Printable View
I love the last line a subtext to strike home a dig
but it wouldn't bother me personally.
is Rory actually Catholic gr? I thought he went to a Catholic primary but secondary comprehensive so I just assumed it was for different reasons than religion.
I know Mcdowell is from a mixed marriage but I thought McIlroy was full lineage protestant.
Why would the UN recognise any national symbol of Northern Ireland when they don't even recognise it as a country?Quote:
Originally Posted by Gather round
Paul: Never been to Church with the guy but I know a few teachers and ex-pupils at his secondary school. For what it's worth it's quite posh and in one of the most unionist towns in NI.
Charlie: my flight of fancy, not meant to be taken literally
:D
Hmm, bile 1 rational debate 0Quote:
Originally Posted by Gather round
Though apparantly later contradicted below?
Don't think PB had any sectarian intent, just that he saw double-standards in terms of the Olympics. As in someone with a more 'glamorous' image.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gather round
As for McIlroy, he comes from a mixed heritage, not too many uber-Prods would call their lad Rory...
Plus like most other all-island sports, he's pretty much obliged to represent Ireland.
Big deal.
And 'atheist paramilitaries'? :confused:
The first part of that doesn't really make sense in the context of the earlier quote, whilst the latter you've normally said in a usually patronising or sneering tone regards Ireland being part of the Commonwealth. Dunno about the royals but the only potential 'advantage' might be increased trading partners, those most of them compared to the EU seem too far away?Quote:
Sure, I celebrated PB's gold for the reasons already given in my first post on the subject. Basically, there are pros and cons for both sides. His d*ckwad behaviour on Saturday just tips the scales. Without him we'd have got one less medal and finished one place lower in the table. I could live with him deliberately missing the games-it'd be similar to our two hockey players who got medals for England.
As for the rest, AB has either been sitting in the sun too long or is tired after re-typing the collected works of a chimpanzee. I've never suggested that the Irish Republic should join the Commonwealth or would gain any real benefit from it. After all you already hae a good relationship with England, adoring crowds to meet Betty Windsor and the rest.
Oh and one last thing, there is no country called the 'Irish Republic'. Get over it.
:rolleyes:
Perhaps you should begin to instruct your elected politicians that you will like to be recognised as an independent country :pQuote:
Originally Posted by Gather round
On McIlroy, the kid was brought up with the best of everything. The established order has been very good to him so it's hardly surprising he supports its continuation.
It's convenient for you that he wears his heart on his sleeve - it helps to frame him as a rash mouth - but I think the charge you level is pretty spurious. Barnes wasn't complaining about McIlroy participating for the Irish team because McIlroy happens to be a constitutional/default unionist; the problem he saw was with McIlroy's wavering in coming to a final decision, combined with fact that OCI president Pat Hickey had been chasing (or "crawling", in the words of Barnes) after him with the carrot-offer of carrying the Irish tricolour in Rio whilst McIlroy had yet to indicate any commitment whatsoever and was seriously pondering the merits of representing another nation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gather round
Why is Barnes a hypocrite? He would never have considered representing any other nation over his own at the Olympics?Quote:
Originally Posted by Paddy Barnes
His tweets do border on the incoherent, I'll grant you that, but since when did incoherence amount to sectarian intent? Can you point me towards at least one tweet that you feel indicates sectarianism on his part? I'm not saying it doesn't exist, but you're the one levelling the accusation, so I'd imagine you'll be able to back it up fairly easily. That you feel pain from the sound of the "ginger spide" talking is maybe more indicative of the personal prejudice you hold yourself?...
Religion has long played the role of socio-political marker in the north, but I wouldn't be so sweeping in my distribution of such an accusation. Are you saying then that a nationalist taking issue with another individual's unionism, or, vice versa, a unionist taking issue with another individual's nationalism, must harbour some (even mild) form of sectarian prejudice? At times in practice, perhaps things became strained due to the increasingly entrenched polarisation of orange and green along religious lines - who was it played the Orange card again? - but the broadly-secular Irish republican movement has always been strictly unsectarian, at least in theory. There's a broad separation of religious faith and green politics.Quote:
You can't seriously be suggesting that him and McIlroy being the same (or any) religion is relevant. Atheist paramilitaries who shoot people are the most sectarian of all.
Loyalism (both its militant and constitutional versions), on the other hand, has always been the bedfellow of conservative biblical/evangelical Ulster Protestantism, and, dare I say, anti-Catholicism/"Popery". The marginalised "Protestant" atheist David Ervine was a breath of fresh air. I loathe to sound biased, but sectarianism of a supremacist bent has been integral to loyalism's very fabric in a way that republican political thought has never been directly led or influenced by Catholic theology, never mind by a sense of superior entitlement. You'd never have a working-class republican organisation entitle itself the "Catholic People's Forum", for example, nor do you see significant numbers of nationalist politicians fill the ranks of what you might (at a stretch) refer to as republicanism's equivalent of the Orange Order, the Ancient Order of Hibernians; a fairly marginal Catholic fraternal organisation established in response to 19th-century anti-Catholicism and now popular, mainly (only?), amongst a minority fringe of Irish-Americans keen to prove their devoutness to "Catholic Ireland's cause".
Whether I find it amusing or not, I'm not sure how its use can be reconciled with the purported shared-future-for-all-style objectives of bodies, such as the IFA, who have adopted it. Why those in such a progressive and forward-thinking organisation like the IFA would want to wait for the initiative of SF or the SDLP on the matter of their chosen representative symbolism, I just don't know...Quote:
While I quite like the NI flag, I'd be quite prepared to compromise on a new one, take the crown off for instance. Are there any suggestions that would get both community support? No, in fact there are no suggestions at all from SF and SDLP, who (like you, presumably) think it's more politically adroit, or funnier, to riff incessantly that NI somehow isn't 'official' without one. Whatever floats your boat...
Broad intolerance. And the disaffected from loyalist communities have been fairly numerous, no?Quote:
The Flaggers are ridiculed both for mass intolerance and minority turnout, clearly one contradicts the other.
I wouldn't advocate someone going out to a podium with the intention of causing offence, especially if they'd voluntarily signed up to the whole affair under a culturally-alien banner in the first place and used it as a platform for their self-promotion. Barnes knew what flag would be flown and what anthem would be played. However, I don't think he had any pre-intent to insult anyone, nor did he indicate that the situation of having to stand on a podium whilst the dust was removed from the 'Danny Boy' record and olde 'Ulster Banner' (it must have been a while since they'd seen the daylight!) was intolerable for him. He offered no opinion on that. He was clearly prepared to put up with it and keep his head bowed. The likes of Wayne McCullough misinterpret when they scold Barnes for the alleged contradictory nature of his conduct:Quote:
His d*ckwad behavior on Saturday just tips the scales.
He was doing OK, just about to stand through it, head down. He didn't say he couldn't put up with it. Nevertheless, the incident happened. The imprudent interruption wasn't necessarily something I would have encouraged in advance, but it was something I was able to laugh at in hindsight. It was done and we were where we were. It sat on the same level as harmless banter for me. Not a big deal, personally. Is that puerile? There's a time and place for getting precious, as the better of the two EGs said. Barnes corrected or enlightened an inquisitive fellow boxer who, for whatever reason, decided to interact with him at what happened to be a pretty awkward moment. It was surely, from Barnes' perspective, a bit of an unexpected turn and, for everyone else, a rather absurd and surreal calamity. He wasn't really intending to make a statement, but in his perhaps guileless need to correct his opponent, lest the opponent thought he identified politically with the loaded symbolism on display, it kind of became one. Gary Neville might have done similar had anyone ever asked him mid-anthem why on earth he wasn't singing 'GSTQ' with the rest of his England team-mates every time he took to the field to play an international game.Quote:
Originally Posted by The News Letter
Maybe I found it almost comic because you wouldn't remotely expect such forthrightness as that in such a context; from a public competitor of the "officially neutral" post-peace process north and especially not one standing on a podium, all eyes and cameras focused on him, receiving a medal under that said banner of pretence. Maybe it was a refreshing change from the heroically-celebrated non-committal aloofness of the likes of blandly-wavering establishment-favourite Rory McIlroy; a shining example for the rest of us embittered cretins, allegedly... Barnes isn't some national republican hero - he remains light entertainment - but it was mildly subversive and transgressive, and, yes, I found that amusing. The context and symbolism concerned, no doubt, coloured my pleasantly-surprised reaction. I thought it was a funny moment and, as I've said, importantly, harmless. Intentional desecration of some sort would have been a different matter, but he didn't engage in anything of the sort. He answered a question to set the record straight - maybe the timing was somewhat off - but he didn't stage a political protest. It has been near-elevated to the level of one due to the over-reaction of some precious observers, mind.
He was baptised a Catholic and possibly raised as one, but he's not of a religious disposition, as far as I know. In fact, he'd have us believe he doesn't believe in anything!Quote:
Originally Posted by paul_oshea
As ever, Danny wins by miles. If it was a fight would have been stopped etc.
Though in this case a wee bit of a sledgehammer to crack the nut...
DI where do you find out such information "he was baptised a catholic"?
Church records I'd imagine
It's well known.Quote:
Originally Posted by paul_oshea
To be fair, Danny could very well type someone into submission. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by ArdeeBhoy
St. Colmcille's in Holywood, to be precise. :pQuote:
Originally Posted by Charlie Darwin
It's mentioned at the beginning of the second chapter (third paragraph down) in his biography by Frank Worral:Quote:
Originally Posted by paul_oshea
Of course, it's easy for McIlroy to be the shining light and modern-day poster-boy for the "new NI for all"; very few have experienced the luxury he enjoys and shared the opportunity he's had, or "God-given" talent, as Worral would have us believe. For anyone interested in exercising good communal relations whilst still cherishing a strong bond with their national identity, maybe Barnes, of humble beginnings, is the more realistic and worthy example for anyone in the north not living in a privileged Holywood bubble; he was able to represent all creeds whilst still holding his own nationality dear. Barnes' reality is the more commonly relevant one. OK, I won't quite espouse idolatry, but maybe something to chew on... :oQuote:
Originally Posted by Frank Worral
And I really don't see why his participation for NI in the Commonwealth Games necessarily has to make him a hypocrite. For sporting reasons, irrelevant and suspect symbolism aside, he seems to have been proud to represent and win a medal for the people of his local region supporting him, both "Catholics and Protestants alike".
I typed rory mcllroy well known in google it didnt come up with that.
You probably should have entered something about his religion then.
Caroline said he wasn't circumcised.
Ha, I'm not quite sure if you're being serious. Deciphering your posts can be difficult at the best of times, Paul, but I'll assume you're joking, possibly through a subtle reference to your apparent inability to find the FAI's e-mail address via Google the other week?... :pQuote:
Originally Posted by paul_oshea
Either way, information on Rory McIlroy isn't all that difficult to come by. He has a published biography, as has been mentioned above. Typing a few fairly obvious key words like "mcilroy baptised catholic" into Google (not even his first name would have been required) would have gotten you some material from which to further investigate.
Believe it or not, Crosby, circumcision is somewhat of a rarity outside North America, the Balkans, Africa, the Middle East and Australasia.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crosby87
At least there's something that unites America and the Muslim world.Quote:
Originally Posted by DannyInvincible
edit: Oh, and Capital punishment. (forgot about that!)
I'd say this is the most important point in all this.Quote:
Originally Posted by DannyInvincible
From your perspective, he's one of 'us' doing something which pissed 'them' off, and you're pleasantly surprised and happy to play it down, just as they are outraged and happy to play it up.
Clearly PB was impressed by the veracity of GR's (and the other begrudgers) 'argument', hence
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/sp...-30479510.html
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/ne...-30482513.html
My wife asked me the other day, 'if we have a son, would you get him circumcised?' because the American women on her pregnancy app were all talking about it.Quote:
Originally Posted by DannyInvincible
'Why', I asked her 'would I unnecessarily mutilate my child?'.
She kind of went quiet and thought about it for a while and eventually said 'I don't know'.*
*this may belong in the 'World Football' thread
I'd say you have totally missed, with deliberation or prejudice or it just escaped you, the import of Danny's lengthy post and you strongly imply, taking a line out of context, that Danny had just another bigoted perspective of the event, the other side of the red neck, backwood reactionary coin.Quote:
Originally Posted by osarusan
Danny wrote "The context and symbolism concerned, no doubt, coloured my pleasantly-surprised reaction. I thought it was a funny moment and, as I've said, importantly, harmless. Intentional desecration of some sort would have been a different matter, but he didn't engage in anything of the sort".
I also thought the event had some humour and I had absolutely no opinion about the Danny Boy song. Possibly it is more appropriate than the only song that nationalist and loyalist workers could sing together "Yes, we have no bananas today", when they joined forces to strike in the 1930's.