That which motivated the opposition of the majority of our forefathers to home rule in the 1880s was a love for the Gospel and its mercies.And an enormous, ear-splitting "Hurrah" for that!
They believed that it would entail the enthroning of Roman Catholicism and undermining of their civil and religious liberty. Their fears were summarised by the maxim "home rule is Rome rule!" and expounded in the Ulster Covenant of 1912.
The clinging to Great Britain by Ulster Protestants in 1921 was seen by them as a parallel to Ruth clinging to Naomi, when bidden by her to return to Moab, (Book of Ruth 1:16-17).
They sought the preservation of their Protestant faith primarily by this political alignment.
That priority was very much alive in the 1880s, 1912, 1921 and in the 1960s and 1970s but is now seen as an anachronism within unionism.
Rev. Ivan Foster, former DUP assembly member, retired Free Presbyterian minister and the man responsible, probably more than anyone else, for bringing down Ian Paisley:
Great Britain of 100 years ago was a place where Biblical Protestantism was much more evident than it is today.The United Kingdom's secularism, multi-faithism, by definition, need not logically follow onto a "hatred of all things scriptural". Liberal secularism, in a British context, permits the likes of Rev Foster and fundamentalists of all religions to propagate their views in the public space, as long as they keep within a fairly liberal (there's that word again) set of laws.
Now its secularism, its multi-faithism, its hatred of all things scriptural, its abandoning of the moral standards considered sacrosanct but a generation ago, and its embracing of the aspirations of those regarded deviants until recently, make it as uninviting as was Sodom to Abraham.
What it doesn't permit is for the proponents of those views to eliminate all other voices from that public space. An example to illustrate what I mean: as far as I am concerned, Christian and other religious fundamentalists are fully entitled to give us their opinion on women’s reproductive rights; they should not be entitled in a modern democracy, however, to force those views on every member of that society, irrespective of that member's personal opinion, beliefs or circumstances.
The truth is a union with a Great Britain grovelling before those who open "their mouth in blasphemy against God", provides no prospects of comfort to those who love the Word of God.Something I’ve contended since the beginning of this blog is that there is a section of Northern Irish opinion whose Britishness and Unionism is conditional and of much less important than their protestantism. All the things Foster rails against in the modern United Kingdom, I, as a Unionist, see at worse as harmless, at best as positive advantages for our nation. That makes me at core a British N.Irishman, Rev. Foster a protestant Ulsterman.
Rather, it is a threat.
Republicans often ask how can they persuade Unionists to think more positively towards their 32 County Nirvana. With British Unionists, they’re genuinely wasting their time- our long term aim is not to ensure the survival of a religious faith but to help the Northern Irish enjoy the same kind of social and cultural freedom enjoyed by our fellow citizens in the rest of the UK. With the likes of Foster, I’m really not so sure. Guarantee them their tribal homeland, a Prodistan where swings are forever locked up on Sundays and where the only good pub is a closed one, and you just might have a chance.
PS:
Friends and foes alike of the Orange Order may see certain comparisons with Rev Foster's attitude towards our nation and those held by the OO in the mid 19th Century.
11 comments:
our long term aim is not to ensure the survival of a religious faith but to help the Northern Irish enjoy the same kind of social and cultural freedom enjoyed by our fellow citizens in the rest of the UK
What about if those social and cultural freedoms were more strongly guaranteed in the Republic than in the UK? With the erosion of civil liberties under Labour, that point may have already been reached (although I'll give the LibCons the benefit of the doubt for now). How would that affect your argument?
Thinking of the ideals of Ulster Unionists in history with equality of citizenship in the United Kingdom, being a major ideal.
When the quality of life was being made better that was a noble principle.
In the post war era the general concept was to make society better, such as the National Health Service etc.
Recently however some policies in England and Wales have been devised to make society more repressive.
Secularism is not liberal in it's ethos, even though it purports to be so. Some secular ideas are certainly text book totalitarian, they have been tried Cold War Eastern Bloc countries.
So much so that the well established: 'The Railway Magazine' established in 1835, has been running a number of articles called: "Iron Curtain Britain."
I would kindly ask you to look up this matter.
Frank,
You're mixing up secularism and atheism. Soviet communism was an atheistic regime, not a secular one. Religious and atheistic totalitarianism share a desire to regulate individual belief systems, whereas a secular system recognises freedom of conscience, including the responsibility of individuals not to infringe on the freedom of others.
It is worth noting that the UK is not secular, as the Church of England still occupies a privileged position (but interestingly, not the churches of Ireland, Scotland or Wales).
"What about if those social and cultural freedoms were more strongly guaranteed in the Republic than in the UK?"
Andrew,
Women's reproductive rights?
Low punch perhaps but compare the legislation which exists in the ROI with that which exists in the rest of the UK.
Ironically, Rev Foster's World View (other than the fact of what is implicitly the state's base religion obviously) fits much more easily into that of the ROI's than that of the UK's. Remove the doctrinal differences and on social issues Foster could quite easily replace the Pope!
The UK, because of its size and as a consequence of that, its diversity, by necessity needs to take a much more liberal view of social issues than the ROI will be ever forced to do.
"I would kindly ask you to look up this matter."
Frank,
I will do. Can you help me out though and give me a few direct links; I've had a quick shufti of the magazine and I can't find the series in question.
Low punch perhaps but compare the legislation which exists in the ROI with that which exists in the rest of the UK.
It's a valid point. However, I note that you had to say "the rest of the UK" because NI is not much better than the Republic in this regard, and not only is there no sign of change, there isn't even a debate.
The UK, because of its size and as a consequence of that, its diversity, by necessity needs to take a much more liberal view of social issues than the ROI will be ever forced to do.
That reads more like a statement of belief than of fact. It may have had some truth in the past, but the pace of social change south of the border has been rapid in recent years. I wouldn't bet against the Republic having abortion before the North. Would you?
And yes, I'm fully expecting you to say you don't have any faith in Stormont and you'd rather Westminster introduced it. Well, they had thirty years to do so and never got around to it - probably because public opinion is against it on both sides and it wasn't worth the grief. Until public opinion changes, there's not much chance of either Stormont or Westminster taking action.
Anyway, you almost managed to avoid my question by distracting me with details. How would your original argument be affected IF it could be shown that the Republic offered better civil liberties than the UK?
Fantastic article. I've linked to it on my own blog, if that's OK?
Gareth
http://garethrussellcidevant.blogspot.com/2010/08/northern-irelands-union-with-united.html
Bottom line. Foster is accurate as to why protestants wanted the Union and wanted partition. Even if he and the "brethren" are as mad as hatters.
Reality is that the union, and partition was historic wrongs done to the majority population. I know that this is uncomfortable for the "can't we all just get along within the union" liberal unionists, but you don't get the luxury of ignoring the wrongs of the past.
O'Neil,
The Railway Magazine may be available in a good library.
Their address is:
The Railway Magazine, IPC Media, Blue Fin Building, 110 Southwark Street, London SE1 0SU.
On the subject of Iron Curtain Britain on the net there is not much but:
(i) Model Rail Forum;
www.modelrailforum.com/forums/index.php?show topic=5451.
(ii) The London Evening Standard had an article entitled;
"Dangerous' train spotters to be banned from King's Cross" 16/03/09.
www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23662622-dangerous-trainspotters-to-be-banned
This example will give details of what my point about some ideas that are certainly set in the background of the Eastern Bloc.
"How would your original argument be affected IF it could be shown that the Republic offered better civil liberties than the UK?"
Andrew,
In terms of persuading the secular apathetic-middle ground would leave only the economic argument for the Union. ROI, obviously, is a modern European democracy with all the safeguards and catches that implies. It is also a socially conservative country with a population of less than what, 5 million? That doesn't give secularists a great deal of manoeuvre The UK's size and resulting diversity means that a much, much wider social and culturally framework is needed to just run the place
Gareth,
Yep, no problem.
Frank,
Thanks, almost (unfortunately only almost)unbelievable
Anonymous,
The interesting aspect of the article is Foster feels there is no longer a welcome place for his brand of "Unionism" (which isn't really)within NI. Progress of sorts.
Post a Comment