[i]if you view it that simplistically, I'll not engage.[/i]
I think you should explain why preaching religious intolerance from a pulpit is a good Christian thing to do.
I don't think i said that it was, maybe you'd like to explain why it was a good thing?
so what is it about people's views of his behaviour that needs questioning?
[edit] sorry, you seemed to suggest I was wrong for sayign his behaviour was wrong - you're agreeing he was an intolerant religious bigot?
I think he was an intolerant bigot, I do not think that is all he was.
Perhaps he was an intolerant bigot who successfully represented the views of other intolerant bigots?
[i]I think he was an intolerant bigot, I do not think that is all he was[/i]
but sadly (and imo) at the time he most needed to not be an intolerant bigot he chose to be one.
He may have been the life and soul of the party, loved by his family and, in his later years, toned his rhetoric down a bit but when he could have been emollient he chose to be anything but and (again in imo)as a result more people died and the troubles continued for longer.
He wasn't the only one on either side doing this but he was very visibly doing it for a very long time.
I think he was an intolerant bigot, I do not think that is all he was.
Did the trains run on time?
Well, choice is a very loose term in such a context. He was a product of his environment.
[i]He was a product of his environment. [/i]
He chose to be a 'leader' that meant he had responsibilities, saying he was pushed through life spouting whatever the people behind him thought is no excuse.
Even if he represented a constituency of religiously intolerant bigots he did so by choice.
My favourite IP moment
He probably felt it was his responsibility to defend that which he believed in.
Well, we certainly spend a lot of time lamenting the shortage of conviction politicians in society nowadays...
[i]He probably felt it was his responsibility to defend that which he believed in.[/i]
sounds like it;
[i]He preached against homosexuality and supported laws criminalising it. Intertwining his religious and political views, "Save Ulster from Sodomy" was a campaign launched by Paisley[/i]
Sure, but at least you now see him as a more complex figure than the shouty bloke off the news when you were growing up
[i]at least you now see him as a more complex figure than the shouty bloke off the news when you were growing up [/i]
yep, he was bigoted in ways I hadn't previously realised.
I grew up in a mostly protestant area on the outskirts of Belfast and always viewed him as a bit of a comedy figure back in the day. He certainly didn't speak for me with his ultra conservative views, but he was loved by both sides of the community in his constituency of Ballymena for getting things done at a local level and I think that's why he kept getting elected. I could choose to remember him as the shouty extremist who contributed to the troubles as much as the guys on the other side who were blowing things up, or as the crazy preacher who banned ELO from doing a gig in Ballymena in the early '90s because they played the devils music, but he chilled out in his later years and formed a warm friendship with Martin McGuinness, the public face of the IRA. With that in mind I'll remember him as an example of the reconciliation that has occurred here in recent years and hopefully our current politicians will continue to follow this example.
I always thought that once the Catholic population where in the majority, they would be given the choice to join Eire?
It's a bit more complicated than that. There are many catholics who regard themselves as Northern Irish or British and wish to stay in the UK. In the last census 45% of the population was catholic but only 25% of the population considered themselves as only Irish. The nationalist politicians know this and I think that's why they've been relatively quiet about a referendum.
[url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-20673534 ]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-20673534[/url]
Nooooooooooooooooooooo!
The question is: was that my initial reaction or an impersonation?
I'd love to be a fly on the pearly gates.
Fudd, some perspective at last.
Am I really the first to suggest dancing shoes?
yep, he was bigoted in ways I hadn't previously realised
Every day is a school day
a good politician who proved that everyone has to change sometimes.
He belatedly recognised that the new political reality post-Good Friday meant that he had to change his rhetoric. I don't see it as anything more than a political calculation.
Quotes from throughout his life:
[url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-29171017 ]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-29171017[/url]
Ian Paisley..................what a ****.
[Paisley]
Otter, otter rubbish!
[/Paisley]
These threads always reveal more about the posters than the subject. In this case a man has died and a number of people are getting off on pissing on his grave, calling him a bigot, and suggesting he is going to hell.
Which pretty much confirms that this forum lacks any real class or decency.
Badnewz, very well said, especially given this remarkable tribute from Gerry Adams:
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/12/ian-paisley-northern-ireland-sinn-fein
Badnwez, perfectly put.
Perhaps when it came to life Ian Paisley simply became sick and tired of it.
He was a man of character whichever way you look at it. We could do with a lot more like him who have te courage of their convictions.
The simple, unavoidable fact is that Paisley was a religious bigot. I grew up in Northern Ireland in the 70s and 80s. Whilst he was without doubt an excellent constituency MP whatever your religion he spouted hatred and bile and innocent people died as a result, because cretins with guns and baseball bats swallowed what he spouted. And he must have known that. I for one won't mourn him.
badnewz - Membersuggesting he is going to hell.
Maybe it's a fair criticism, of a man who liked saying other dead people were in hell.
Who needs class or decency when a "celebrated" pro-life bigot dies?
All I ever knew of this man was his hate speech and that is enough to remember him by.
Just because someone is dead doesn't make them good, or make me respect or value their life.
I cannot stand this mock pious posturing of people saying "how dare you speak ill of the dead".
aracer - Member
Am I really the first to suggest dancing shoes?
DANCing shews? DANCING SHEWS??? WE REJYECT YOUR DANCING SHEWS IN THEIR ENTIRETY WITHOUT EXCEPTION, COMPROMISE OR HESITATION!
The Adams article is quite interesting. Must admit I wasn't aware how much Paisley was involved with the whole thing kicking off in the 60's. I just thought he was the one who blocked the Peace process once the Troubles started.
Well, we certainly spend a lot of time lamenting the shortage of conviction politicians in society nowadays...
Not if they had the wrong convictions.
Which pretty much confirms that this forum lacks any real class or decency.
To lessen the tone slighter more in a few peoples eyes, the world without him feels like a slighter better place already.
Wow that Adams article is a stunning read. Sums up how much has changed in the last 40 years.
Fudd thanks for the post - great refection
I did enjoy a reflection from an old journo on the radio last night. He was doing an interview with Paisley, with a new young sound engineer / recordist who was meeting Paisley for the first time. The journo and paisley chatted for a bit about what questions he'd ask while the engineer set the levels up properly. Then comes the interview......
Journo asks question
Paisley replies.... That's a very good question, so let me answer it like this. <adopt full Paisley voice> I TELL YOU, THAT WE WILL NOT....ETC.
All with a grin on his face as the sound engineer's monitor headphones practically implode his skull under the force of Paisley's noise.
Still a bigot but one with a sense of humour.
