The Southern "Irish"

[Main Street]

But back to my first point. You say:
Why would you imagine the census stats are significantly more reliable to reflect ones faith than churchgoing figures?
My point is that church attendance does not equal 'faith' or 'religious identity'. The figures originally quoted in this thread were not in relation to church attendance.

And my point simply is that those census stats for decline in prods in the South don't have any special significance.

[Maguire01]

But back to my first point. You say:
Why would you imagine the census stats are significantly more reliable to reflect ones faith than churchgoing figures?
My point is that church attendance does not equal 'faith' or 'religious identity'. The figures originally quoted in this thread were not in relation to church attendance.

And my point simply is that those census stats for decline in prods in the South don't have any special significance.

Why not?
You'd have to compare another census to say that. You'd have to compare like with like surely. You can't compare a census and a survey.

[Main Street]

Jaysus Maguire
You did initially doubt that the research was more accurate than census stats.

In the absence of any other figures, the decline in numbers of those claiming in the Irish census to be Protestant is just part of an evident wider trend of decline.
There is no evidence to indicate that the decline in census numbers in the South is anymore than the severe decline evident elsewhere.
Even if you imagine that the census question has significance, even if you surmise there are reasons for the decline in numbers of Prods in the South there is no evidence to suggest that that the decline is any greater than that which has happened elsewhere.
I think we are in agreement that census stats in regards to religious affiliation do not qualify as a sound criteria to judge anything to do with affiliation.

edit
comparing the different results of a faulty method is muddy waters.

[Rossfan]

Why did the starter of this thread put Irish in commas?
Surely it should have been "Southern"(sic) in commas?

[Maguire01]

Jaysus Maguire
You did initially doubt that the research was more accurate than census stats.

I still do!

In the absence of any other figures, the decline in numbers of those claiming in the Irish census to be Protestant is just part of an evident wider trend of decline.

But the trend is in church attendance - not affilliation. Is the number of Protestants in other countries declining (i.e. not the number actually attending Church)? That would be the compaison.

I think we are in agreement that census stats in regards to religious affiliation do not qualify as a sound criteria to judge anything to do with affiliation.

We're not. 

[Main Street]

Jaysus Maguire
You did initially doubt that the research was more accurate than census stats.

I still do!

In the absence of any other figures, the decline in numbers of those claiming in the Irish census to be Protestant is just part of an evident wider trend of decline.

But the trend is in church attendance - not affilliation. Is the number of Protestants in other countries declining (i.e. not the number actually attending Church)? That would be the compaison.

I think we are in agreement that census stats in regards to religious affiliation do not qualify as a sound criteria to judge anything to do with affiliation.

We're not. 

This is like trying to explain to a creationist that there are a few holes in the 7 day theory.
No matter what anybody says what their religion is, in a single question in a census form, if they have no connection to a church then they do not belong to that church.
They belong to a special distinct group, we shall call it the Church of the Invisible Connection - to a non manifested religious belief.


You maintain that a single question in a census return, just by sheer quantity of people asked, is more accurate than decades of professional research. I bow my head to this revelation, science has been outwitted by a true prodigy

Previously I gave you the church attendance figure for Anglicans.
Lets keep focussed on Anglicans.

Shall we look at Baptisms, surely the bare minimum is a fecking baptism, no matter what a person says in a census form, if they are not baptised then they have absolutly no connection to that Church.
Are we agreed on that?
No Baptism -  No Way

sources
Grace Davie - Religion in Britain since 1945  http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0631184449/vexencrabtree
Steve Bruce  - Religion in the Modern World  http://www.vexen.co.uk/books/bruce_religion.html

Anglican baptisms  have declined from 70 out of 100 babies born in 1930  to 27 out of a 100 babies born in 1990

"The decline in this number from the 1930s was slow, from a peak of about 70%, from the 1950s the decline has been rapid. In the 1990s, 3 out of 10 newborns have been baptised. Infant baptism has always been an important source of recruitment for Anglican churches, the slight increase in adult baptisms has not made up the numbers."

Terry Sanderson,from the National Secular Society said,  "Things got so slow, the church seemed to be losing its "core business", - the "hatch, match and dispatch" trilogy of births, marriages and deaths. "People want to welcome their child into the world without welcoming them into the church."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/394203.stm

[Roger]

My opinion and perception is pretty valid when republicans burst into a church meeting and shoot those attending.   What perception and opinion are people to conclude? FFS catch yourself on.

and that contitutes that republicanism and its mantra was purely to kill protestants ?
No I am afraid that we are back to square one and you are incorrect with this assertion.

I am totally correct in my assertion that republicans killed Protestants for simply being Protestants.  I am also correct in asserting that they also killed indiscriminately men, women and children of all faiths and none.  The also murdered security force members, usually by the most cowardly of terrorist tactics.

No matter what their 'mantra' or what you would like to believe to be their mantra, these facts remain and any analysis of their actions proves it.

Are you going to get around to what caused the violence in the first place?

No, as this is simply a diversionary tactic to draw the discussion into another area and away from your bare-faced lie that you told.

[lynchbhoy]

My opinion and perception is pretty valid when republicans burst into a church meeting and shoot those attending.   What perception and opinion are people to conclude? FFS catch yourself on.

and that contitutes that republicanism and its mantra was purely to kill protestants ?
No I am afraid that we are back to square one and you are incorrect with this assertion.

I am totally correct in my assertion that republicans killed Protestants for simply being Protestants.  I am also correct in asserting that they also killed indiscriminately men, women and children of all faiths and none.  The also murdered security force members, usually by the most cowardly of terrorist tactics.

No matter what their 'mantra' or what you would like to believe to be their mantra, these facts remain and any analysis of their actions proves it.

Are you going to get around to what caused the violence in the first place?

No, as this is simply a diversionary tactic to draw the discussion into another area and away from your bare-faced lie that you told.

judging by your prev posts, it is unlikely that you are party or aware to any level above subjective belief of any nationalist or even republican thinking.
Unless of course you have been involved in the midst of that community before/during the 35 years war, then its highly unlikely do you not think that you can really be 'talking for them' and expressing their motives.
Obv you think you have reason to say their motives were purely to kill protestants, but this falls into line with your preference that this was the case, so you can villify them and all they did.
However you are most definitely 100% wrong.
Plenty of people have hailed from this community and have been party to the thinking at the time , which I have reiterated on here in this thread and in previous.
However it is the same old rubbish from the same old people that just dont want to admit that something that nationalists/republicans say they experienced may be true (if it destroys your feeble argument - such as it has done this one).

faceit, you just dont know, your unionist/loyalist nature wishes that to be true, but it isnt - protestants were not targetted because of their religion by republicans.
QED.

Now, why are you running away from engaging or answering my question on who caused the violence and war in the first place, who started the killing (causing eventual retaliation) and victimisation/oppression/apartheid/genocidal activities etc etc?
I suspect that its because you already know the answer and as it again destroys your myth and perception of your 'blameless' side, you will continue to run away from it.

have you no courage of your convictions to stand up and accept the murderous wrongdoings and behaviour of your previous generations were the cause of all this?
I doubt that you have.

[Roger]

judging by your prev posts, it is unlikely that you are party or aware to any level above subjective belief of any nationalist or even republican thinking.
Unless of course you have been involved in the midst of that community before/during the 35 years war, then its highly unlikely do you not think that you can really be 'talking for them' and expressing their motives.

You being the expert, please tell me why republicans burst into a church service and massacred the Protestants at Darkley.  Please explain the nationalist/republican thinking behind picking out Catholics from a group of people and then shooting all the Protestants.  What about a shop keeper in the city-side of Londonderry who was a Protestant and one of the catalysts for mass movement of almost thousands of Protestants from the republican stronghold of the west-bank there. FFS these things happened but if you care to tell me it was because they were not targeted and murdered because of their religion you are simply a liar.  What on earth were these people targeted for if not for their religion?

Obv you think you have reason to say their motives were purely to kill protestants, but this falls into line with your preference that this was the case, so you can villify them and all they did.
However you are most definitely 100% wrong.

Another lie.  I have never said their only motive was purely to kill protestants.  I have said that there have been cases were republicans killed Protestants for being Protestant though.  You deny this and are a liar, adding insult by trying to bury it along with other murders that you feel were worthy of calling a "war". 

Plenty of people have hailed from this community and have been party to the thinking at the time , which I have reiterated on here in this thread and in previous.
However it is the same old rubbish from the same old people that just dont want to admit that something that nationalists/republicans say they experienced may be true (if it destroys your feeble argument - such as it has done this one).

What the f**k are you on about. Your argument is all over the place trying to justify the injustifiable and telling lies which you claimed didn't happen, then said they did but it was understandable and then hiding behind a "mantra" for justifying murder.

faceit, you just dont know, your unionist/loyalist nature wishes that to be true, but it isnt - protestants were not targetted because of their religion by republicans.
QED.

They were.  You know it and everyone else knows it.  Catholics were also targeted and security force personnel were also targeted.  The "revolution" turned out to be non-sectarian and has now gone full circle with unionists needing to be "convinced" by the honey-trap terrorist herself.

Now, why are you running away from engaging or answering my question on who caused the violence and war in the first place, who started the killing (causing eventual retaliation) and victimisation/oppression/apartheid/genocidal activities etc etc?
I suspect that its because you already know the answer and as it again destroys your myth and perception of your 'blameless' side, you will continue to run away from it.

Lynch I have not run away from engaging or answering your question about the cause of violence.  As I have told you it is not relevant as to whether there were sectarian murders by republicans.  It is a different issue and not one you can sidetrack to hide your lies.

have you no courage of your convictions to stand up and accept the murderous wrongdoings and behaviour of your previous generations were the cause of all this?
I doubt that you have.

I can identify murder and happy to call it as such by whoever commits it.  I would not call it anything else and would never try to excuse it or deny it.  You have frequently shown that you excuse and deny murder.  There is no point in debating other issues when you tell lies about the most simple and basic issue.

[lynchbhoy]

judging by your prev posts, it is unlikely that you are party or aware to any level above subjective belief of any nationalist or even republican thinking.
Unless of course you have been involved in the midst of that community before/during the 35 years war, then its highly unlikely do you not think that you can really be 'talking for them' and expressing their motives.

You being the expert, please tell me why republicans burst into a church service and massacred the Protestants at Darkley.  Please explain the nationalist/republican thinking behind picking out Catholics from a group of people and then shooting all the Protestants.  What about a shop keeper in the city-side of Londonderry who was a Protestant and one of the catalysts for mass movement of almost thousands of Protestants from the republican stronghold of the west-bank there. FFS these things happened but if you care to tell me it was because they were not targeted and murdered because of their religion you are simply a liar.  What on earth were these people targeted for if not for their religion?

Obv you think you have reason to say their motives were purely to kill protestants, but this falls into line with your preference that this was the case, so you can villify them and all they did.
However you are most definitely 100% wrong.

Another lie.  I have never said their only motive was purely to kill protestants.  I have said that there have been cases were republicans killed Protestants for being Protestant though.  You deny this and are a liar, adding insult by trying to bury it along with other murders that you feel were worthy of calling a "war". 

Plenty of people have hailed from this community and have been party to the thinking at the time , which I have reiterated on here in this thread and in previous.
However it is the same old rubbish from the same old people that just dont want to admit that something that nationalists/republicans say they experienced may be true (if it destroys your feeble argument - such as it has done this one).

What the f**k are you on about. Your argument is all over the place trying to justify the injustifiable and telling lies which you claimed didn't happen, then said they did but it was understandable and then hiding behind a "mantra" for justifying murder.

faceit, you just dont know, your unionist/loyalist nature wishes that to be true, but it isnt - protestants were not targetted because of their religion by republicans.
QED.

They were.  You know it and everyone else knows it.  Catholics were also targeted and security force personnel were also targeted.  The "revolution" turned out to be non-sectarian and has now gone full circle with unionists needing to be "convinced" by the honey-trap terrorist herself.

Now, why are you running away from engaging or answering my question on who caused the violence and war in the first place, who started the killing (causing eventual retaliation) and victimisation/oppression/apartheid/genocidal activities etc etc?
I suspect that its because you already know the answer and as it again destroys your myth and perception of your 'blameless' side, you will continue to run away from it.

Lynch I have not run away from engaging or answering your question about the cause of violence.  As I have told you it is not relevant as to whether there were sectarian murders by republicans.  It is a different issue and not one you can sidetrack to hide your lies.

have you no courage of your convictions to stand up and accept the murderous wrongdoings and behaviour of your previous generations were the cause of all this?
I doubt that you have.

I can identify murder and happy to call it as such by whoever commits it.  I would not call it anything else and would never try to excuse it or deny it.  You have frequently shown that you excuse and deny murder.  There is no point in debating other issues when you tell lies about the most simple and basic issue.

whataboutery at its best
who knows the motives behind all killings on either side - you are talking about a couple of incidents in a 35 year war. We dont know the motivation but I am saying yet again that republican motives/mantra/ethos was not and never was soley to kill protestants because of religion.
You half acknowledge this then you run off in the other direction.
You dont know - you are wrong -so admit it !

what are you talking about yourself, see-sawing all round the houses to try and hide away from giving me an answer.
I responded to your question, so you are saying you cant/wont respond tomine about the beginnings and blame for the origination of all this trouble and war ?
it is relevent, as you cannot have effect without cause !
Your convenient labelling of republicans killing sounds oh so much better when you factor out who it was that started all the atrocities !

if yer gonna keep flinging that childish abusive tone of 'liar' about, you better have something to back it up !
You cant 'order taigs about' these days ya know 

I certainly dont endorse any killing, but am not going to allow blinkered folks like you re-writing history, ignoring the earlier and important parts where the problems came from.
Is it just guilt you are feeling thats causing you to refuse to acknowledge the unionists/loyalist blame?

[Main Street]

Lynchboy did you ever read the document "Operation Banner" a  British Army review of the war.

"The end of the insurgency (early years) merged into the phase characterised by the use of terrorist tactics. PIRA developed into what will probably be seen as one of the most effective terrorist organisations in history. Professional, dedicated, highly skilled and resilient, it conducted a sustained and lethal campaign in Northern Ireland, mainland United Kingdom (UK) and on the continent of Europe.  from 1992 or 1993 the level of violence in all three areas diminished gradually
Loyalist paramilitaries and other republican groups are referred to as "little more than a collection of gangsters".

The BA conceded that it did not win the battle against the IRA, but claims to have shown the IRA that it could not achieve its ends through violence.

[Maguire01]

Obv you think you have reason to say their motives were purely to kill protestants, but this falls into line with your preference that this was the case, so you can villify them and all they did.
faceit, you just dont know, your unionist/loyalist nature wishes that to be true, but it isnt - protestants were not targetted because of their religion by republicans.

who knows the motives behind all killings on either side - you are talking about a couple of incidents in a 35 year war. We dont know the motivation but I am saying yet again that republican motives/mantra/ethos was not and never was soley to kill protestants because of religion.

This one really has gone around the houses. I don't think that anyone is saying that the IRA's sole or pure mission/objective was to kill Protestants. But that may well have been the reason in some cases - some Protestants were killed because of their religion. You've admitted that much yourself.
So what's the issue?
It may have been the reason for some killings, but was not the primary objective - is it not that simple?

And yes, we all know what started it all etc - and whilst it's obviously relevant to the bigger picture, it's just a diversion from what is being discussed here.

[Maguire01]

This is like trying to explain to a creationist that there are a few holes in the 7 day theory.

I know how you feel.

No matter what anybody says what their religion is, in a single question in a census form, if they have no connection to a church then they do not belong to that church.

Yes, you may be right.
But this topic was regarding what was basically a sectarian headcount. It's about religious affilliation, not practice. It's like applying for public sector jobs in NI - regardless of whether you practice, your family/community background (i.e. Catholic/Protestant) is asked for.
In this respect, the census does what it is supposed to do. And as the original figures at the turn of the last century (i.e. the 10% Protestant figure) came from a census, that's my rationale for comparing with current census figures - like with like (assuming a similar margin for error).
Furthermore, prior to the recent immigration influx, Catholic mass attendance was in similar freefall, yet apparently Ireland is still 90%+ Catholic.

You maintain that a single question in a census return, just by sheer quantity of people asked, is more accurate than decades of professional research. I bow my head to this revelation, science has been outwitted by a true prodigy

Very patronising.
But i'll clarify - my issue is not with the research itself, but the fact that you're comparing like with like.
And just to clarify - i do not dispute the declining numbers of church attendance or religious practice.

[lynchbhoy]

Lynchboy did you ever read the document "Operation Banner" a  British Army review of the war.

"The end of the insurgency (early years) merged into the phase characterised by the use of terrorist tactics. PIRA developed into what will probably be seen as one of the most effective terrorist organisations in history. Professional, dedicated, highly skilled and resilient, it conducted a sustained and lethal campaign in Northern Ireland, mainland United Kingdom (UK) and on the continent of Europe.  from 1992 or 1993 the level of violence in all three areas diminished gradually
Loyalist paramilitaries and other republican groups are referred to as "little more than a collection of gangsters".

The BA conceded that it did not win the battle against the IRA, but claims to have shown the IRA that it could not achieve its ends through violence.

never heard of it MS
but I'd agree with al that especially the last line !

[lynchbhoy]

Obv you think you have reason to say their motives were purely to kill protestants, but this falls into line with your preference that this was the case, so you can villify them and all they did.
faceit, you just dont know, your unionist/loyalist nature wishes that to be true, but it isnt - protestants were not targetted because of their religion by republicans.

who knows the motives behind all killings on either side - you are talking about a couple of incidents in a 35 year war. We dont know the motivation but I am saying yet again that republican motives/mantra/ethos was not and never was soley to kill protestants because of religion.

This one really has gone around the houses. I don't think that anyone is saying that the IRA's sole or pure mission/objective was to kill Protestants. But that may well have been the reason in some cases - some Protestants were killed because of their religion. You've admitted that much yourself.
So what's the issue?
It may have been the reason for some killings, but was not the primary objective - is it not that simple?

And yes, we all know what started it all etc - and whilst it's obviously relevant to the bigger picture, it's just a diversion from what is being discussed here.

not in disagreement with what you are saying
yes thats the point I was trying to put across - that the reps didnt target protestants because of their religion - though I would say a large maj of their killings would be mostly protestant - while not nice, hardly surprising news.

I wouldnt call it a diversion, but if rog wants to look at thinks in isolation, then I felt the need to open up to the bigger picture.

Plus I have never received an answer from any of the procrastenators over the past few years to this or similar question.
Still havent!