主播大秀

芦 Previous | Main | Next 禄

Paisley v Foster

Post categories:

William Crawley | 11:21 UK time, Thursday, 23 November 2006

Any progress towards an agreement between Sinn Fein and the DUP was always going to be a difficult -- and painful -- journey for some members of each party. The recent comments by , a close friend of Dr Paisley, may just be the tip of the iceberg. Mr Foster is one of of Ian Paisley's most loyal supporters, and a personal friend. How many others agree with him?

We need to appreciate, of course, that the DUP and the Free Presbyterian Church are different organisations. Yes, there are significant points of contact (and Ian Paisley is the embodiment of the close relationship between the two); but they do not always agree on public policy, and this is not the first time we've seen a difference of opinion. If a Sinn Fein-DUP coalition is agreed, we may begin to see a widening gulf between the two.

Comments

  • 1.
  • At 01:51 PM on 23 Nov 2006,
  • pb wrote:

William

No chance of putting on the agenda sometime how the Chief Constables' Assocation has suggested it should not be illegal to have sex with children so long as they have reached puberty?

Quite an important issue on the sexual front, no?

PB

  • 2.
  • At 02:29 PM on 23 Nov 2006,
  • Michael N. Hull wrote:

"The thought of one so highly esteemed and loved as Ian Paisley in political coalition with Martin McGuinness I would say is heartbreaking to most, if not every, Free Presbyterian," Rev Foster said.

This quote makes me wonder if N. Ireland鈥檚 sectarianism will ever rise to a level better than that being provided by the Sunnis and Shiites in Iraq and whether the government in N. Ireland will ever rise to a level better than that being provided by the mullahs in Iran.

Perhaps this 鈥楪ang of Four鈥, Paisley, McGuinness, Foster and Adams, will someday be forgotten in the fog of 20th century Irish history? If their achievements are to be the basis of our hope for a better future, then 50 years of this leadership has all but extinguished this hope.

Their worldview is that of separation and exclusion. They categorize in terms of you, me, us, and them. Yet the God that they follow speaks in terms of 鈥榦neness鈥 and 鈥榝orgiveness鈥. He speaks to them in terms of loving one another as you love your self and doing unto others as you would have things done to you. To this God there is only 鈥業鈥 and 鈥楾hou鈥 who asks that they forgive one another as they too will be forgiven.

But then I鈥檓 preaching to the 鈥榗onverted鈥. The four of them have their separate worldviews on that.

  • 3.
  • At 03:10 PM on 23 Nov 2006,
  • wrote:

PB- You may be misunderstanding how the comments section is supposed to work. The idea is that William posts a topic and people can comment on that topic. Ian Paisley and the sexual front do not belong in the same category, clearly.

At various points, I have found Paisley to be fascinating, amusing, frustrating, admirable.... the fact that he founded his own Orange Order, his own church denomination, his own political party .... I have a great fondness for Paisley 'the character' and I believe an era will have passed in Northern Ireland when he goes. It will be interesting to see where this possible rift goes, if anywhere. I'm sure Foster won't step too far out of line, if you see what I mean.

  • 4.
  • At 03:50 PM on 23 Nov 2006,
  • Anonymous wrote:

Dr Ian Paisley didn't found the Independent Orange Order, It was founded approx. 23yrs before he was born in the by

  • 5.
  • At 03:55 PM on 23 Nov 2006,
  • wrote:

Dr Ian Paisley didn't found the Independent Orange Order, It was founded approx. 23yrs before he was born in the year 1903 by Tom Sloan and others who objected to the Orange Order being used for political means.

  • 6.
  • At 08:18 PM on 23 Nov 2006,
  • pb wrote:

no John

I am not misunderstanding it at all.

This is expressly a 2-way conversation with William and what I have written is not forbidden in any sense.

William has openly amended his agenda before in response to postings. And I think it would be very interesting to hear William's view.

It also appears my post 1 above shows we are getting closer to the fulfillment of what I predicted only last week on this blog where I said this post-Christian neo-pagan society would eventually accept sex with children as normal.

Imagine the top police officers in the uk advocating legalising sex with children?

I was lambasted all over the place for being a crank, its all there to read in the blog, but now it looks frigteningly plausible.

It is not because I am clever or good, but this is a clear cycle demonstrated in decaying societies, as laid out in the bible. ignore it at our peril.

By the way John, I would have thought a responible adult like yourself would have been very keen to discuss this? or maybe have you a liberal viewpoint to hide?

PB

  • 7.
  • At 04:21 PM on 24 Nov 2006,
  • Michael N. Hull wrote:

I read today that:

鈥淣orthern Ireland's politicians missed another deadline for forming a power-sharing government Friday, then fled from the parliamentary building as one of Northern Ireland's most infamous Protestant militants burst in claiming to have a bomb. Ian Paisley refused a nomination as the future head of Northern Ireland's power-sharing administration. Michael Stone, the Protestant extremist who killed three people at a Belfast funeral in 1988, tossed a bag into the building and claimed it contained a bomb.鈥

Apparently, 鈥楳ullah鈥 Paisley and 鈥楽addam鈥 Stone are still struggling over some form of theocratic or autocratic government for NI. Which model do the voters there prefer - the Iraqi model or the Iranian one?

  • 8.
  • At 04:57 PM on 24 Nov 2006,
  • wrote:

This is an incredible news story....

  • 9.
  • At 05:59 PM on 24 Nov 2006,
  • Anonymous wrote:

Would Tony Blair, Bertie Ahern or George Bush sit down with Saddam or Bin Ladin as there second-in-command, I think not, so why should Unionist democrats sit down with those who are intrinsically linked to Irish republican terrorists.

  • 10.
  • At 08:28 PM on 24 Nov 2006,
  • Michael N. Hull wrote:

Someone apparently in hiding wrote:

"Would Tony Blair, Bertie Ahern or George Bush sit down with Saddam or Bin Ladin as their second-in-command, I think not, so why should Unionist democrats sit down with those who are intrinsically linked to Irish republican terrorists."

Would Tony Blair, Bertie Ahern or George Bush allow their political actions to be influenced by a killer of three who thinks the political process is best served by putative bombs in bags?

  • 11.
  • At 08:42 PM on 24 Nov 2006,
  • Jen Erik wrote:

Michael: Mr Paisley didn't nominate, but I'm not sure he refused it either - I think he said he'd accept the nomination if Sinn Fein did whatever it is St. Andrews said they needed to do.
I've lost the ability to care. Obviously you wouldn't want anyone to get hurt, but the way the timing worked, at the point the commentators said there was a bomb at Stormont, it didn't sound like the worst eventuality in the world.

Still, I presume that they're now all getting paid through to March, which is all that's important, isn't it?

This post is closed to new comments.

主播大秀 iD

主播大秀 navigation

主播大秀 漏 2014 The 主播大秀 is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.