« Parliamentarism | Main | Legislating From The Bench »
European Institute of Protestant Studies
Ian Paisley is the leader of the more extreme of the two Protestant political parties in Northern Ireland. Rather interestingly, he's not merely anti-Catholic within the context of Northern Ireland politics, he also adheres to a very strident theological anti-Catholicism which you can read all about here. In the context of Ulster politics it's hard to regard Rev. Paisley as anything other than a destructive force, but within the context of the Popular Front between conservative Catholics and conservative Protestants that we see working here in America, there's something refreshing about Paisley's old-school brand of evangelism. His minions seem to have developed a disliking for their co-religionists in the USA precisely on these grounds:
In the past few years the news media have been praising the papacy and the false religion of Rome by printing various articles on the Pope and his cardinals. Even worse, the politicians have been aiding and abetting the cause of Roman Catholicism in these United States. Twice within the past three years Congress has taken much time away from what it should have been doing to give the United States Congressional Gold Medal of Honor, to none other than Cardinal O'Connor of New York (now deceased) and to Pope John Paul, II. . . .If Democrats interested in regaining the allegiance of white Catholics were really, really devious they would find some way to get the Free Presbyterian Church to take off here in the states and let Paisley and co. muscle aside today's Pope-friendly rightwing evangelical leaders.But the worst debacle of all has been the praises and statements of leading evangelicals who have gone out of their way to praise the Pope of Rome and the Roman Catholic System. Billy Graham, Chuck Colson, Jerry Falwell, Jack Van Impe with others, have all been busy praising the Pope of Rome in recent years. . . .
Recently, James Dobson, on a television talk show, June 6, 2002, said in a response to Larry King's question about the scandalous behavior of Roman Catholic Priests, that he "was tremendously concerned for the Roman Catholic Church. I grieve for my Catholic brothers and sisters," he said, "for the priesthood is the symbol of one who speaks for God." He proceeded to say that the leaders of the "Church needed to root out this terrible problem."
Here is a man who is supposed to know what Scriptural doctrine is all about. Yet he apparently thinks that if the pedophilia was "rooted out" that all would then be well. Whereas the Bible believer knows that even if every pedophile priest was removed tomorrow, the false System of Rome would remain the same as she has been for centuries.
April 28, 2005 | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8345160fd69e200d83458701a69e2
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference European Institute of Protestant Studies:
» A stroll down memory lane from chez Nadezhda
As he's graphically displayed on a "where you've been" map, Matt Yglesias is not embarrassed to admit he's led a sheltered life when it comes to exploring the geography of Ame... [Read More]
Tracked on Apr 28, 2005 10:53:55 PM
Comments
That would be a cure worse than the disease. Here in
the USA we have political issues between the
religious right and others, but apart from a few
abortion-clinic bombings and shootings, and a certain
amount of gay-bashing, it isn't violent. Whereas
religious sectarianism in Northern Ireland has
led to low-level warfare at times, with hundreds of
deaths. And the Protestant "loyalist" paramilitaries, encouraged by Paisley, have killed
just as many as the more well-known IRA on the
other (Catholic) side.
Posted by: Richard Cownie | Apr 28, 2005 6:08:57 PM
Why resort to exotic forms of anti-Catholicism? We have perfectly good Jack Chick tracts, written and published right here in America, explaining that the Roman Catholic church is a Satanic and/or Egyptian cult. See, e.g., http://www.revolting.com/1.2/chick/vatican.html
If we could sow the fear in the minds of Christian rightwingers that just maybe IHS on the host really does stand for "Isis, Horus, Seb" after all then maybe they would finally quit trying to co-opt the pope, and would restore the comfortable rift with Catholics.
Posted by: Paul Callahan | Apr 28, 2005 6:20:13 PM
"there's something refreshing about Paisley's old-school brand of evangelism" -- "refreshing"? I'll never love or be loved by U.S. evangelicals or by Catholics anywhere, but I still don't see how could mean "refreshing." I think you really meant to say "bigoted, hateful, and despicable."
Posted by: ostap | Apr 28, 2005 6:37:48 PM
I think you really meant to say "bigoted, hateful, and despicable."
But Matt didn't say that because, for Matt (and most of his readers), it goes without saying. Matt's point is that Paisley is [bigoted, hateful, despicable, and] honest (about his hatred of Catholics)--unlike American Protestant Evangelical Conservatives, who are [bigoted, hateful, despicable, and] thoroughly dishonest (about their hatred of Catholics). Hence, the only partly ironic 'refreshing'.
Posted by: Tom Hilton | Apr 28, 2005 6:49:16 PM
I'll never love or be loved by U.S. evangelicals or by Catholics anywhere, but I still don't see how could mean "refreshing." I think you really meant to say "bigoted, hateful, and despicable."
When people Matt generally disagrees with are bigoted, hateful, and despicable to other people Matt generally disagrees with, this is apparently "refreshing" to Matt.
Posted by: cmdicely | Apr 28, 2005 6:59:50 PM
I am no friend of the big man and if you asked him he would proclaim it loud I am sure. However to be a bit pedantic I take issue with the claim that "the Protestant "loyalist" paramilitaries, encouraged by Paisley, have killed just as many as the more well-known IRA on the other (Catholic) side."
Across the years 1966 to 1999(Year after Belfast/Good Friday Agreement) 3636 people were killed in Northern Ireland. Of these loyalists: Ulster Volunteer Force,Ulster Defence Association,Red Hand Defenders/Commando, LVF etc killed 1050. Republicans: PIRA, INLA killed 2139. Security Forces(Army, Police) accounted for 367. Other is heart attacks etc related to the troubles and killed 80.
Please note I dont in anyway defend the loyalists but its fair to say that the IRA killed 2 people for every one that the Loyalists murdered. Its also of note that whilst Paisleys relationship with loyalist paramils has been unclear its probaly a bit far to claim he encouraged the violence but it might be reasonable to assert that he contributed to intellectually sustaining the motivation behind the murders.
Posted by: Duncan | Apr 28, 2005 7:01:55 PM
The Mormons, the conservative Catholics, the Moonies, and the conservative Protestants all bitterly hate each other.
They just hate me, you, and Matt worse. Secularists are uniters, not dividers.
Before 9/11 Muslims were part of the anti-feminist, anti-gay, anti-secular team. Now they're whining and begging to be allowed back in. (Sorry, suckers!)
Soon the world will be united into one big happy pious family which hates me. Makes me feel all warm and fuzzy.
I have the power!
Posted by: John Emerson | Apr 28, 2005 7:04:18 PM
Duncan: I bow to your figures. Maybe I was recalling
the figures for the last few years I lived in the UK
(up to 1992) ? Anyway, the death toll caused by the
"loyalist" forces is quite high.
Posted by: Richard Cownie | Apr 28, 2005 7:06:31 PM
I'd pay big money to see a cage match between Paisley and William Donohue!
Posted by: tom f | Apr 28, 2005 7:12:46 PM
And Duncan's right: Paisley is a Pope-hating bigot, but it's fair to say that his religious intolerance has very little to do with Belfast's council-estate sectarianism. His doctorate in divinity is from Bob Jones University. Nuff said.
Matt's point is a good one: It's interesting that some of the most vocal 'Catholics' in the media are actually converts from Baptism, such as student-blow-job-recipient Deal Hudson. As much as William Donahue might hate to hear it, he's damned unrepresentative of his purpoted denomination.
Posted by: ahem | Apr 28, 2005 7:13:06 PM
Oh c'mon. Matt's use of "refreshing" is clearly facetious. Maybe a better term would be "quaint"--also facetious understatement, but reflecting the fact that Paisley represents the bad old days of Protestant/Catholic relations as opposed to the bad new days of Evangelical/Catholic relations in this country. It's highly unlikely that Matt literally finds much refreshing in Paisley's worldview.
Personally, I agree that it's amusing, though probably not very practical, to think of using Paisley (or Jack Chick) as a wedge between Evangelicals on Catholics as a way of disrupting the religious right.
Posted by: Paul Callahan | Apr 28, 2005 7:16:39 PM
unlike American Protestant Evangelical Conservatives, who are [bigoted, hateful, despicable, and] thoroughly dishonest (about their hatred of Catholics).
No Tom, I don't think all of those American evangelicals really are dishonest. Unlike many of their anti-Catholic ancestors, who were fanatics about (their own) religious liberty and the self-governance of local religious communities, I think many of the modern Southern protestants actually admire the authoritarianism and illiberal structures of the Catholic Church, its impressive financial and political organization, its ritualized sacramental deference to the symbols of Godly power, and its hierarchical command structure, so reminiscent of their other favorite institution - the military. Whereas they once bitterly denounced papists, they now have Pope envy.
But if you want to divide them from the Catholics again, there are some ways:
1.Spread the word that Southern state governments are filled with Catholic spies and conspirators, aiming at taking them over. Invoking the Jesuits doesn't prompt the paranoia it once did - maybe Opus Dei can serve in that role.
2. Remind white southerners that the Catholic Church is growing in Latin America, Africa and Asia, so that when the conspiracy succeeds they will be ruled by a bunch of Mexicans, blacks and "Chinamen".
3. Stress the support of the Catholic Church for things like gun control and demilitarization, and its opposition to capital punishment.
4. Whisper this: "Cassocks - what's with those cassocks? Can you trust a man who doesn't wear pants?"
5. Do not pass up any opportunity to uses "France" "French", "European" and "Catholic" in the same sentence.
Posted by: Dan Kervick | Apr 28, 2005 7:17:16 PM
The problem for this plan is that Paisley turned 79 this month, and has been taking a lower and lower profile for some time now. His religious views are shared by few even in Ulster (his anti-Catholicism unfortunately less so).
The Democratic Unionist Party started out very much as a personal fan club for Paisley but (partly through the influence of moderate defectors like Jeffrey Donaldson) is now developing into a much more mainstream organisation, whose determined stance against Sinn Fein/IRA having a place in Ulster's government has been spectacularly vindicated by the Northern Bank robbery and the murder of Robert McCartney.
In the small print of reporting about the UK General Election on 5th May, it's worth looking to see what will happen in Ulster's 18 seats. The DUP may well force the Ulster Unionist Party into virtual obscurity on 5th May and confirm for sure its position as Northern Ireland's biggest party. It will be a new generation that inherits this victory, though, not Paisley.
Posted by: Peter | Apr 28, 2005 7:18:35 PM
It's interesting that some of the most vocal 'Catholics' in the media are actually converts from Baptism,
The most vocal pro-Catholics are often converts to the Church and the most vocal anti-Catholics are often converts from the Church. Not surprising -- when someone feels the need to change religious communities, there are usually very strong emotions involved.
Posted by: cmdicely | Apr 28, 2005 7:38:40 PM
It's evangelical Protestantism that's growing in Latin America. It isn't the whole story, but in some countries (Guatemala under Montt, perhaps El Salvador under d'Abuisson) Protestant militias (with American support) were massacring Catholics of the liberation-theology type. Having a battle-hardened, tough-minded militia makes mission work a lot easier.
Posted by: John Emerson | Apr 28, 2005 7:41:29 PM
It's all about abortion and birth control in particular and sex in general. The evangelicals will tolerate anyone who will help them overturn Roe v Wade and make birth control illegal. Once they accomplish that, they'll hate the papists again.
Posted by: marvyt | Apr 28, 2005 7:45:22 PM
Yep, the UUP and SDLP are going to be squeezed even more this time round, with Trimble as the most likely casualty in Upper Bann. I'd say there'll be a two or three seat swing from UUP to DUP, though the way consituencies are divided on more or less sectarian lines means there's less room for big shifts in power.
In an ironic way, it's actually an endorsement of the peace process that people are prepared to vote for the more 'extreme' sectarian parties. Remember that NI is the poorest region of the UK by a long way, and SF/DUP support has always been grounded in the poorest areas. (Or, as a corollary, it's an acknowledgement that most people in NI are really just sick of the macropolitics and are grudgingly happy with the stalemate direct rule as opposed to having to engage with the machinations of power-sharing.) I wonder, though, whether it's sleepwalking into big problems.
Posted by: ahem | Apr 28, 2005 7:55:46 PM
I think a central tenet of the Protestant stance is being misunderstood here.
It's not "Popery" that they hate.
It's "potpourri". You know, that loathesome perfumey stuff. Any real man hates it, and hating it proves you're a real man.
Especially if your name is "Paisley".
Posted by: Tad Brennan | Apr 28, 2005 7:57:23 PM
Moonies will send you all kinds of interesting damnation comics.
Posted by: spacetoast | Apr 28, 2005 8:12:59 PM
The evangelicals will tolerate anyone who will help them overturn Roe v Wade and make birth control illegal.
I wasn't aware there was much concern either way in Evangelical circles with regard to the availability of birth control (apart from in schools). I'm sure there have been some outreach efforts on the part of conservative Catholics aimed at allowing their conservative Protestant brethren to see the error of their ways. But I hadn't thought these efforts had seen much success. Am I mistaken?
Posted by: P. B. Almeida | Apr 28, 2005 8:21:43 PM
Yes to the converts. The other thing to realize that whenever someone is denounced as anti-Catholic in the media, 999 times out of a thousand, that person is Catholic themselves. It is meant as a way of punishing liberal Catholics for their views. Too bad the media falls for it every time.
The converts again. There is a mini-boomlet of DC types leaving Baptists, etc. because those Churches are too "liberal." They crave the authority of papal infallibility, denouncing folks whose ancestors risked death to go to mass in the fields of Ireland. Fuckers.
Posted by: Anonymous | Apr 28, 2005 8:30:15 PM
Moonies will send you all kinds of interesting damnation comics.
That's the first time I heard the Washington Times referred to as "interesting."
Posted by: Paul Callahan | Apr 28, 2005 8:40:06 PM
If Democrats interested in regaining the allegiance of white Catholics were really, really devious they would find some way to get the Free Presbyterian Church to take off here in the states
Howard Dean is one step ahead of you, it seems.
I'm not certain I share the optimism of some commenters about a post-Paisley DUP. It needs to be said from the outset that it would have been far better for Northern Ireland had a youthful Paisley perceived the Lord calling him to spend his life toiling in some mission field on the other side of the world. Still, even as unsympathetic an observer as Joe Lee (as Matt will have seen if he has got far enough into Lee's book) concedes that Paisley has consistently drawn a sharp distinction between hating Roman Catholicism as a system and hating Roman Catholics as individuals. (He also has a name as an excellent constituency MP -- if you have a pothole needs filling, he'll get it filled for without worrying whether you are prod or taig.) I don't know that the same can be said for others in the DUP.
My own view on Irish history North and South is that, if there is a wrong turn that can be taken, somebody will take it. In the contemporary North, there was an opportunity for SDLP (the moderate and until recently largest nationalist party) and UUP (the moderate and until recently largest unionist party) to do a deal excluding the extremists of Sinn Féin and DUP. They didn't, and now each is being eclipsed by its evil twin.
Posted by: Mrs Tilton | Apr 29, 2005 4:44:32 AM
Come now, Mrs. Tilton, let's not let Paisley off the hook. Paisley was quite happy during the troubles to read off the names and addresses of Catholics living in interface areas while standing in the middle of mobs on public squares - pretty close to "Who will rid me of this troublesome priest?" And that's not even getting into Ulster Resistance. I don't think Paisley has drawn a sharp distinction at all. My understanding is also that the "Dr." is an honorary degree from Bob Jones, not the real thing.
He's clearly a negative force, and when he exits the scene for good it can only be an improvement for Northern Ireland, though perhaps not as big an improvement as it once might have been.
Posted by: Hektor Bim | Apr 29, 2005 8:37:30 AM
Hektor,
I don't really have any time for Paisley at all, you know, and I agree that his departure from NI politics, in and of itself, can only be a good thing. But he does in fact draw a distinction (which not every DUP voter does) between RCs and their religion; it would be unjust not to note the fact. His position vis-à-vis his catholic neighbours is pretty much the mirror image of the position of the Irish RC hierarchy towards prods up to a few decades ago. I'm prepared to cut him the same slack I'd cut John McQuaid, taking into account the 50 year time lag between the Republic and the wee north.
You're right, his doctorate is honoris causa, from Bob Jones. He is about as much a 'doctor' as he is a 'presbyterian'.
Posted by: Mrs Tilton | Apr 29, 2005 11:19:41 AM
