91热爆

Far more even than Anglicanism, Presbyterianism is a God-of-the-gaps religion; read your bible piecemeal, pat yourself on the back that you're so much more strong-minded than those sheepish papists and then pick out the bits of scripture that justify whatever it is you're going to do anyway. The Ulster Covenant was a declaration of a loyalty so strong that its signitories were prepared to take arms against the object of their loyalty in order to stay loyal to it. Paradoxically, you simply couldn't get any more Irish.

Casur1

Far more even than Anglicanism, Presbyterianism is a God-of-the-gaps religion; read your bible piecemeal...then pick out the bits of scripture that justify whatever it is you're going to do anyway

What do you have in mind, specifically?

The important thing to remember about churches is that they are very good at dressing up their self-interest as some greater good: whatever we do is for the benefit of our society and the wider world. The Presbyterian Church gave its backing to something that "by any means necessary" could have led to the slaughter of countless innocent Catholics. Theological dunces would have pulled the triggers of the guns brought in through the port of Larne (was the education of working class Protestants any better back in 1912!) and those Presbyterian's who helped draft the Covenant would have publicly deplored the murders and said prayers for the victims.

casur
Perhaps you mean't cafeteria christians rather than god of the gaps?

It wasn鈥檛 a satisfactory discussion of the morality of the Church鈥檚 support for the Covenant. Most of the other speakers seemed to agree with Philip Orr鈥檚 assertion that Protestants shouldn鈥檛 鈥榖eat themselves up鈥� about it because Christianity and war have been cosy bedfellows since the time of Constantine and other religions weren鈥檛 paragons of peace either: witness the slaughter in the Balkans at the same period. William did try to draw Philip and the others out to make a moral judgment, but they largely refused to do so.

Countless wrongs do not make a right and any illegal act, violence or threat of violence at any time could be justified or 鈥榮wept aside鈥� in this way. The moral inquiry then stops there before it has even begun. Indeed, the IRA since 1969 could argue that it was not only militant republicans who were prepared to take up arms against the state, that it was only doing what other groups have done countless times in the past, and anyway 鈥渨e only killed a couple of thousand people over 30 years, whereas the Serbs slaughtered 8,000 Muslims in Srebrenica in only 5 days in July 1995鈥�.


I think one of the weaknesses of ethical discussions on SS and other similar programmes is that the focus is too narrowly confined to some specific topical event (in this case, a play) when it is really necessary to step back and examine the assumptions and perspectives upon which people make their particular moral judgments.

What were the criteria the Presbyterian Church used for its preparedness to break the law and to use violence if necessary? In what circumstances, if any, is it justified to break the law? In what circumstances, if any, is violence justified? Do these criteria change over time? And so on.

Of course one of Philip Orr's ancestors, William Orr, was a leading (in sense of first to die) member of the United Irishmen. Irish presbyterians have had a very interesting political history - but one suspects always guided by self interest.

Incidentally, the PRO has a very good resource on this and you can go and find out if any of your ancestors signed the covenant. You can even access the original signatures. I found my grandfather and great uncle who both signed at the City Hall.



They were Methodist - not Presbyterian. Don't know if the Methodists took a stance?