

Religion bringing people together? Feel the tolerance!

[MineralMan]

1. Ecumenism? Not hardly.

Two groups, worshiping the same deity and reading the same scriptures, hate each other so much that they must avoid coming near each other's houses of worship. Yay, Christianity!

Fortunately the atheists in the area can walk past the churches of both groups and ignore them altogether.

And yet, some continue to claim that religion benefits society. How odd.

[guillaumeb]

2. The English transplanted the Irish and the Scots

to exploit division and make it easier for the English to exploit both in Ireland and Scotland.

The English transplanted convicts to Australia.

Very close to my own heart, and roots, the English transplanted thousands of Acadiens from their homes to La Louisiane and brought many Scots and Irish to Acadie after 1770.

Power politics.

Meanwhile, in China, the atheists who control the Chinese Government transplant Han Chinese into Muslim majority Uighur areas for the same reason.

And in Russia, when it was controlled by atheists, millions were transplanted to Siberia for the same reason.

Remarkable how, absent theism, the same actions taken for reason of power have the same results.

But for those who wish to frame and promote a simplistic narrative, they will see only what they wish to see.

[struggle4progress]

3. Over the years, several people have told me that colonial English "divide and conquer"

tactics left long-lasting social scars in the Indian subcontinent, the Middle East, and Southern Africa

[guillaumeb]

5. And the world is still dealing with those scars.

The English were not alone, of course, in using this tactic.

[trotsky]

4. I figured somehow you'd loop China into this.

With a Russian bonus.

#whataboutism

[guillaumeb]

6. Recognizing historical reality is not a logical error.

Refusing to recognize historical reality, however, is a logical error that leads to erroneous conclusions.

[trotsky]

7. But it is a logical fallacy.

Whataboutism.

[guillaumeb]

8. No, you are incorrectly using the term. eom

[trotsky]

9. No, you are. n/t

[muriel_volestrangler]

10. Most of the immigration from Scotland was from before the Act of Union in 1707

so the English didn't "transplant" Scots; they allowed and encouraged them to immigrate to Ireland, which England controlled. England and Scotland shared monarchs, of course - from the Scottish House of Stuart.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulster_Scots_people

[uriel1972]

11. Shhhh don't spoil the party... nt

actual history is not to be used.

[guillaumeb]

12. To say the English "allowed and encouraged" ignores reality.

The English deliberately forced out many Scots to encourage religious division, and to weaken the native Irish.

[uriel1972]

13. If you mean the clearences of the Highlands...

in the main they were by Landlords forcing out "Unproductive" people and replacing them with sheep. Their own aristocracy rather than "The English". the Wars of the Pretenders 1715 and 1745 were fought mostly by Scots on both sides.

As a side note, my clan was on both sides of the 1745 and managed to lose, we lost our lands to the Campbells. Heh I could go on but I wont.

[guillaumeb]

15. No, the 1609 plantation:

The Plantation of Ulster (Irish: Plandáil Uladh; Ulster-Scots: Plantin o Ulstèr)[1] was the organised colonisation (plantation) of Ulster – a province of Ireland – by people from Great Britain during the reign of King James VI & I. Most of the colonists came from Scotland, the majority having a different culture to the natives. Small private plantations by wealthy landowners began in 1606,[2] while the official plantation began in 1609. Most of the land colonised was forfeited from the native Gaelic chiefs, several of whom had fled Ireland for mainland Europe in 1607 following the Nine Years' War against English rule. The official plantation comprised an estimated half a million acres (2,000 km²) of arable land in counties Armagh, Cavan, Fermanagh, Tyrone, Tyrconnell and Derry/Londonderry.[3] Land in counties Antrim, Down and Monaghan was privately colonised with the king's support.[2]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plantation_of_Ulster

[uriel1972]

19. Did anyone else spot the glaring error?

It couldn't have been colonized by people from Great Britain. Great Britain did not exist then, now if they said "by people from what would become Great Britain" they would be correct.

That is, if we are being pedantic and all.

[guillaumeb]

20. I did not spot it.

Well done.

[muriel_volestrangler]

22. James VI and I used the term, and he is important in that decision

This item is a proclamation issued by James VI and I on 20 October 1604, in which he claims the name and style (i.e. title or manner of address): ‘King of Great Brittaine’. By so doing, James unites the previously separate titles of King of England and King of Scotland – the titles of King of France and Ireland are still listed separately.

From 1603, James was king of both Scotland and England. At that time they were two separate countries with different languages and cultures, and with a tradition of war and animosity between the two. James wanted to unite the two countries with a full legal and political union and this change in the name and style of the king was a part of his efforts towards that goal.

https://www.bl.uk/collection-items/royal-proclamation-declaring-james-vi-and-i-to-be-king-of-great-britain

[muriel_volestrangler]

14. For nearly all of the 17th century, the English were not in charge of Scotland

They occupied it under Cromwell, but when under a king, Scotland had its own parliament, and any forcing would have been done by that (or the Scottish Stuart king). And it doesn't look like the Cromwell period was significant in the moves to Ulster.

[guillaumeb]

16. See #15, and what began in 1609.

[uriel1972]

17. Can't blame the English for what happened under a Scot's King...

Cromwell and the Protestants however... you might have a case, but you haven't argued for that one yet.

[guillaumeb]

18. True, but the English allowed the transplantation.

And, I would argue, knew what would happen.

[muriel_volestrangler]

21. A moment ago, you wrote 'to say the English "allowed and encouraged" ignores reality'

now you're using the same verb.

I think the Wikipedia article you linked to shows that my point that England did not force Scots to go to Ireland is correct. "James had been King of Scotland before he also became King of England and needed to reward his subjects in Scotland with land in Ulster to assure them they were not being neglected now that he had moved his court to London. In addition, long-standing contact and settlement between Ulster and the west of Scotland meant that Scottish participation was a practical necessity."

[lindysalsagal]

23. Marching with banners is hostile, aggressive, and militaristic.

IMHO, this tribal posturing is entirely political (meaning, bolstering participation, and threatening outsiders), and serves egos and insecure haters.

Just try to imagine jesus, or any metaphysical leader, at the front of one of these mobs. Right. You can't.

This crap is bigotry attempting divinity, and failing.

The dominance of territory by competing tribes is animalistic, and has nothing to do with goodness or faith in divine beings. Racism, plain and simple.

If faith is real, it does not require the subjugation of non-believers. Individuals who require the validation of their own group are suffering from psychological inconsistencies that cannot be resolved by others.