Ian Paisley on A long peace?

I met with Ian Paisley briefly the other day. His often firey persona has been a dominant theme in Northern Irish politics since as far back as I can remember. He is greyer and thinner than he once was, but his spirit and wit is still impressive for a man knocking close on 80.I asked him what he thought of A Long Peace?, our think piece on the future of Unionism of Northern Ireland. After pinpointing which of the many reports he’d been bombarded with in the last few months it was, he replied, “Aye, it wasn’t bad, I suppose”. I asked him if I could quote him on that, and he immediately qualified it by saying, “Well, what I mean is that it didn’t make my heckles rise! If you know what I mean?”


Archived Comments (73)

Ian Paisley is a larger than life figure who has been demonised by the media, sometimes contributing to their antipathy for him by his own unique worldview.

Regardless of one thinks of Dr.Paisley, he is undoubtedly a LEADER and in Unionism that is a rather rare beast.

The one characteristic of Ian Paisley which deserves mention is the sheer force of personality which drives him on. Based on his religious faith, he performs the workload of men half his age.

Undoubtedly, he has made his mark on the body politic, and whilst I do not agree with several dimensions of his political outlook, I do wish him well at a personal level.

Posted by: David Vance at September 5, 2003 11:31 PM


I judge him on on his anti-Catholicism.

I disagree with that.

Do you?

I believe he is genuinely a LEADER in anti-Catholic behaviour, do you agree?

Can such viewpoints be accomodated on any level?

Posted by: Mark at September 6, 2003 12:18 AM


Well, any Protestant is by definition anti-Catholic, any Catholic is by definition anti-Protestant. That in itself isn’t a problem, and indeed part of the problem in the search for a solution in NI is the assumption that it is. The mark of any proper democracy is the tolerance of people who oppose you!

Blatantly opposing equality of opportunity for people based purely on their religious affiliation is, on the other hand, totally unacceptable.

So no, I’m not a big fan of the man!

Posted by: IJP at September 6, 2003 12:22 AM


And yet he can be quite politic in his ways too. I remember asking him at a conference on the Shankill whether being a Protestant meant you had to chain up the park swings on a Sunday ( Yes, I’m old enough to remember Woodvale park enchaine and there had been a row in Castlereagh over leisure Centres opening.).

His answer was that everyone must follow their own conscience. As I’m sure he believes in predestination, it got him out of an awkward question and, for the *saved* in the audience, made a rather pointed comment about me.

Posted by: Alan at September 6, 2003 07:22 AM


Mark

I judge him on his political opinions.

It is not for me to judge anyones religious convictions as I believe we must all be entitled to hold our own views without prejudice.

Posted by: David Vance at September 6, 2003 08:42 AM


I can understand while nationalists don’t trust paisley, but the man has gone on the record in saying that there are catholics in the DUP, and I doubt he would lie or risk offending the hard wing of the party unless it was true…

Dr Paisley does work more than any politician (or joe bloggs man) I’ve heard of, but I think it’s good that he has toned down some of his views the last few years.

Posted by: Kris at September 6, 2003 01:24 PM


In my opinion he is an evil man who has either wittingly or unwittngly propagated a great deal of suffering in this country. Nothing in his life has been of any benefit to anyone in NI (with the exception of himself,families and cronies of course) history will judge him very harshly and he will i have no doubt be seen in his true light in years to come.

Posted by: Duncan Shipley Dalton at September 6, 2003 01:38 PM


IJP:

Another respectful dissent: my dear mother is not anti-Catholic, and my later father was not anti-Protestant.

Paul

Posted by: Paul A. Fitzsimmons at September 6, 2003 02:33 PM


PS: Just “late” instead of “later.”

P.A.F.

Posted by: Paul A. Fitzsimmons at September 6, 2003 02:33 PM


David Vance: “It is not for me to judge anyones religious convictions.”

Didn’t stop you claiming Canon Gene Robinson was an atheist because he was gay…

…or that Tony Blair has no interest in God and is dysfunctional in his religious views…

Or that the Archbishop of Canterbury is pagan-loving and a symptom of a godless society…

Or that the UK’s churches (and presumably their members) are irreligious.

God help us when you do start judging people, David.

Posted by: David at September 6, 2003 02:58 PM


PAF:

I mean at a religious level. Being Protestant, by definition, means being anti-Catholic(ism). Otherwise you’re not Protestant. The same applies in reverse.

The problem comes when you move from there to being anti-Catholic(s).

There is a strict division, one which Paisley never seemed to apply to his politics (although seemingly he did when dealing with Catholics personally).

Your religion will always play some role in your life philosophy and political philosophy. But you must be able to divide it, in the main, from politics. Paisley is among the too many in NI who cannot do that.

Posted by: IJP at September 6, 2003 04:04 PM


IJP:

I believe that, happily, you still err.

Maybe what you describe (“Being Protestant, by definition, means being anti-Catholic(ism). Otherwise you’re not Protestant.”) was true earlier, but it need not be true today and, very broadly, is not true here.

Notwithstanding all else, most Christians here are comfortable enough in their own faiths to try to follow them personally and to respect those other Christians enough to leave them to their own religious knitting. Being “anti” really does not fit into that equation.

Still further, rather than “targeting” other Christians in any respect, most here are aware that likely the most important social issue in this regard is between religious believers (of any sort) and nonbelievers.

Paul

Posted by: Paul A. Fitzsimmons at September 6, 2003 04:15 PM


David

Try and get it right if you want to quote me.

1. Gene Robinson stands in direct contradiction of his own marriage vows.

2. Rowan Williams has been inducted into the Druid cult.

Those churches that call themselves Christian can be reasonable held to the values they profess.

If they are clearly in defiance of their own terms of reference, it is not acceptable to mention this?

Posted by: David Vance at September 6, 2003 07:58 PM


They may be *more* ‘anti’ others, Paul, but they must still be ‘anti’ other denominations, and sadly you’ll find evidence of that in most cases in NI. Which is why I call myself ‘non-denominational’.

However, that is aside from my real point above, which is that it seems some people in NI think we’ll reach a settlement by not being allowed to oppose anything. Any view goes! And they’re very wrong.

The issue with Paisley is not that he is anti-Catholic(ism), he is perfectly entitled to be. The issue is that if he chooses to make the outworking of that blatant discrimination against Catholics, then he he is himself to be opposed vociferously by all people who seek a genuine, inclusive solution here.

Posted by: IJP at September 6, 2003 08:30 PM


Yeah he has a ‘unique world view’ so did Hitler! And I agree with ‘Mark’ when he said he believed him to be a great leader in anti-catholic behaviour, just like the Nazi’s thought Hitler wsa a great leader in the war against Jews!!!
I realize I’m being v.extreme but you cannot talk about Paisley without getting some tempers frayed. He has created that persona for himself, you can only blame the media to a certain extent!

Posted by: Corky at September 6, 2003 10:56 PM


IJP:

“They[, Christians in the U.S.] may be *more* [sic?: ‘less’?] ‘anti’ others, Paul, but they must still be ‘anti’ other denominations, and sadly you’ll find evidence of that in most cases in NI. Which is why I call myself ‘non-denominational’.”

To begin with, I recognize that I seem to be going around in circles with a person whose views typically I admire, but I’ve a couple of minutes to spare before heading home, so once more around.

Christians, in America or elsewhere “must … be ‘anti’ other denominations”? No, it seems very clearly to me that they need not be.

My sporting requirements are fulfilled through bicycle riding; by contrast, I do not play baseball. Am I “anti” baseball? No; I’m perfectly happy that other people enjoy it as much as they do, even though I myself do not.

As to my religious needs, like many I follow the faith of my father. Am I in any respect “anti” the faith of my mother, a life-long and devout Protestant? No; I’m perfectly happy that she finds her spiritual needs satisfied therethrough, even though I myself do not do so.

Moreover, it seems to me that, according to your suggestions, I must be not only anti-Protestant but alsoand perhaps a fortiorianti-Jew, anti-Moslem, anti-Hindu, etc., but in fact I am none of the above. Not only am I not much of a religious proselytizer, but I believe firmly in freedom of religion, and I firmly respect the religious choices of non-Catholic believers, particularly devout believers.

Perhaps, were your society’s most fundamental constitutional problems in fact adequately resolved (which they will never be through the Good Friday Agreement), your generation and those coming up behind you would have a much better opportunity to weigh and consider these apparently radical non-political views.

ATB,

Paul

PS: Lest any reader here think these views on my part of recent vintage, he or she might consider the following:

—–Original Message—–

From: Paul Fitzsimmons

Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2001 9:04 AM

To: ‘featureseditor@belfasttelegraph.co.uk’

Subject: Line Dancing

Features Editor
The Belfast Telegraph

Dear Sir or Madam:

At the beginning of this election season, your paper treated its readers to some side-splitting discussions on Rev. Paisley’s views against line dancing (16 May).

Perhaps there are also some fundamentalist Islamic candidates running for office. A lot of us could have a whale of a time talking about why their women cover their faces.

And, as a taig myself, I’d admit there’s great frivolity to be had in “Catholic” topics such as pre-marital sex, Ahern-Larkin style relationships, and, of course, “more than two shakes is a sin.”

However, others may conclude that religious strictures directed at adherents’ own practices are really nobody else’s damned business.

Those others might further conclude that better ways may exist to try to prop up the UUP in this election than by suddenly poking fun at the old-as-the-hills fundamentalist Protestant position against dancing, a position which seems to have rather little to do with fundamental socio-political issues as, for example, Northern Ireland’s constitutional status.

Sincerely, etc.

Some version thereof was run in the Telegraph, I was told, around the end of May 2001.

P.A.F.

Posted by: Paul A. Fitzsimmons at September 6, 2003 11:56 PM


PAF,

Like I said, being Christian does not make you anti-Jew or anti-Muslim, but it does make you anti-Judaism and anti-Islam. You cannot just say ‘Oh well, if it meets their spiritual needs’. Christianity involves belief that Jesus died for us, and therefore opposition to any belief that he didn’t. Within that, Protestants by definition ‘protest’ against Catholicism’s reading of the Book in which this is confirmed – if you do not oppose that, you’re not Protestant. Whether you find that opposition relevant, whether you think about it at all indeed, is another matter. But by definition Protestantism involves opposition to Catholicism and vice-versa. If your brand of Christian belief doesn’t do this, then maybe you’re with me in the non-denominational camp!

This can be compared better with, for example, supporting a particular sports team. Does supporting Arsenal make you anti-Manchester United, anti-Chelsea and anti-Liverpool? Yes it does! You may find Liverpool preferable to Chelsea, but you still oppose both. You can’t support two teams (at least not in the same division!) Nor, in Christianity, can you support two versions of ‘the Truth’.

Now my whole point is that that is quite different from politics (and indeed from which sport you happen to enjoy). In politics, there can be (indeed usually are) more than one answer to certain questions. Different political philosophies can easily be considered by the same person to be of equal merit. There is rarely a single way forward. Privatization may work for water, but not for rail. High taxes may work in Swedish society, but not in New Hampshire. Biking may work for you, but not for me!

The problem is when you have people trying to apply religious arguments – where there is one truth usually dependent on (apparently illogical) faith – to political situations. This leads to political narrow-mindedness. Indeed, there is ample evidence of that on these fora.

I believe Jesus Christ died for us. I’m not prepared to listen to an atheist, a Jew or a Muslim who denies this. That’s my religious view, and it won’t change. Narrow-minded, perhaps, but that’s the way it is.

However, such a rigid view would be entirely inappropriate in the political arena. Politics is about seeking consensus, about compromising to build a society upon which we all agree, about focusing on what all of us can tolerate rather than what some of us prefer. This cannot happen if people close their minds to other options and to other views.

It is indeed why, though your constitutional preference for NI is some form of United Irish State, and my preference is for a federal UK, we’re both prepared to listen to something which may just fall in between – which neither of us would find ideal, but which we may at least tolerate!

I’m sure I didn’t have time to write all that…

Posted by: IJP at September 7, 2003 01:46 AM


IJP:

Let me try a different tack as this discussion, I hope, ventures towards a conclusion:

Major Premise: Your reasoning yields the ineluctable conclusion that, by being a Christian of the Catholic variety, I must be “anti-Judaism and anti-Islam.”

Minor Premise: I am in no sense either “anti-Judaism” nor “anti-Islam.”

Conclusion: Either (a) I am a liar or (b) your reasoning is in error.

Allow me to make a case for the latter conclusion, starting with your sports analogy, which, frankly, seems far worse than mine by analogizing, as it does, the world’s main religions to sports teams competing against each other for one “Holy Grail” of a trophy: “You can’t support two teams (at least not in the same division!) Nor, in Christianity, can you support two versions of ‘the Truth’.”

Well, also frankly, the notion of religion as a competitive sport, with one team winning and all the rest just being a bunch of eternal losers, leaves me pretty cold. That mindset has a hellova lot more to do with the notion of “last judgment” than I’m really qualified to speak to dispositively; I’d add that, from all I’ve seen, heard, and read, I’m completely unconvinced that, except for once, that sort of capability has ever existed on earth.

Moreover, I think you make a large and incorrect leap in your reasoning by asserting that my stance has to do with “support” for multiple theologies.

I do not “support” multiple theologies. In my personal life, I support my church particularly through my attendance, my financial contributions, and, indirectly, through the education of my children. To no other religion do I supply such “support.” (Don’t tell anyone, but I once worked, gratis, at a rummage sale at my mother’s church.)

But, again, the fact that I do not “support” other faiths certainly does not mean that I am “anti” those faiths. It means I leave them to their own devices and the tender mercies of our common God.

The notion that any one belief or creed is the embodiment of religious perfection on earth, or that any one church has fully comprehended the mind and thoughts of God, is pitiably and laughably contrary to millenia of experience in this field of human existence. I pray, and believe, that the best of my own faith is close enough to what God hopes for me that, by following it adequately, I’ll somehow be able to squeeze my way through His final gates. Your contrary suggestions notwithstanding, I believe the same of my mother and her church (though she’ll be doing a lot less squeezing) and of others in their other churches aspiring to follow the Christian Gospels.

Moreover, I tend to think that God has not ensouled billions of “pagans” in my lifetime merely to shunt them off to hell because I and my fellow Christians have done an inadequate job of spreading His Word. Maybe, just maybe, they’ve got some shot at heaven that we the incompletely enlightened not yet been able to discern or fathom.

In any event, I’ve no inclination whatsoever to spend my life looking down my nose at these “heathens” based on the perhaps-flawed notion that I’ve been able to divine the entirety of God’s plans for humanity. If they’re somehow already condemned to hell, I’ve no intention of warming them up to that experience in the here-and-now through any disrespect on my own part.

Instead, while not supporting other religions, I’ll just continue, in my own simple-minded way, to support freedom of religion (including Rev. Paisley’s version of Christianity), try to tolerate others’ use of that freedom, and hope fervently that, in the end, God forgives us all.

Paul

Posted by: Paul A. Fitzsimmons at September 7, 2003 02:43 PM


Paul,

Sorry, but that’s a religious ‘cop out’.

If you are Christian, you know the *only* way to enter Heaven is by believing Christ died for us. Judaism, Islam and the others are in error, because they teach that you can enter Heaven by others means. This is *wrong*. There is *no* room in Christianity for arguing Jews or Muslims have a ‘shot at Heaven’ – they *don’t*. Therefore a Christian believes people should not be encouraged to follow religions in error – they must, therefore, by *anti*-Judaism, anti-Islam etc.

Anyone is perfectly entitled to hold a religious view along those lines – after all, I do!

However, like I’ve said above, the problem comes when people try to apply a religious-like argument to politics, and to building society.

Religion is about single truth, not about compromise. Debate is pointless because it’s about faith.

Politics is quite the opposite of that – there may be several ways to go and compromise is an absolute necessity. Debate is necessary because it’s about an agreed way forward.

The problem in NI comes when people cannot distinguish one type of argument from another.
————

Posted by: IJP at September 7, 2003 04:01 PM


IJP:

You write:

If you are Christian, you know the *only* way to enter Heaven is by believing Christ died for us. Judaism, Islam and the others are in error, because they teach that you can enter Heaven by others means. This is *wrong*. There is *no* room in Christianity for arguing Jews or Muslims have a ‘shot at Heaven’ – they *don’t*. Therefore a Christian believes people should not be encouraged to follow religions in error – they must, therefore, by *anti*-Judaism, anti-Islam etc.

“Religion is about single truth, not about compromise. Debate is pointless because it’s about faith.”

I’m not sure religion is actually about a single truth, nor am I certain that matters of faith are entirely beyond rational debate, but it’s pretty clear that those are your views. The fact that this “salvation” point has already long been a matter of serious discussion, and disagreement, among Christian scholars (e.g., “Christian Theology of Interfaith Dialogue: Defining the Emerging Fourth Option,” http://www.sewanee.edu/theology/scom/theol%20dialogue.html (the first article on this topic that I found in an Internet search this morning)) would doubtless be an irrelevance to you because, based on your views of faith, “[t]here is *no* room in Christianity for arguing Jews or Muslims have a ‘shot at Heaven’ – they *don’t*.”

You’ve of course got a right to your beliefs in this regard, though I myself would be far more inclined to agree with the evils of line-dancing.

In the meantime, off to church.

Best,

Paul

Posted by: Paul A. Fitzsimmons at September 7, 2003 04:42 PM


He’s an inspiration !

I was thinking of setting up a church based upon my own mis-interpretation of the Good Book, and calling myself The Reverend.

What a man.

Posted by: Ian Paisley-Tie at September 8, 2003 12:10 PM


THE NUMERICAL SIGNATURE OF GOD* By Edward Aguirre
Copyright 2003
American Victory Enterprises
Americanvictory3@aol.com

Science – Knowledge gained through observation or experience…

God has stamped His numerical signature throughout the world of nature. The marvels of nature attest to the existence of God and declare to mankind that “the invisible things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power…”(Romans 1:20).

What is the numerical signature of God? The numerical signature of God is the number three as used throughout the Sacred Volume of Biblical Scripture. God is revealed in the Holy Bible as a triune being commonly known as the Trinity, that is, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, therefore, the number 3 is God’s special number. God uses the number 3 as a witness of Himself, “For
there are three that bear record in heaven…And there are three that bear witness in earth”(1 John 5:7,8).

The following partial list of facts demonstrate the numerical signature of God and the harmony of true science and Scripture:

1. God made man in His image as a triune being: 1. Body(shell) 2. Soul(emotions, intellect,
will) 3. Spirit(life)
2. The fingerprints of God are found throughout human anatomy as seen in the many pages which list the groups
of three within its design. For example, skin is the largest organ of the body and consists of
three layers: 1. Epidermis 2. Dermis 3. Hypodermis
3. The Bible states that “God is light”( 1 John 1:5). There are three properties of light: 1. Actinic
2. Calorific 3. Luminiferous
4. There are three phases of matter: 1. Solids 2. Liquids 3. Gases
5. Water, the greatest quantity of the phases of matter on earth, has three molecules.
6. There are three basic dimensions: 1. Length 2. Width 3. Depth
7. There are three primary colors: 1. Yellow 2. Red 3. Blue
8 .The divisions of time are in groups of three’s: 1. Years 2. Months 3. Days
1. Hours 2. Minutes 3. Seconds
9. There are three realms in nature: 1. Mineral 2. Vegetable 3. Animal
10. The smallest particle of matter, the atom, has three basic components: 1. Electrons
2. Protons 3. Neutrons
11. The earth is composed of three concentric layers: 1. Crust 2. Mantle 3. Core
12. The earth has a big 3 stamped on it as it were, since it is the 3rd planet from the
sun.
13. In deep space, in the Eagle Nebula, there are three immense pillars six trillion miles long
consisting of interstellar hydrogen gas and dust.
14. Multiples of three exist also throughout the world of nature without coincidence as noted in the following examples: 1. The nine
planets of the solar system 2. Pulsars(spin 30 times per second) 3. Hexagonal honeycombs 4. Snowflakes(demonstrate God’s
infinite diversity since there are no two alike with the same design, but all have six points.
15. The geometric configurations of the Earth and other planets(their circular shapes), which move in mathematical pecision,
predictability and remarkable speed, further reveal the existence of God, the great Geometrician.

The facts concerning God’s numerical signature not only demonstrate His existence, they also expose the theory of evolution. “The fool hath said there is no God” (Psalm 14:1).
Almighty God, the architect of the universe, is the controller of time, matter and space. Unfortunately, the only things He doesn’t control are the lives of men who refuse to repent and believe the gospel.

The theory of evolution with its random chance and mindless causes is a hopeless philosophy. The propagation of the evolutionary theory was one of the greatest tragedies of the 20th century because of its faith-destroying tenets and its “survival of the fittest” mentality.

The scientific evidence for creation and the existence of a personal God is now overwhelming in the light of God’s numerical signature. The orderliness and the intelligent design of the Creator can be traced and scientifically verified by His numerical signature as seen everywhere. Therefore, the Bible is a trustworthy science book for all students of inquiring minds who also will find in it advanced scientific and medical statements. For example, thousands of years ago it was recorded in Sacred Scripture the importance of blood(See Leviticus 17:11), and that the earth is round and poised in space(See Isaiah 40:22 and Job 26:7). In his book entitled “The Book of Prophecies,” Christopher Columbus noted that reading in the Book of Isaiah helped him discover the New World.

God’s design, majesty and power are not only seen in the earth but also 7,000 light years away. The Bible says, “The heavens declare the glory of God, and the firmament showeth His handiwork”(Psalm 19:1). The way God accomplished His mighty feats is also revealed in Scripture: “Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that the things that are seen were not made of things which do appear”(Hebrews 11:3). God spoke and the heavenly bodies were created, including all the solids, liquids, gases and energy in the universe.

A further revelation of God’s power is found in Psalm 147:4, “He tells the number of stars; He calls them all by their names.” There are an estimated seventy-six sextillion stars in the universe, a number said to be greater than all the grains of sand on earth. In consideration of all these things, we have to agree with the words of Psalm 48:1, “Great is the Lord, and greatly to be praised.”

*This article is an excerpt from the book, “The Woman, the Dragon and the Eagle.”

Posted by: E. Aguirre at October 25, 2003 05:03 AM


E. Aguirre – Get a life

Posted by: Lily at October 25, 2003 10:16 AM


www.reids24.freeserve.com
Belfast Humanist Group

www.ulsterhumanist.freeserve.com
Ulster Humanist Association

www.irish-humanists.org
Assocation of Irish Humanists

I would recommend these sites to all secularists throughout the British Isles who wish to challenge the role of organised superstition in our society. Why is Ireland the carbuncle on the nose of Europe? Forget the notion of a god or gods. Europe’s modern secular age has made religion an irrelevance. Support a secular society for these Isles. I want these Isles to be at the heart of Europe.

Remember, around 9 million people throughout the Isles are of no religious persuasion, supported by U.K and Irish census.

Posted by: Nathan at October 25, 2003 10:51 AM


Thanks for the book review E. Aguirre, I must however advise that it’s a decidedly unpopular nominee at a drifting 33/1 to lift the honours at the disappointingly humourless Hallucinogenic Fiction Writers Guild awards bash this year.

Posted by: Ed Ucate at October 25, 2003 11:09 AM


Careful though, Nathan – don’t discount those of us who *are* religious but nonetheless seek a secular society!

Religion and politics should not mix.

Posted by: IJP at October 25, 2003 03:05 PM


Paisley is the man who opposed unionist reform of NI.

He opposed civil rights. He opposed ONeills reforms. He opposed Faulkners attempts at reform. He opposed voluntary coalition with SDLP in 1975; he opposed power-sharing on principle (until GFA?).

The result? Stormont gone in 1972; Direct Rule and a steady diminution of unionist influence; Anglo-Irish Agreement, Framework Documents

What unionist today wouldnt accept the modest reformed NI offered by ONeill? What unionist today wouldnt accept Faulkners multi-party committees scrutinising a one-party Unionist government?

Cheers, Ian.

Posted by: willowfield at October 25, 2003 05:12 PM


“The Queen is a Parrot” Dr. Paisley, 1998

Posted by: Howard at October 25, 2003 05:35 PM


Fair enough IJP. Religion should be a private affair confined within Church grounds. The Human Rights Act of 1998 allows for the freedom of worship. Problems arise though when religionists take advantage of this basic human right. I strongly disapprove of the bible bashing antics displayed by Ian Paisley and his Orangemen. Imposing religious ideologies unreservedly on others is NOT a human right.

Lets face the facts though. Europe is leaving behind its post-Christian, post-nationalist legacy. A pluralist, secular Europe is the only way to secure a common future for the peoples of the British Isles.

Posted by: Nathan at October 25, 2003 06:03 PM


Fair enough IJP. Religion should be a private affair confined within Church grounds. The Human Rights Act of 1998 allows for the freedom of worship. Problems arise though when religionists take advantage of this basic human right. I strongly disapprove of the bible bashing antics displayed by Ian Paisley and his Orangemen. Imposing religious ideologies unreservedly on others is NOT a human right.

Lets face the facts though. Europe is leaving behind its former Christian and nationalist legacy. A pluralist, secular Europe is the only way to secure a common future for the peoples of the British Isles.

Posted by: Nathan at October 25, 2003 06:08 PM


Apologies go to Dr. Joe Vyle (chair of Belfast Humanist Group) and Brian McClinton (chair of the Ulster Humanist Association). Having previously disclosed incorrect websites I now wish to state them in their correct form:

www.humanists.net/belfast
www.ulsterhumanist.freeservers.com

Association of Irish Humanists website is printed correctly.

Posted by: Nathan at October 25, 2003 09:42 PM


THE REV.Ian Paisley is like THE REV.Al Sharpton. They are a disgrace to any religion. All they preach is hate. How can people listen to him.

Posted by: k at December 2, 2003 04:20 AM


Mr Paisley is 90% correct about the idolatrous Catholic Apostate Church. However- If he is a member of the Masonic Orangemen- He is equally Apostate. You Must Be Born Again. www.millenniafever.org

Posted by: j.martin at December 2, 2003 02:02 PM


Surely not the Rev Al Sharpton – pal of the Clintons, much loved by the liberal media and? Say it isn’t so? Has anyone told Duncan Shipley Dalton?

Posted by: David Vance at December 2, 2003 09:25 PM


The Rev Ian has such a strong opinion that has changed very little over the years. It has been attacked and assaulted by those around him. He is able to prove, in his eyes, many of the things he says. The problem though (and this is a Northern Irish problem) he is that entrenched in his views that the ability of not only hearing the opinion of others (which can equally be proved in their eyes) but to try and understand these opinions within the context of others is alien to him. Unfortunately, on both sides, this inability to empathise runs rife through Northern Ireland. So both sides believe they are right and the other wrong. When have you ever met someone who is always right. They dont exist. As a catholic I can understand when the Rev is coming from, and can sort of see the issues from his point of view. This though doesnt mean I agree with them though but at least understanding them and accepting them is a step forward away from simply dismissing them as he does. He’s a relic and all the other relics like him (and there are plenty in NI politics) just need to grow old and die and let us, hopefully as the more enlightened generation, sort this pile of shit that they have left. Just a thought.

Posted by: Pat McCaffrey at December 4, 2003 07:55 PM


Absolutely right, Pat – I just hope you’re right about the ‘more enlightened generation’.

Posted by: IJP at December 4, 2003 10:55 PM


Dr.Paisley is indeed the last great threat against the entire vatican system.His stand on the Truth is firm and that is what seperates him from all other politicians!In America you must be “politically correct” Dr.Paisley represents what is Biblically correct,which unfortunatly in America is outlawed!

Posted by: roger at December 5, 2003 04:06 AM


As a physical descendant of Ignatius Loyola [born Inigo Lopez-Recalde (de Loyola) in 1491, and founder of the infamous “Jesuit Order” in 1534] on my father’s side of the family; and a physical descendant of Cardinal Francisco Jimenez (Ximenes) Cisneros [personal confessor/priest to Queen Isabella of Spain in 1492, Second Inquisitor General of The Spanish Inquisition, and chief author/translator of the Complutesian Polyglot Bible of 1517] on my mother’s side of the family:

I can vouch, confirm, affirm, state, say, confess, and/or testify that what Dr. Ian R.K. Paisley–and all Historic Biblical Protestants–have said about The Roman “Catholic” Cult is true and accurate both by The Authorized Holy Scriptures of Historic Orthodox Judeo-Christianity, and by the Historic Writings [both of Believers and non-believers] of the Cronicles of Recorded History throughout these Earthly 6000 years of Human Existence!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Biblically, Historically, and Truthfully yours,

Anthony J. “Tony” Lopez-Cisneros
2002 Candidate for Congress,
United States House of Representatives,
4th Congressional District [REP]
Website: www.lopez-cisnerosin2002.0catch.com
E-mail: tonyin2002@hotmail.com

Posted by: Tony Lopez-Cisneros at December 13, 2003 05:32 PM


With thoughts like that are you surprised the electorate completely rejected you in favor (misspelling to make you feel at home) of Luis V. Gutierrez? Tone it down next time and you might break that 15% ceiling. With thoughts like that are you surprised the electorate completely rejected you in favor (misspelling to make you feel at home) of Luis V. Gutierrez? Tone it down next time and you might break that 15% ceiling.

BTW your ancestry doesn’t mean anything. Your rejection at the ballot box speaks more for how people that had the option to vote rate you.

Posted by: Yank get lost at December 13, 2003 05:59 PM


I stand where Dr. Ian R.K. Paisley stands on: THE TRUTH. The FACT IS is that the electorate did not “completely reject” Tony Lopez-Cisneros; or else he would’ve received NO VOTES AT ALL!!!

Mr. Lopez-Cisneros received multiple thousands of votes– Getting 15% was a MIRACLE in itself.

Posted by: Tony Lopez-Cisneros at December 13, 2003 07:22 PM


Tony,

I’m sure the site owner would appreciate it if you desisted from unfounded allegations about a US congressman. Unless these allegations are completely true and in the public domain they would place this site in a dubious legal position.

I feel sure that the message will be removed as soon as Mick is aware of the content. Not because of its anti-Catholic nature but because of the nature of your allegations about an identifiable which seem to be unfounded.

Mark.

Posted by: Mark McGregor at December 13, 2003 08:15 PM


Tony,
Biblically, Historically and Truthfully yours has to be the srangest sign off ever. Are you claiming to be a biblical and historical figure?
I saw your website and its quite interesting, looked under your upcoming events section and saw it was blank – I guess that says it all really. You also have placed “yank get lost” in his place, the electorate didnt totally reject you only 85% of them. I find it a bit rich that you can claim a 15% vote for yourself as a miracle. Smacks of self importance to believe God works soley on your behalf, a bit like the Reverend Ian, although he does get elected and there the comparison with you must end

Posted by: Jeremy at December 13, 2003 09:23 PM


Is this guy for real?

Posted by: Jeremy at December 13, 2003 10:34 PM


Jeremy,

I fear he is. Why he’s bothering us with his nonsense when not one bit of it relates to politics here I don’t know.

Maybe as this website suggests it’s because he’s
“>not the sharpest knife in the drawer?

Why be nice when the guy is clearly a complete loon.

Posted by: Mark McGregor at December 13, 2003 10:53 PM


Sorry bad link last time. Try this.

Tony a dull blade?

http://www.brunchma.com/~acsumama/blog/archive/2002_11_03_oldblog.html

Posted by: Mark McGregor at December 13, 2003 10:56 PM


Tony,

Whilst not attempting to proscribe genuine religious sentiment, I have had to remove much of what you’ve contributed here over the weekend, as much of it falls into the personal category.

I have however tried to retain your fundatmental defence of Dr Paisley’s religious position.

Posted by: Mick at December 15, 2003 10:29 AM


IJP, PAF
sorry to bring up a dead discussion but I found it very interesting.
I have to say I think I fall onto PAF’s side, it just makes more sense to me.
I think I know what IJP is getting at, is the difference though simply about your definition of “anti” or your definition of what being a christian/catholic/protestant means?
You see, I think you can’t live by definition. Just because I am RC doesn’t mean
I don’t think there isn’t room for other religions, it doesn’t mean I oppose other religions. What the hell do we really know, only what we are thought. So how would it be logical to assume what we know/believe is the only truth?

Mar shample:
“Christianity involves belief that Jesus died for us, and therefore opposition to any belief that he didn’t”
Well, in this day and age few of us are so devout, I think. Most of us recognise that this is but one “version”, one which we happen to belive but we must recognise that there are other “versions” of the truth.

Posted by: maca at December 15, 2003 12:44 PM


Maca:

I was alerted this weekend to your comment of the fifteenth. Just a brief note here to thank you for weighing in. Obviously, religious matters are not “majority rules” issues, but it’s comforting to find that others are likeminded in such matters.

Paul

*****

To all my Slugger friends and colleagues:

Merry Christmas and happy new year to you and yours.

Best,

Paul

Posted by: Paul A. Fitzsimmons at December 21, 2003 08:58 PM


May we be given wisdom to discerne His will and strength to see it done. We are all servants to His will, may we humbly ask his forgiveness and gratefully accept our responsibilities.

Posted by: Ever Hopeful at December 31, 2003 12:28 AM


Adhere to Window Models. Document windows, Utility windows, Click-through, Layering, Drawers, Controls. How do users open windows, how do you properly title windows?

Posted by: James at January 12, 2004 04:44 AM


Okay, I just told you what Apple wants you to look out for with window positions, but in the real world, not everyone uses the hiding feature of the Dock, and it is unrealistic to be able to predict where each user will place their Dock at any given day or how large they will have it. However, you can build a feature into your application that allows spacing for the Finder. You can give users the option of where to position their windows and what area of the screen not to cross. I know that BBEdit provides me with this feature, and I wish more developers gave me more control over my windows.

Posted by: Zachary at January 12, 2004 04:44 AM


To put my money where my mouth is, in each new article I’ll build a hypothetical application that illustrates the guidelines I’m covering. Today’s application is called “Paint” and will be based on the photo-illustrative icon I created in my last article. Together we will complete each step, and by the end of the project we should have a well-designed, 95%-100% Aqua-compliant application. I’ll leave some room for personal preferences and the fact that Apple changes the OS every few months.

Posted by: Gregory at January 12, 2004 04:45 AM


In building your amazing Aqua application, one of the most important things to consider is the Dock. There are three things your app needs to be “Dock Compliant.” Now, I write this knowing that the Dock will be going through some major changes soon, but for the most part, these should still hold true.

Posted by: Hercules at January 12, 2004 04:45 AM


Okay, I just told you what Apple wants you to look out for with window positions, but in the real world, not everyone uses the hiding feature of the Dock, and it is unrealistic to be able to predict where each user will place their Dock at any given day or how large they will have it. However, you can build a feature into your application that allows spacing for the Finder. You can give users the option of where to position their windows and what area of the screen not to cross. I know that BBEdit provides me with this feature, and I wish more developers gave me more control over my windows.

Posted by: John at January 12, 2004 04:45 AM


Adhere to System Appearance. Does your application use all the sweetly colored buttons, delightfully shaded windows, and all the other “bells and whistles?”

Posted by: Pierce at January 12, 2004 04:45 AM


By building an application that takes advantage of Aqua’s many facets, you help ensure that your application will not only look good, but have a chance of becoming a raging success. After a new user clicks on the icon of your program, the first thing he or she sees is the application interface. I know that when I review a product, I am very critical of its visual design. I usually have a short time to learn the new software, so design and ease of use are very important. Aside from those who marvel at the beauty of the command line, most users tend to react the same way.

Posted by: Grace at January 12, 2004 04:46 AM


Other examples of these animations might be to show the status of an FTP transfer, the progress of media being digitized, or an updated time signature. And don’t forget that users may want to have some control over this, so give them plenty of options, including the ability to turn these functions off.

Posted by: Tristram at January 12, 2004 04:46 AM


Due to the positioning of the Dock, remember that when you build an application, you have to be sure that new document window sizes and positions do not violate the Dock’s space. Dock is temperamental and Dock loves his space. If you default to a window size that expands behind the dock, users will have a difficult time reaching the navigation and resize areas at the bottom of the screen. I can personally say that more than once I have been rather peeved that I couldn’t get to an area of the window to resize because the default window settings always pop up behind the Dock. In addition, the new Dock in 10.1 will allow users to position their Dock location on either side of the screen as well.

Posted by: Cuthbert at January 12, 2004 04:46 AM


So far in these articles, I have only dipped a toe or two into Aqua’s pool. I have covered basic aspects of building an Aqua-compliant application, including the building of photo-illustrative/3D application icons. Now it’s time to address other components of our Mac OS X application.

Posted by: Giles at January 12, 2004 04:46 AM


It is amazing that the people in Northern Ireland still follow Ian Paisley and consider him to be worthwhile. He may be considered a “Leader” to some, but to me he is a leader only in the same bigoted, bitter tradition as Adolph Hitler and others who have appealed to people’s darkest fears as a way of supporting bigotry. To me, he is attempting to defend the indefensible: the immoral premise which led to Northern Ireland becoming a separate state in the 1920’s. It is a shame that people in the North have had to continue to live with the kind of sectarian strife and economic decline that has taken place there. Ian Paisley’s “leadership” has played no small role in helping to foster that environment over the past 30-plus years.

Posted by: Rick at January 13, 2004 02:31 AM


Rev. Ian Paisley, fundamentalist preacher, founder of the Free Presbyterian Church and militant leader of working-class loyalism. His rhetoric is fiery and well-crafted in the style of a revivalist preacher. This pales in comparison with the result of such rhetoric. He incites people then walks away wiping his hands like Pilate saying that his involvement is minimal.

With the standoffs at Drumcree tempered by the deaths of the three little boys in Ballymoney it does not go unnoticed that in past years Paisley’s speeches (masked as “sermons”) have literally started riots. It is no secret that both Paisley and David Trimble intended to unleash a wave of sectarianism through their actions in Drumcree (by marching. No, actually ‘dancing’ down the road). (Trimble and Paisley have since parted company, since Paisley cannot separate differences of opinion from the Christian person). But someone must ultimately bear the responsibility for the UVF murder of Michael McGoldrick and the widespread intimidation of Catholics throughout the North. Who will acknowledge that since the early ’60’s they have been against any possibility of power sharing proposal? Probably the loudest voice of all. St. Paul talked about empty love sounding like a loud gong or a cymbal. Certainly the imposing stature of Paisley, his ability to ‘snow’ his constituents with imagined fear of the Pope’s army at the gates to get elected over and over again, causing him to announce to the world that he is the “most popular politician in the province”, is not enough to hide the truth. Bigots have dirty hands.

Germans, in the wake of the holocaust, developed a word for those who bear responsibility but claim clean hands. They were called Schriebtisch tater or desk perpetrators. The men in suits who whisper to others in back rooms. This is the backdrop against which intimidation must be seen. The uncomfortable truth is however that the human right to live, work and relax has been dined to many people in this community in past years, both Catholic and Protestant.

No Mr. Paisley you are definitely NOT a man of God but close to the antichrist you so long labeled the Bishop of Rome. Hold up the mirror to yourself and judge yourself first and your fellow Irishman later.

Posted by: sb at January 27, 2004 01:00 PM


Has Mark McGregor gotten a life yet??? As well as the rest of the FOOLS who have nothing better in their lives to do–than to try to make themselves look big–by attacking SUCCESSFUL men like Dr. Ian R.K. Paisley?

Posted by: Tony Cisneros at February 28, 2004 09:01 PM


If Paisley had his way, every Taig in this country would be dead

Posted by: Markey at May 25, 2004 11:16 PM


If Paisley had his way, every Taig in this country would be dead

Posted by: Markey at May 25, 2004 11:17 PM


Hi Im new to this board although I have found it very interesting.

As a protestant from the younger section of the community I have always been a supporter of Ian Paisley I hope that does not make me a bigot and I dont find Ian Paisley bigoted either although he is extreme in his views. Didnt he also campaign to keep a catholic primary school open and win.

Posted by: James at June 9, 2004 08:32 PM


Has anyone read the book ‘Them’ by Jon Ronson? In it, Ronson interviews various extremists about thier conspiracy theories. He profiles people like the leader of the Klu Klux Klan, David Ike, Omar Bakri Mohammed and of course, our very own Ian Paisley.

Posted by: