Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

trotsky

(49,533 posts)
Wed Apr 17, 2019, 08:38 AM Apr 2019

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

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!
23 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Glasgow re-routes Protestant order's Easter march to avoid Catholic churches (Original Post) trotsky Apr 2019 OP
Ecumenism? Not hardly. MineralMan Apr 2019 #1
The English transplanted the Irish and the Scots guillaumeb Apr 2019 #2
Over the years, several people have told me that colonial English "divide and conquer" struggle4progress Apr 2019 #3
And the world is still dealing with those scars. guillaumeb Apr 2019 #5
I figured somehow you'd loop China into this. trotsky Apr 2019 #4
Recognizing historical reality is not a logical error. guillaumeb Apr 2019 #6
But it is a logical fallacy. trotsky Apr 2019 #7
No, you are incorrectly using the term. eom guillaumeb Apr 2019 #8
No, you are. n/t trotsky Apr 2019 #9
Most of the immigration from Scotland was from before the Act of Union in 1707 muriel_volestrangler Apr 2019 #10
Shhhh don't spoil the party... nt uriel1972 Apr 2019 #11
To say the English "allowed and encouraged" ignores reality. guillaumeb Apr 2019 #12
If you mean the clearences of the Highlands... uriel1972 Apr 2019 #13
No, the 1609 plantation: guillaumeb Apr 2019 #15
Did anyone else spot the glaring error? uriel1972 Apr 2019 #19
I did not spot it. guillaumeb Apr 2019 #20
James VI and I used the term, and he is important in that decision muriel_volestrangler Apr 2019 #22
For nearly all of the 17th century, the English were not in charge of Scotland muriel_volestrangler Apr 2019 #14
See #15, and what began in 1609. guillaumeb Apr 2019 #16
Can't blame the English for what happened under a Scot's King... uriel1972 Apr 2019 #17
True, but the English allowed the transplantation. guillaumeb Apr 2019 #18
A moment ago, you wrote 'to say the English "allowed and encouraged" ignores reality' muriel_volestrangler Apr 2019 #21
Marching with banners is hostile, aggressive, and militaristic. lindysalsagal Apr 2019 #23

MineralMan

(147,334 posts)
1. Ecumenism? Not hardly.
Wed Apr 17, 2019, 08:59 AM
Apr 2019

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

(42,649 posts)
2. The English transplanted the Irish and the Scots
Wed Apr 17, 2019, 08:51 PM
Apr 2019

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

(120,001 posts)
3. Over the years, several people have told me that colonial English "divide and conquer"
Thu Apr 18, 2019, 04:25 AM
Apr 2019

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

guillaumeb

(42,649 posts)
5. And the world is still dealing with those scars.
Thu Apr 18, 2019, 11:04 AM
Apr 2019

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

guillaumeb

(42,649 posts)
6. Recognizing historical reality is not a logical error.
Thu Apr 18, 2019, 11:05 AM
Apr 2019

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

muriel_volestrangler

(102,372 posts)
10. Most of the immigration from Scotland was from before the Act of Union in 1707
Fri Apr 19, 2019, 05:02 PM
Apr 2019

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

guillaumeb

(42,649 posts)
12. To say the English "allowed and encouraged" ignores reality.
Fri Apr 19, 2019, 05:56 PM
Apr 2019

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

uriel1972

(4,261 posts)
13. If you mean the clearences of the Highlands...
Fri Apr 19, 2019, 06:09 PM
Apr 2019

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

(42,649 posts)
15. No, the 1609 plantation:
Fri Apr 19, 2019, 06:38 PM
Apr 2019
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

(4,261 posts)
19. Did anyone else spot the glaring error?
Fri Apr 19, 2019, 07:22 PM
Apr 2019

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.

muriel_volestrangler

(102,372 posts)
22. James VI and I used the term, and he is important in that decision
Sat Apr 20, 2019, 03:16 AM
Apr 2019
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

(102,372 posts)
14. For nearly all of the 17th century, the English were not in charge of Scotland
Fri Apr 19, 2019, 06:35 PM
Apr 2019

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.

uriel1972

(4,261 posts)
17. Can't blame the English for what happened under a Scot's King...
Fri Apr 19, 2019, 07:19 PM
Apr 2019

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

muriel_volestrangler

(102,372 posts)
21. A moment ago, you wrote 'to say the English "allowed and encouraged" ignores reality'
Sat Apr 20, 2019, 03:14 AM
Apr 2019

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

(22,324 posts)
23. Marching with banners is hostile, aggressive, and militaristic.
Sun Apr 21, 2019, 05:30 PM
Apr 2019

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.

Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Religion»Glasgow re-routes Protest...