The late John Montague, who died yesterday, wrote this short poem entitled ‘Hunger striker’ shortly after the death of Bobby Sands in 1981:
This is a song of silence
This is the sound of the bone
Breaking through the skin
Of a slowly dying man.
This is the song of his death.
This is the sound of his living on.
John Montague was well aware of the history of British interference and oppression. He may or may not have been a republican but he understood the reasons why these men were prepared to die in prison. Few of the more famous poets have acknowledged their sacrifice and their courage. John tried to capture the enormity of it all and the significance of it for the future.
The 1981 hungerstrike was the most momentous event in Ireland in my lifetime or I suggest in any of our life times. Ten republican prisoners died after refusing food. They were protesting against the attempt by the British government to criminalize the long struggle for Irish freedom. This event will always be remembered as one of the most painful times in Ireland’s history. It must be understood in the context of struggle between the republican movement and the British government for recognition of the right to resist British colonial rule. The prisoners considered themselves to be political prisoners and the British authorities recognised them as such for a number of years.
In 1975, the British government decided to introduce a new regime in Long Kesh which meant that all republican prisoners would be treated the same as other prisoners held for other criminal offences not connected to the conflict. One of the new rules was that they would have to wear prison uniform and not their own clothes as before. Most republican prisoners refused to cooperate. I was acutely aware of the situation of the protesting prisoners and the concerns of their families. There was talk of a hunger-strike in 1979. Cardinal Ó Fiaich, the Archbishop of Armagh intervened and asked the prisoners not to go on hungerstrike during the visit of Pope John Paul II to Ireland in 1979. The prisoners acceded to his request.
By 1980 the situation of the prisoners in Long Kesh had become intolerable. A number of men began the first hunger strike in November 1980. It ended in December when the prisoners were convinced they had won their demands. They waited patiently for a reversal of the criminalising policy (introduced in 1975) but by March 1981, nothing had changed. The new leader of the prisoners was a young man, Bobby Sands who was serving a sentence for possession of a firearm. The prisoners decided to begin another hunger strike to draw attention to their cause. Bobby Sands began his hunger strike on March 1st, 1981. People in the constituency of Fermanagh/South Tyrone worked tirelessly to elect Bobby Sands hoping that his election as the Member of Parliament would save his life. Sadly, due to the intransigence of British Prime Minster, Margaret Thatcher, that was not to be. After Sixty-six (66) days on Hungerstrike Bobby Sands died. His funeral in West Belfast was attended by over 100,000, the biggest ever seen in living memory. During the weeks and months after that, nine other prisoners died on hungerstrike before a number of families intervened and made it impossible for them to continue.
Looking back at the suffering and anxiety of the mothers and fathers, sisters and brothers, wives and children of each of the prisoners on hunger strike, my feelings are of sorrow and of anger at the way they were isolated and left to fight on their own by those in power in Church and State in Ireland and in Britain and in the USA. The Vatican could have done more to support them.
The deaths and funerals of the ten republican prisoners was a time of great pain and sorrow for all who were involved in the struggle for civil and human rights in Ireland. The men in prison were there because of the dreadful political situation in the six counties which was ruled by Westminster with a local Unionist government for more than 50 years. Were it not for that political situation propped up by the British establishment none of them would ever have seen the inside of a prison. Once again young Irish people and their families suffered as a result of Britain’s failed policies in Ireland.
The poet, John Montague, captures something of the pain of it all and the power of it in those lines about the death of Bobby Sands on hungerstrike: ‘this is the song of his death, this is the sound of his living on.’
Joe – what does Catholicism teach about suicide? Given that the coroner recorded death by : “starvation – self-imposed”, surely these suicide victims will face eternal damnation?
Lets also not forget what a terrible time it was for Yvonne Dunlop’s parents. Thomas McElwee’s firebombs in Ballymena burnt her alive. Her only crime: being a Protestant in a predominantly Protestant town. Why should a sectarian maniac like McElwee be given special status in prison, or any of the other murderous thugs?
Don’t worry,joe blogs. You’ll never have to justify any of the colonists committing suicide – as you call it. You seem determined to get one of your sectarian roundabouts started today. Best of luck.
well – tell me, Fiosrach. Do you consider McElwee a hero for what he did? I am sure the Dunlop family must feel sick to their stomachs when they see a “hunger strike” memorial, or read a Catholic priest portray her murderer as a victim.
oh – and point me to where I said anything sectarian?
Did McElwee intend to kill that girl? Did the Britishers intend to fry 1000,000 in Dresden? How do the German people feel when they see statues of all the 39-45 war criminals. Kill one and you’re a murdering thug . Kill 100,000 and you’re a hero. Take any of your posts if you want an example of one sidedness or sectarianism.
Some more info on McElwee. Maybe Jude would consider letting me do a guest blog on each of the hunger strikers? Many Republicans only ever hear the revisionist narrative that they were heroic martyrs, not murderous terrorists whose death achieved only more murder.
MCELWEE – PROFILE OF A PETTY THUG, BENEFITS CHEAT AND SECTARIAN MURDERER
Thomas McElwee, born in November 1957, was the fifth of twelve children in the McElwee family from Bellaghy in County Londonderry. On his father’s side the McElwee clan were newcomers to the area, having emigrated to Bellaghy and taken over a farm in the early 1900s. His mother had lived in Philadelphia in the USA until she was 7 when her family returned to Ireland and moved to Bellaghy. His aunt Margaret on his father’s side was the mother of the IRA terrorist Francis Hughes. The Hughes and McElwee houses were less than half a mile apart and the boys often got involved in the same activities. Like the Hughes’, the McElwee’s large family were provided for by child welfare payments from the British government. Unlike those living in the Irish Republic all the families’ medical, dental and school needs were also paid for by the British government.
As a child Thomas and his younger brother Benedict enjoyed petty vandalism. One of his sisters laughingly recalls that in the winter he would climb on neighbours’ roofs and block their chimneys causing the houses to fill with smoke, a stench that could remain in the houses for weeks.
With the McElwee and Hughes family connections to terrorism it was not surprising that Thomas joined na Fianna Eireann and received terrorist training, when he was 14. Subsequently, with his brother Benedict, he joined the gang his cousin Francis Hughes had started. Together, the boys in this gang would terrorise neighbours who were not sympathetic to Republicans or were thought to have relatives in the police or army.
After leaving school Thomas McElwee attended British taxpayer funded Magherafelt Technical College, but failed a car mechanic’s course. He then attended a training centre in Ballymena and did some off-the-books car maintenance and other general, untaxed, work.
When Francis Hughes’ gang joined the IRA, so did Thomas and his brother Benedict and the gang extended its attacks to adjoining counties. They went into Magherafelt, Castle Dawson, and Maghera, destroying property and attacking people as well as in Bellaghy where Thomas continued to live in his parents home and receive British taxpayer’s unemployment benefits.
Thomas and his brothers’ vandalism, terrorist activities and lack of jobs drew the suspicion of the authorities and their home was searched several times between 1974 and 1976. The brothers were questioned by the police on several occasions. Definite proof of any offences was lacking however and they were never charged.
On October 8th 1976 a Roman Catholic priest celebrated Mass in the McElwee home and, after receiving his blessing, Thomas, Benedict and others in their gang set off to place several bombs in Protestant property in the town of Ballymena. One of their bombs exploded as Thomas was fusing it and he suffered severe head injuries. Benedict was only slightly injured but of the others from Bellaghy in the gang, Sean McPeake lost a leg and Colm Scullion, several toes.
Thomas was blinded by the explosion, but the British army rushed him to the Wavery hospital in Ballymena and then to the Royal Victoria in Belfast where, after three weeks of intensive care, at British taxpayer expense, surgeons managed to save the sight in one of his eyes.
After Thomas’ recovery both brothers were charged with murder in the death of Yvonne Dunlop, a 26 year old Protestant , who was killed when one of the bombs they had planted, destroyed her shop the Alley Katz Boutique. On conviction for Yvonne’s murder, the McElwee brothers were sentenced to life but these sentences were later reduced to 20 years.
As they had put the bomb which murdered Yvonne in her shop because she was a Protestant, the McElwee family believed their sons’ crimes to be political, and therefore felt their sons were political prisoners and deserved special treatment in prison. Their demands were that they be allowed additional visits, letters and parcels, that the brothers should be allowed unrestricted access to other Sinn Fein IRA convicts, that they be permitted to wear their own civilian clothing in prison, that other convicts should have to wash and clean their cells, showers and toilets and that they could chose any educational or recreational activities they wished, and these should be provided at British taxpayer expense.
After a series of protests to achieve these demands, including wrapping themselves in blankets instead of wearing prison clothing, and escalating through refusing to wash and shave, to smearing their own faeces in their cells, some of the convicts eventually started refusing to eat until their demands were granted. Thomas participated in this campaign and stopped eating in June 1981. As the demands for special treatment were not granted, Thomas continued to refuse to eat and died of his self-imposed starvation.
Yvonne Dunlop was survived by her three sons. McElwee never expressed any remorse for her murder, nor have Sinn Fein / IRA.
NEXT WEEK: RAYMOND McCREESH – GREAT MILKMAN, SHIT TERRORIST.
Yes, JB – I will allow you guest post status. Please email each piece to me, preferably along with an appropriate (and non-copyright) pic, and if they aren’t libel and they aren’t abuse, I’ll put them up. Much better than simply putting them as comments. (You’ll note I’m working on the Conversion of Perkin…)
You would get on a lot better if you wrote in a more dispassionate tone and stopped using words like terrorist and thug. Allow the reader to draw their own conclusions. It would be helpful if you used your own name too.
Ever wonder how the British government came to be in a position where they had to pay all these expenses? They have no moral or legal right to be here. Thanks anyway for the non sectarian extract from ‘The Protestant Telegraph’ . An eye opener
what part do you dispute? Hardly a hero – (I don’t think Thomas got his own wee song or a playground, did he?).
Joe ,you certainly did’nt get any of that shite you just spouted from Thomas’ neighbours,catholic or protestant.
I don’t think the businesses targeted by McElwee and co in Ballymena were targeted because they belonged to Protestants, unless you had personal knowledge it would have been impossible to know who owned the Alley Katz boutique, the girl killed (the shop was owned by her father) could just as easily have been a Catholic. That’s not the point, what he and others did had nothing to do with achieving “civil and human rights in Ireland.” The I.R.A. was the greatest transgressor of these rights during “The Troubles.” That a Christian priest should be adding to the cult of these people is deeply disturbing, whatever happened to all that stuff about loving your neighbours, or your enemies? How could the Vatican support them when everything they did was the very antithesis of Christian teaching.
“They were protesting against the attempt by the British government to criminalize the long struggle for Irish freedom.”
The ‘struggle’, as you euphemistically describe it, was criminal by nature. Murdering people, planting bombs, beatings, assaults, robberies, exilings, all of these odious activities were, and still are, crimes. The hunger strikers were all convicted of crimes.
“The prisoners considered themselves to be political prisoners and the British authorities recognised them as such for a number of years.”
They may have considered themselves to be political prisoners, but they weren’t. All were convicted. They were never recognised by the ‘British authorities’ as political prisoners.
Just when did the Irish people give the british the right to determine who is who or what is what in Ireland???May all Irish fallen rest in peace,combatants or otherwise……Britain out of Ireland now.
“They may have considered themselves to be political prisoners, but they weren’t. All were convicted. They were never recognised by the ‘British authorities’ as political prisoners.”
Just like your own doublespeak M.T, the British authorities had their very own doublespeak too. I can assure you they did indeed recognise them as political prisoners. They may not have said it in public for fear of upsetting wee snowflakes like yourself, but they did very much view them as political prisoners behind closed doors, of course.
“By 1980 the situation of the prisoners in Long Kesh had become intolerable.”
How was it intolerable?
“Sadly, due to the intransigence of British Prime Minster, Margaret Thatcher, that was not to be. After Sixty-six (66) days on Hungerstrike Bobby Sands died.”
Nonsense. Sands died because he chose not to eat anything.
“Looking back at the suffering and anxiety of the mothers and fathers, sisters and brothers, wives and children of each of the prisoners on hunger strike, my feelings are of sorrow and of anger at the way they were isolated and left to fight on their own by those in power in Church and State in Ireland and in Britain and in the USA. The Vatican could have done more to support them.”
Do you ever look back and think of the suffering and hurt caused on others by these men of violence? The terrible hurt and pain they inflicted on people in contrast to their own self-inflicted pain?
“The deaths and funerals of the ten republican prisoners was a time of great pain and sorrow for all who were involved in the struggle for civil and human rights in Ireland.”
Do you ever think of the great pain and sorrow of their victims and families? Victims who didn’t choose to die. 2000 of them at the hands of the terror gangs of which these hunger strikers were members?
“The men in prison were there because of the dreadful political situation in the six counties which was ruled by Westminster with a local Unionist government for more than 50 years. Were it not for that political situation propped up by the British establishment none of them would ever have seen the inside of a prison. Once again young Irish people and their families suffered as a result of Britain’s failed policies in Ireland.”
As a Christian priest it is odd that you choose to express sorrow for the men who chose violence and terror and ended up in gaol but not for their victims.
I would not deny that going on hunger strike takes great belief in your cause,but that in itself does not make your cause right.
There are those who admire the hunger strikers and nothing will change their opinion I think,so argument is futile.
But this whole article is completely missing any mention of the reality of what the organisation to which these men belonged actually did.
It is therefore lacking in balance and is no more than propaganda for the faithful.
It will not persuade anyone who is not already persuaded and it has no original thought worth considering.
“But this whole article is completely missing any mention of the reality of what the organisation to which these men belonged actually did.”
Come, come, Gio – the reality of what the organisation did has been written about in the media at the time – and even now, it is detailed in books, articles online, in discussions and in the minds of many who live here. We know what was done; it’s a familiar story. Much as you would like that all to change others’ view of them, it won’t happen.
Those who admire the Hunger Strikers are really no different to those who admire British dead.
British people remember their soldiers and pilots, often thinking of what they went through, for example, lying or sitting cramped and cold, worried and frightened, nervous yet determined… on their way to melt or asphyxiate thousands, even tens of thousands of women and children in Europe or torture, castration and hanging in Kenya.
They don’t think then of “reality of what the organisation to which these men belonged actually did”. They remember these men, among others like them, for who they were, not what they have done.
“Those who admire the Hunger Strikers are really no different to those who admire British dead.”
They are very different. Those who admire the British dead aren’t admiring people who chose to.join illegal terror gangs that carried out numerous murders. They aren’t admiring people who rejected democracy in order to seek to achieve their aims through violent crime.
“They are very different. Those who admire the British dead aren’t admiring people who chose to.join illegal terror gangs that carried out numerous murders. They aren’t admiring people who rejected democracy in order to seek to achieve their aims through violent crime.”
Oh, the irony! You’ll not see it though.
Agreed,Gio.Sadly Fr Joes contributions do tend towards the one dimensional on occasions.His use of an extract from a poem of the recently deceased John Montague reminds me of the encounter between Seamus Heaney and Danny Morrison on the Belfast-Dublin Enterprise train(described at Pages 257-259 of Stepping Stones).Heaney refers to “the presumption of entitlement “on the part of Morrison requesting something to be written for the Republican cause.Characteristically Seamus “rebelled at being commanded”!Again he says “I wa highly aware of the propaganda aspect of the hunger strikes and cautious about being enlisted “.One wonders whether the late John Montague would have appreciated that just one of his poems was being used by a Sinn Fein blogger to assist in a clearly partisan piece.
ceannaire
Yes any discussion of conflict should include not just the combatants but all the victims too.
Reading this piece one would be left unaware that the IRA killed anyone.
It appears to be just hagiography.
Joe McVeigh: here is an extract of Pope John Paul II’s sermon in Drogheda in 1979. Since you believe he was Christ’s emissary on earth, it is amazing that you seem to take a contradictory view…
(For those of you who engage in whataboutery and who place the IRA on a pedestal, if you don’t like the cut and thrust of the message, your beef is with JPII, not me….)
“Now I wish to speak to all men and women engaged in violence. I appeal to you, in language of passionate pleading. On my knees I beg you to turn away from the paths of violence and to return to the ways of peace. You may claim to seek justice. I too believe in justice and seek justice. But violence only delays the day of justice. Violence destroys the work of justice. Further violence in Ireland will only drag down to ruin the land you claim to love and the values you claim to cherish. In the name of God I beg you : return to Christ, who died so that men might live in forgiveness and peace. He is waiting for you, longing for each one of you to come to him so that he may say to each of you : your sins are forgiven ; go in peace.
I appeal to young people who may have become caught up in organizations engaged in violence. I say to you, with all the love I have for you, with all the trust I have in young people : do not listen to voices which speak the language of hatred, revenge, retaliation. Do not follow any leaders who train you in the ways of inflicting death. Love life, respect life; in yourselves and in others. Give yourselves to the service of life, not the work of death. Do not think that courage and strength are proved by killing and destruction. The true strength lies in joining with the young men and women of your generation everywhere in building up a just and human and Christian society by the ways of peace. Violence is the enemy of justice. Only peace can lead the way to true justice.
My dear young people : if you have been caught up in the ways of violence, even if you have done deeds of violence, come back to Christ, whose parting gift to the world was peace. Only when you come back to Christ will you find peace for your troubled consciences, and rest for your disturbed souls.”
Mr bloggs, don’t listen to old red socks either. He and sweaty Betty are two cheeks of the same arse. So I will applaud your efforts in pointing out to the Irish people the futility of following exploiters such as popes and queens.
Hear hear. I’m a secular centre-right Irish Republican and proud of it.
Three blind mice
I would tend to agree…it is relevant however given the profession of the author. It looks like he might be in trouble with the boss….
RAYMOND MCCREESH – THE MILKMAN DOES HIS ROUNDS (OF AMMO).
Born in Camlough, Armagh in February 1957, Raymond McCreesh was the seventh of eight children. His father James McCreesh worked for the local council. His mother, Susan Quigley, hailed from nearby Dorsey.
When he was fourteen he started working on a milk round in Mullaghbawn and Dromintee which provided the opportunity to gather information for the IRA. Later he would return to this work full-time often chatting with customers to further his information gathering. After leaving school he studied Fabrication Engineering at Newry Technical College for a year and then went to work in Lisburn at Gamble Simms Steel. This job interfered with the increasing demands of his IRA activities and after a year he left so that he could concentrate on his terrorism. As a full-time milkman he was able to observe police and army patrols and from chatting to their wives could gauge which of his customers might be employed in these roles.
He had joined na Fianna Eireann in early 1973 and later that year, at the age of 16, was promoted to full membership in the IRA. His primary offensive activities involved placing large mines in culverts, gateways or by the roadside where they could be remotely detonated as his victims passed by.
In June 1976 with his long time school friend, Danny McGuinness and Paddy Quinn he tried to ambush an army patrol at the Mountain House Inn on the Newry-Newtonhamilton Road. With another IRA member they hijacked a car from a farm in Sturgan which was to be used in their escape but were spotted moving into ambush position. They prematurely opened fire on soldiers moving to investigate the four armed IRA men and the IRA member in the car drove off. If only Raymond had the fastest milkfloat west of the Bann with him!
The others tried to hide in a farmhouse but were surrounded. After they failed to shoot their way out the local Roman Catholic parish priest miraculously appeared and facilitated their surrender. One of the soldiers who captured them, Lance Corporal David Jones was later murdered by Francis Hughes.
In March 1977, Raymond McCreesh was convicted and sentenced to fourteen years in prison for attempted murder, possession of a rifle and ammunition and IRA membership. While in prison he enjoyed long frequent visits from his brother, Father Brian McCreesh, the Roman Catholic prison chaplain. This latitude did not prevent his joining the other convicts escalating campaign to wear their own clothing, receive additional visits, letters and parcels, receive any training, including in arms and terrorism, they chose, be free to meet with other convicts and to have others clean their cells, toilets and showers.
They escalated their protests from wrapping themselves in blankets, rather than wearing the clothing provided, to refusing to wash themselves and their cells, which they smeared with their own excrement, to finally refusing to eat. McCreesh participated in this final effort and successfully starved himself to death in May 1981.
Raymond never expressed any remorse for his actions. His suicide did not achieve a 32 county Marxist Ireland, but he does have a see-saw and a couple of swings named after him in Newry.
I would like to respond to those hostile commentators who describe the Hunger strike as suicide. There has been a great difference of opinion within the church about the morality of hunger striking. In my humble opinion and I would find a number of theologians to agree there’s a big difference between giving your life in solidarity with others and taking your own life in what is essentially a selfish act which is suicide. Jesus did not commit suicide or take his own life. He could have avoided his crucifixion by staying out of Jerusalem but as he said ‘Greater love than this no man has, than to give his life for others.’ Those who went on hunger strike in 1981 were doing so in that same spirit of solidarity with the other republican prisoners who were on protest and with the many others who gave their lives for Irish freedom. Those who do not support the idea of Irish freedom will not understand and can only denigrate and make snide remarks. The aim of those who went on hunger strike was to end the protest that had been going on for five years. These men made the ultimate sacrifice in the cause of freedom against British imperialism. Those who do not accept this analysis will hardly accept that their sacrifice was totally different from suicide. We will have to differ on that.
The aim of those who went on hunger strike was to end the protest that had been going on for five years. ”
Wouldn’t it have been easier just to stop the protest?
Joe
“Jesus did not commit suicide or take his own life. He could have avoided his crucifixion by staying out of Jerusalem but as he said ‘Greater love than this no man has, than to give his life for others.’ ”
And, as I suppose you know, the Church claims that He is no longer dead.
As a fellow Christian I find your use of the crucifixion to justify any political cause disturbing.
Which ever way you spin this, as a Christian minister you ought to know the difference between the sinner and the sinless.
Peter, Joe was not using the crucifixion to justify any political cause.
Whatever the political cause or actions that led human beings to being in the position they found themselves, it will not take away that it was love and devotion to fellow comrades that enabled them to sacrifice themselves and that is what Joe was comparing to the words of Christ.
I respect that in your eyes they were sinners but perhaps even sinners are capable of acts of devotion.
And if you don’t believe that then what hope do any of us have?
“Whatever the political cause or actions that led human beings to being in the position they found themselves, it will not take away that it was love and devotion to fellow comrades that enabled them to sacrifice themselves and that is what Joe was comparing to the words of Christ.”
And this was part of for problem. They showed ‘devotion’ to their fellow criminals, but hatred and disregard to others whom they sought to endanger and kill and traumatise.
Jessica
I’m afraid Joe most certainly did draw a parallel between the crucifixion and these other deaths.
I’ll be absolutely clear: I take no delight in the deaths of any human being, whether as a result of their own choice or as a result of the actions of others.
But when a Christian priest writes about the death of Jesus and the death of those dying for a political cause in the same paragraph, that lends justification whether we like it or not.
And, again, to be clear, I consider myself a sinner as well – I make no distinction between myself and others in that regard, but the point remains, the use of Christianity to justify/validate/give credence to a political cause is blasphemous.
It really is that simple.
So simple that I am happy to apply the same logic to the blasphemous slogs: ‘For God and Ulster’.
“And, again, to be clear, I consider myself a sinner as well – I make no distinction between myself and others in that regard, but the point remains, the use of Christianity to justify/validate/give credence to a political cause is blasphemous.”
Peter, ulster unionism is one of the most blasphemous ideologies ever to inspire conflict.
You are talking about a political cause that was a result of unionist sectarianism, bigotry, hatred backed up by a british state prepared to tolerate murder of catholic civilians by its state forces and unionist mobs, which were off the back of decades of discrimination.
To come on here and preach righteousness from a unionist point of view is laughable.
The hunger strikers are revered within my community and their cause was indeed very justified and noble.
What isn’t justifiable is the british state refusal to own up to its part in our conflict, its part in the division that plagues this island, its failure to put peace and reconciliation in Ireland above its own selfish interests.
For God and Ulster’.is a long long long way down the list of unionist wrong doings Peter.
Until you are prepared to acknowledge this, your attempts to preach Christian values is nothing les then hypocritical.
“The hunger strikers are revered within my community and their cause was indeed very justified and noble.”
Their cause – seeking special treatment for certain criminals, seeking to portray themselves as victims rather than perpetrators, seeking support for a murderous campaign – was neither justified nor noble.
There’s little noble about rubbing your own shit on your walls.
What is it you hope to achieve by making such deeply offensive remarks MT?
“What is it you hope to achieve by making such deeply offensive remarks MT?”
Jessica, you are wasting your time acknowledging such bitter barbs. They are more to be pitied. It’s the letsgetalongerists on here that are the devious ones because their agenda is simply, ‘why don’t we all agree to get along together by accepting Irish republicanism is bad and being British isn’t all that bad’. It’s like a good cop bad cop routine I.e MT,bloggs etc are the bad cop and, well, you can work out who is the good cop.
Gerry Adams was right.
Such bastards need to be broken
Goodness me.
I apply exactly the same logic to all political causes which use Christianity to justifiy themselves; I call myself a sinner; I am deemed hypocritically righteous.
Can’t win, really.
No you didn’t, you have publically declared yourself a unionist here on this very site and as very few ideologies have abused Christianity more than unionism, your criticism against a cause that would not have existed had it not been for the evils of unionism is very much hypocritical.
Jessica
Two of my own comments, in chronological order:
“As a fellow Christian I find your use of the crucifixion to justify *any* political cause disturbing.”
“I apply exactly the same logic to all political causes which use Christianity to justify themselves”
You will note the word *any* in the first.
And now note the word *your* just before it.
“As a fellow Christian I find *your* use of the crucifixion to justify any political cause disturbing.”
So you are happy to come on here and declare yourself part of a group steeped in sectarianism, bigotry and intolerance and then criticise a priest for comparing the compassion shown by the hunger strikers in sacrificing themselves with the compassion shown by Jesus in accepting crucifixion because it may be construed as support for people who were greater than most of us because you don’t like what they stood for.
Your precious union between Ireland and another country – still not wanted by a majority of Irish people who have suffered greatly over it.
Some Christian you are
There’s no compassion in participating in a propaganda event designed to use emotional blackmail to gain support for a terrorist campaign that caused untold misery to fellow humans.
Jessica:
Gerry Adams was right.
Such bastards need to be broken
Was this a generally sectarian comment, or personal abuse?
I am glad of other commentators such as MT, etc. When you can’t re-write history your own way, the mask slips pretty quickly.
“Few ideologies have abused Christianity more than Unionism”. LOL! Ever checked out the whole Marxism thing the provos are into?
Jessica,
The words is *any*.
Using Christianity to justify *any* political cause is the problem.
Out of interest, how would you describe a ‘Christian’?
“These men made the ultimate sacrifice in the cause of freedom against British imperialism.”
No, they didn’t.
Christ Himself made the ultimate sacrifice – and those who did without Him, die.
I mention this only because this is standard Christian doctrine, and you represent the Church.
* did
die
Wow – Everyone knows you are a shinner, but this post just shows how confused you are between your love for the IRA and your supposed Christian faith.
Comparing terrorists to Christ is a new blasphemous low.
Two points: Jesus was sentenced to death (but was resurrected); I am also pretty sure he didn’t murder anyone or firebomb anything on his way down to Jerusalem either. While you are busy re-writing history, don’t try and re-write the bible too.
Does this view put you in conflict with your Arch-Bishop? Or the Pope himself? Maybe someone should forward it on to them to find out.
Joe – you also only comment on the theological question of whether it was suicide.
Care to comment on whether the actions for which they were imprisoned were sinful and should be condemned? Or whether the IRA were right to ignore the Pope in 1979?
Your theological insight would be welcome.
Or indeed whether it was wrong for society to punish those who committed such crimes through the criminal justice system. And was it right for those guilty of such crimes to seek special status for themselves on the grounds of their motivation? Does murder cease to be a sin if the motive is political? I’ve never come across such theology.
McElwee – burns mother of three to death in sectarian attack, shows no remorse = Christ like martyr gives life for Irish freedom, all Brits fault.
Wise up, Joe.
MT/joe blogs, do you believe that Britain has a moral or legal right to be in any part of this island? If you do, can you justify it? If not, can you condemn those who struggle against it?
The people who have lived here for thousands of years and want to remain British do, yes. Even the “planters” do, having lived here for hundreds of years. I make the distinction as I don’t accept the narrative that all Unionists wouldn’t have been here if not for the plantation. The vast bulk of Ulster Scots in Ireland, predominantly in Down and Antrim have been here for thousands of years, So yes, only a sectarian bigot would say that either group didn’t have a right to be here.
but don’t let that divert you from the discussion in hand, or anything,,,,
I wasn’t referring to Irish people wanting to live in Ireland. I said Britain meaning the British government, British army and all their running dogs.
You are beyond hope, Fiosrach.
Thanks,joe. A kind word never goes astray.
“MT/joe blogs, do you believe that Britain has a moral or legal right to be in any part of this island? If you do, can you justify it? If not, can you condemn those who struggle against it?”
I’m not sure what ‘Britain’ ‘being in any part of this island’ means. Northern Ireland is part of the UK. The Republic of Ireland is an independent state.
“What is it you hope to achieve by making such deeply offensive remarks MT?”
I haven’t made any deeply offensive remarks.