Social Items

TPQ
Showing posts with label Ian Major. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Ian Major. Show all posts
Brandon Sullivan ✒ I had an interesting exchange with Ian Major, AKA Wolfsbane on this blog recently. 

 I planned to respond to his detailed and measured comments, but ended up finishing and defending two articles about the sectarian murder of Protestants.

This piece of writing is in part a response to Ian, and in part a genuine attempt to illustrate why DUP, and wider unionist/loyalist denunciations of terrorism are not taken seriously by nationalists in Ireland and elsewhere, if indeed they have even been made in the first place.

March 1993: A Month of Murder, Protestant Paramilitary Support, and Sinn Fein votes

In March 1993, the IRA killed a Protestant contractor working on a security force base, a British soldier, and a member of the UFF’s C Company. They also bombed Warrington, resulting in the horrendous murder of two children, Timothy Parry and Jonathan Bell. As an interesting aside, one person who refused to condemn the Warrington bomb is former Brexit Party MEP, Claire Fox. Ms Fox’s past didn’t seem to stop Jamie Bryson from re-Tweeting her.

Loyalist were also highly active in March, 1993. They killed an IRA man, a member of Sinn Fein, and five politically uninvolved Catholic civilians. Loyalists killing two republicans out of nine members of the “nationalist electorate” was unusual – only a statistically tiny number of victims of the UVF/UFF were actually republican activists.

The IRA member, James Kelly, was one of five men shot dead by the UFF on Thursday 25th March. In West Belfast, the UFF’s C Company shot dead a 17 year old man named Damian Walsh. A spokesperson for the UFF, possibly Ray Smallwoods, had this to say about the murders his organisation committed:

We have the arms, the information and more than enough volunteers and the dedication is most certainly there as well. It is a terrible thing that anyone should lose their lives, but if you are talking in terms of success rates, yes, this week has been a success, and it’s still only Thursday.

An incurious loyalist triumphalist collective decided to name their blog after this, and publish excruciating apologia for loyalist sectarian criminality.

It is easy to dismiss that blog as unrepresentative of wider unionist views of loyalist violence. But it is less easy to dismiss a telephone poll conducted in the days after the loyalist killing spree of March 1993. David McKittrick reported in The Independent that:

One opinion poll carried out earlier this month by a Protestant Belfast newspaper, on the admittedly unscientific basis of telephone polling, came up with the alarming result that 42 per cent of Protestants supported loyalist paramilitaries.

Also in 1993, there were local elections. A third of the nationalist vote went to Sinn Fein.

Unionist politicians comfort themselves that their electorates “don’t vote for murderers” – but in 1993, there seemed to be significant support for murderers emanating from the PUL community. It is only one poll, so should be taken with numerous caveats, but then again, unionism equating a vote for Sinn Fein as a vote supporting “murder” is an extremely blunt, and inaccurate, instrument.

Willie McCrea’s Bitter Harvest, and Call for Airstrikes on the Republic of Ireland: Willie McCrea and Billy Wright

Willie McCrea is, among a crowded field, an especially odious DUP politician. He’s well known for appearing on a platform at what a member of the Alliance Party called an “extremist loyalist rally.” with then LVF leader Billy Wright. The LVF were simply murderers, who didn’t even pretend to be waging anything other than a sectarian war against the nationalist population. McCrea appeared with him in 1996, at a time when the UVF had issued a statement ordering Wright out of “Ulster” on pain of death.

McCrea is a criminal: convicted of riotous assembly in 1971. He was also a member of the Shankill Defence Association (which later morphed into the UDA), and gave prayer services at the funerals of the UVF men who blew themselves up whilst attacking the Miami Showband.

It’s worth repeating the defence McCrea gave for his appearance with Billy Wright. This is McCrea’s response to Martin McGuinness at Stormont:

First, may I say that Billy Wright was threatened to get out of the country or be put to death because of his political belief. He was threatened by the UVF, not for any action he had taken or any crime that he had committed … I did not condone any act that Billy Wright or any other had taken. Furthermore, I made it abundantly clear that anyone who had information on any criminal actions for which Billy Wright was liable and on which he could be charged should give it to the police and the case brought before the court … I did not condone any act of Billy Wright or anyone else, but he was condemned to death because he opposed the Belfast Agreement.

I oppose the Belfast Agreement. Does that mean that, in this society, I should be condemned to death for my political belief?

At the Billy Wright inquiry, McCrea reported contact with Wright in 1991 and/or 1992. This included a strange incident in which McCrea received news from an anonymous source of a threat to both McCrea, and Wright’s, life. McCrea didn’t report this to the RUC at the time. Why would that be? I’m not a conspiracy theorist, but it seems to me that McCrea had a pre-existing relationship with Wright. Either McCrea had a pre-existing relationship with Wright, or he was criminally negligible by not passing on a threat to Wright’s life.

Pertinent to this discussion is that McCrea condemns the threat to Wright’s life for his opposition to the Belfast Agreement­.

In fact, according to respected BBC journalist Peter Taylor, Wright was expelled from the UVF for, among other things, the LVF’s murder of politically uninvolved nationalist Michael McGoldrick. Mr McGoldrick was murdered on the 8th of July 1996, during the height of the Drumcree ‘protests.’ The UVF apparently started planning the ‘execution’ of Wright shortly afterwards. The murder of McGoldrick apparently didn’t figure in McCrea’s consideration as to whether he should appear with Billy Wright.

Why would any nationalist think McCrea is a man who could be trusted, respected, or taken seriously? Why would any Christian believe that this man practised the teachings of Christ? The squalid nature of McCrea is even more stark when contrasted with the life of Michael McGoldrick, and the calibre of his parents, who forgave the murderers of their son at the time.

Billy Wright, when discussing his motivations for joining the UVF, said this:

“You know,” he said, “when you've looked into the coffins of the ones you love, and you've heard the feeble excuses coming from nationalists, words weren't good enough.”

This could easily be a posthumous condemnation of the man he shared a stage with.

Willie McCrea calls for the Republic of Ireland and (nationalist areas of) the United Kingdom to be bombed by the Royal Air Force

In 2014, the Belfast Telegraph reported that: “One memo reports on the DUP annual conference in Belfast on April 19, 1986 …[it] reports: ‘Rev William McCrea urged Libya-type strikes against Dundalk, Drogheda, Crossmaglen and Carrickmore.’

The memo notes that another senior DUP member, Gregory Campbell, made an ‘extravagant contribution’ when he called for ‘even the foundations of Maryfield to be demolished."

The main speech was given by Peter Robinson, in which he outlined two alternative solutions - negotiation or confrontation … he said the latter would be ‘devastating, terrible and bloody’.”

Ironically, McCrea was inspired by airstrikes on Libyan targets carried out by American planes which took off from British airstrips. Colonel Gadhafi’s daughter was killed in the strikes, which motivated Gadhafi to send tonnes of weapons to Ireland for use by the IRA. One can barely imagine the scale of the propaganda coup for republicans that an RAF attack on nationalist Ireland would have had.

Perhaps to even out the degradation of appointing Clare “Warrington” Fox to the House of Lords, the DUP proposed, and the UK Govt accepted, Willie McCrea for membership of the House of Lords. The respected academic and military historian Edward Burke Tweeted the following:

Interesting. Appointing Willie McCrea to the HoL to ‘pack the chamber for Brexit’ might not sit well for British-Irish relations given his previous support for air strikes on Irish towns, among other things... You just couldn’t make it up!

Peter Robinson – When is a terrorist not a terrorist?

It’s fairly well-known that Peter Robinson was a member of the loyalist paramilitary group Ulster Resistance, along with the then leader of the DUP Ian Paisley. Both men quit Ulster Resistance when it became public knowledge that the organisation had been robbing banks and buying weapons.

Robinson was also the most public face of a large group of loyalists who extensively vandalised property in the village of Clontibret and beat up two Gardai officers.

Both of these incidents, simultaneously pathetic, sinister and ridiculous, are indicative of a rather dark and dysfunctional personality. In 2014, the Belfast Telegraph reported that:

[Ian] Paisley had scorned Robinson's involvement in the infamous loyalist invasion of Clontibret in August 1986, when he led a mob of 500 in protest at the Anglo Irish Agreement, holding a military parade in the town square before being driven over the border by the gardai.

Subsequent riots at Robinson's trial in Dundalk saw Paisley attacked with stones and petrol bombs.

‘I think he thought that was going to be a tremendous uprising, but that didn't happen,’ scoffed Paisley in the documentary.

Robinson challenged his account, claiming that it had been Paisley himself who was the one who had agreed to go to Clontibret, but then had to leave to go to a funeral in the US and Robinson had stepped in as his deputy.

Robinson briefly resigned as deputy leader of the DUP after the incident.

But the harder line adopted by Paisley over the UVF Dublin and Monaghan bombings in 1974 showed how out of step the two DUP men had become.

While Paisley said the Republic had ‘brought it on themselves’ with their attitude to the North, Robinson said ‘terrorism" was responsible’.”

Ian Paisley blaming the victims of the biggest mass-murder during the conflict won’t surprise anyone, but Robinson blaming “terrorism” on the attack is confusing. Peter Robinson was very careful not to label those from his own community who carried out terrorist acts as terrorists. In an infamous interview, in 1986 he refused to describe the UVF/UDA as terrorists, and also refused to “condemn them by name.”

Fast forward to today, and we have the current leader of the DUP apparently spending much of his time and energy with Jamie Bryson – another man who doesn’t believe terrorists are terrorists when they’re terrorising on behalf of a loyalist organisation.

Again, why would any nationalist trust any DUP politician when it is rotten from the top down with demagogues, bigots, and religious extremists? I chose Willie McCrea and Peter Robinson, but most high profile DUP figures have similarly stunted and hypocritical pasts.

Where is the unionist equivalent to John Hume? A person who condemned violence emanating from his own community at least as stridently as he did other violence?

⏩ Brandon Sullivan is a middle aged, middle management, centre-left Belfast man. Would prefer people focused on the actual bad guys. 

Unionist Denial ✑ Inciting, Excusing, Masking Loyalist Violence

Ian Major  ✒ As a Unionist, I can affirm that the sole reason for not running the Assembly is the Protocol.

It may seem unimportant to those unconcerned with the Union, but it is crucial to Unionists. It would be a hole below the waterline for the Union, if allowed to stand. 

The DUP, at least several of the leadership, might have been willing to adopt the UUP position on it, running the Assembly and hoping Boris would rescue them. But they knew that would finish the DUP.

A lot could be said about the DUP's messing that led to the Protocol, but the ordinary Unionist has given them the chance to redeem themselves on it. If they weaken, they will not be forgiven. 

I can see how Nationalists might think the real reason is a refusal to play second fiddle to SF now that SF is due 1st Minister. And the refusal of all Unionist parties to affirm they would accept a Deputy role supports that. But only the Agreement rejectionists think like that - TUV, with maybe a few DUP old guard. 

The Unionist parties should have had the honesty to affirm their willingness to take the Deputy role, if SF had the largest number of seats. They would always have done so, however reluctantly. 

The only proviso is that the Agreement was working properly. It has been, albeit with hiccups like the RHI scandal. But the Protocol ended that. It is a direct tampering with the Union, without Unionist consent. If it stands, the Assembly will fall. This is not a Unionist ploy. 

Who knows where this could end? Boris could refuse to budge and threaten Direct Rule with a strong Irish dimension. Even Joint Authority. It won't change hearts. Much better to remove the constitutional problem and get back to working together, even if it is with a SF First Minister.

⏭Ian Major grew up a heathen Protestant, was converted at 17. He lives out his Evangelical faith as a Baptist. 

It's The Protocol, Stupid

Ian Major ✒ shares some reflections on the likely effects of Omicron in the UK in the next few weeks.
 
1. It seems everybody but those strictly shielding will be exposed to it.
2. It seems likely to be mild, with many infected having little or no symptoms.
3. Those infected will gain significant immunity to Covid-19.
4. If this is replicated throughout the rest of the world, that may be the end of Covid-19 as a threat.
5. But it is spreading so rapidly that most of the population will be infected in January.

If that happens, dangerous consequences come with it: many vital staff, nurses, doctors, lorry drivers, etc., will be off isolating at the same time. How will the hospitals, food and fuel suppliers operate?
 
Will we have to accept infection as less of a threat than the loss of life and suffering that isolating the infected would inflict? If so, are we mentally prepared to have infectious people care for us in hospital, serve us in shops and other necessary venues?
 
Ideally, slowing the spread - dampening the curve - would prevent that. But I doubt enough people will be willing to limit their exposure. If that is the case, the government will again be faced with letting it rip or imposing lockdown. And the latter seems unlikely to succeed, given the understandable distrust of government, and belief in conspiracy theories.

Most likely many will have to see it with their eyes before they will accept the danger, by which time it will be a fact of history, not a possibility to be avoided.
 
We should be deeply thankful to the Lord that Omicron is much milder, rather than much more severe. Had the variant been as bad as Delta, or even worse like SARS or MERS, we would be in an apocalypse.

⏭Ian Major grew up a heathen Protestant, was converted at 17. He lives out his Evangelical faith as a Baptist. 

Omicron

Ian Major ✒ teases out what a united Ireland might conceivably look like.

It is understandable why no Unionist politician can take part in any discussion about what form a United Ireland might take. They would be portrayed by their Unionist opponents not as self-confident defenders of the Unionist people, reasoning with Nationalists on why a UI would be unacceptable, but as weaklings already conceding the inevitability of a UI.

But that should not hinder any non-party Unionist from doing so. Indeed, it is desirable to reason with our Nationalist fellow-citizens, and the Irish nation as a whole, in order to fully understand the concerns and aspirations of each other.

The case for remaining out of a UI has changed somewhat from that of the founding fathers of NI. Gone is the downside of a Roman Catholic, priest-ridden State. And gone too is the upside of a thriving industrial economy in the North.

What now deters Unionists from considering a union with the Irish Republic?

The prime concern for most Unionists is the Gaelic nature of the present ROI, and that being carried over into a UI. That is, the underlying assumption that being Irish is in effect being Gaelic. The ethnic British in ROI do not have a share in the myth of the nation, except as remnants of the invaders. No mutual respect of origins exists. A defeated foe, welcomed to remain if they behave themselves.

That is not a UI that any self-respecting Unionist could consider voting for. So what sort of Ireland might be acceptable to them? Something like the following might at least gain a respectful hearing.

Consider the advance we made in getting agreement on governing NI after such a bitter conflict. The Belfast Agreement sought to reassure both communities here that the government we formed could not be used to damage either community. Mutual vetoes were built in to prevent any one community majority overruling a minority. Cross-community majorities are required on contentious issues. That was a massive confidence builder. Then too, power-sharing provided rights and responsibilities to both communities.

Rather than devolving government to regions to accommodate Unionist concerns, a power-sharing central government in a future UI, with mutual vetoes for both the British and Gaelic communities, would be ideal.

That's the practicalities of governance with cross-community confidence.

But the identity of each community with the State, with the new nation that arises with a UI, is a crucial issue too. What could be done to improve the feeling of joint nationhood with the Irish in a UI? A couple of ideas: firstly, to identify the new nation as a combination of the previous two, not a submersion of one into the other. The title of the new state might be ‘The British and Gaelic Republic of Ireland', allowing for a new meaning to the term ‘Irish'. Or ‘The British and Irish Republic of Ireland', but that complicates the old sense of Irish with the new one.

A new anthem would be required, celebrating the union, rather than celebrating the old conflict.

A new flag would be appropriate, given the baggage the present Tricolour has for Unionists. Perhaps replacing the orange with blue, denoting the Ulster Scots roots of many Unionists, and fully acceptable to all Unionists as representing them.

Finally, a consideration about the large number of Evangelical Protestants in NI. They are a minority among Unionists, but an important one.

The Most important consideration for Christian Unionists will be guarantees of civil and religious liberty. That used to be important for most Unionists, but the growing number of secular Unionists seem not to be concerned about it, or even dismissive of it. The failure by them to give assurances that prayer and counsel would not be included in any ban on gay conversion therapy is indicative of that.

If a UI would have a robust guarantee of civil and religious liberty, that would remove a strong concern for the many Unionists who are Christians.

You Nationalists/Republicans can't make Unionists discuss these matters, but you could ponder on the possibilities, some of which I raise here, and respond honestly. No need to fear your objections would antagonise the Unionists – we are already antagonised and expect the worst from you in a UI. 

⏭Ian Major grew up a heathen Protestant, was converted at 17. He lives out his Evangelical faith as a Baptist. 

A Few Thoughts On Ulster Unionists And The Nature Of A United Ireland

Ian Major ✒ vents criticism of what he considers a silly interpretation of Christ's command for Christians to assemble together, and consequently a vile attack on Christian leaders who do not agree with that silly interpretation.
 
Josiah Burke, who fellowships in a church in Castlebar, Co. Mayo, has published a 60 page booklet called, Selling the Vineyard. In it he attacks the leaderships of churches who stopped indoor meetings or even just stopped singing or requested any who had symptoms to stay home.

The primary error that leads him to vilify his brethren is his understanding of what the command to assemble entails. He asserts it means meeting as a church, regardless of the circumstances. He says:

If there was a deadly virus, the testimony of the Church would be the protection and healing power of God as it continues to obey Him regardless of the circumstances.’ p46.

He claims as support Psalm 91:10 “There shall no evil befall thee, neither shall any plague come nigh thy dwelling.” He also says those with ‘symptoms of the virus' should be admitted to the assembly. p34.

Does the Scripture teach this? No! Infectious diseases were treated seriously in the Law – those showing signs of infection, even though they might turn out not to have been infected, had to be excluded from the camp. Only when the infection was seen to have gone would they be readmitted.
 
The NT does not give any laws dealing with contagion, except the command to love your neighbour as yourself. So we should ask ourselves what Paul or any of the apostles would have expected of an infected brother or sister, and of the assembly. Would they say to one infected with Smallpox to just come on in as normal? Would they have condemned a church who told them not to assemble with them until they were well ( but giving selfless care to them)?
 
I am certain the answer would be No. Love of neighbour does not entail infecting them. Neither does it entail putting God to the test, taking unnecessary chances and expecting Him to keep them safe. I don't know if Josiah or his church are into the Health & Wealth theology, but this is what we would expect from them. This indeed is what some of those American churches did, until many of the leaders and members went down with the virus.

The saddest part of this folly is his vilification of his brethren. He accuses them of ‘apostasy and rebellion' (p10); being ‘hirelings' and ‘unfaithful shepherds' (p11); ‘cowardly and unfaithful men’ (p13).
His condemnation is for all churches who stopped their indoor meetings or stopped congregational singing, but he singled out the Free Presbyterian Church of Ulster for special vilification (p33-34; 37; 43-53; 57-58). He names some of its leaders: Rev. Gordon Dane (Moderator), John Armstrong (Deputy Moderator) and John Greer (Clerk) p43.

Amongst other accusations he says:

The leaders of the Free Presbyterian Church have voluntarily and defiantly shut the doors of the house of God in direct and indisputable contravention of the commands of the Word of God, attempting by doing so to preserve their respectability in the world. p50. 

His conclusion, ‘God has departed from the Free Presbyterian Church' p57.

I am not a member nor adherent of the FPC, but I know and respect many of their members and leaders. They are the last church in NI one could accuse of apostasy, rebellion and cowardice, of being led by hirelings and unfaithful shepherds. This booklet is a sample of the theological folly out there that has sprung up in this pandemic crisis.
 
Josiah Burke is not an isolated case - I've heard other pulpits denounce their brethren in similar terms. Leaving aside the conspiracy nutters that see the pandemic as a scam to get us to take the mark of the beast, this theological case is more serious because, if it is true, those who take measures to protect public health must be gullible fools at least, or wilful traitors as is stated here.

Here's the importance of sound theology portrayed clearly: go wrong in our interpretation of Scripture and we may reach devastating conclusions. So if we reach devastating conclusions, our first response should be to go back and thoroughly check our interpretation. It may be right, but we need to make sure before we take up arms against our brethren. I can't see how anyone could reach the conclusion this man has, without being motivated by unbiblical ideas.

⏭Ian Major grew up a heathen Protestant, was converted at 17. He lives out his Evangelical faith as a Baptist. 

Selling The Vineyard

Ian Major ✒ Godless Unionists voted for the DUP, not for their Christian policies but because they saw them as willing to stand up to Republicans much more than the UUP.

It seems those days are over: secular Unionists now think the LGBTQ+ policies more important than the Union. Or maybe they think the Christians in the DUP will drop their opposition to abortion and the silencing of Christians on the immorality of homosexuality. 

They are very mistaken, if that is the case. I'm not and never was a member of the DUP, but I will never vote for any party that chooses to endorse abortion and ban pastoral prayer and counselling for those who come to them looking help for their unwanted sexual attractions. I will not vote for them, even if that means Republicans taking the seat.

Opponents of the motion have made it clear that they support a ban on gay conversion therapy, the psychological techniques that are abusive. But it seems the proposers intend that the only prayer and counsel acceptable is that which affirms homosexuality and would help the homosexual to embrace his/her unwanted sexual desires.
 
If the DUP remain faithful to their Christian electorate on these matters of first importance, they will continue to get the Christian vote. If they don't, I can see no point in voting for them. And the UUP will not gain those votes. The Union is not more important to us than basic Christian morality.

If the DUP cut loose from any residual disrespect for Nationalists, and maintain their Christian values, they may well add to the number of Catholics who already vote for them because of their pro-life stance.

This present crisis may well be a watershed for Unionism. If secular anti-Christian policies become the majority view of Unionism, and the DUP elect a leader who caves in on it, I reckon most Christians will walk away from politics completely. No support for any party, and no voting in elections. That certainly will be my position. Some Christians I know have already adopted that course.

⏭Ian Major grew up a heathen Protestant, was converted at 17. He lives out his Evangelical faith as a Baptist.  

DUP Must Do The Right Thing Or Christians Will Walk Away

Ian Major with a Facebook post from 25-March-2017 which he feels is of relevance to the current political turbulence in the North.   

We are not going to get justice. Our country could not pay the price. Too many guilty men and women involved, both paramilitary and State. God will bring the justice in that Day. But such is the nature of earthly affairs. Like Moses and divorce, a hard-hearted people cannot be ruled with perfect justice. Compromise is often required, to compensate for the sins of ourselves and others without bringing disaster on either or both. 

Our two communities here bear their share of the blame for our Troubles. I know many Unionists like myself grew up in the Troubles seeing only the aggression of the other side. But we failed to see the background grievances of the Nationalists:

1. Their basic objection to having their land divided between them and the Planters (us). 

2. Their objection to the discrimination they faced due to their hostility to our State. Jobs, housing, gerrymandering of electoral areas. 

3. When a Unionist government tried to address some of these things, it was ridiculed as 'traitors', 'Lundies', 'selling out to the Irish Republic'. 

And I for one believed those accusations. That is our side of the blame. The Nationalists were to blame for: 

1. Not recognizing that two nations existed in Ireland, and both had a right to their self-determination. When the Nationalists got the 26 counties for themselves, we got the 6. Each minority ought to have supported that sharing out. 

2. Their intention of subjecting us to the same discrimination in a UI that they suffered here - their goal was an Irish Catholic State, for that is what was set up in the South when they got the power. All the talk of parity of esteem for all the children of Ireland had been proved bogus. 

3. The Republicans in the midst of the Nationalists were not interested in civil rights, in equality in jobs, housing, elections. Their aim was a UI or nothing. 

Those competing ideas clashed physically in stone-throwing and rioting, then developed into bombing and shooting (though it must be said that the UVF murders in 1966 were a precursor of what followed). 

The failure of the State to stop such violence in its tracks greatly increased the involvement of paramilitaries. And it meant they could not enforce a fair compromise on either side.

Fast forward through the blood and tears, and the futility of the war comes home to the thinkers among the paramilitaries. The IRA leadership knows they can continue for some years, but the cost will be so high that it will end in humiliating defeat. So they seek a way to save face by a negotiated settlement. The British State is up for that - indeed it almost certainly was their goal and the end to which they developed informers and assassins in the paramilitaries. 

The settlement was gradually brought to birth in the Belfast Agreement. Had either side, Nationalist/Republican or Unionist/Loyalist refused to comply, I'm sure they would have been punished enough so that they did. The alternatives for each side were: 

1. A continuation of the war by the IRA - which would have been met with steadily increasing shoot-to-kill ops. by the State, and enabled assassinations by the UVF and UDA. 

2. A refusal by the Unionists to settle would have been met with imposed government that included a big Irish input. Violence by the Loyalists would have been met with the same treatment the Republicans would have faced. 

Since the Belfast Agreement we have limped on, and at times skipped on. We are again at a critical moment for one side or the other - or even both. The Legacy issue can be easily enough dealt with - a firm hand that gives as much truth as is safe to divulge. For example, the State holds files on all incidents (I assume). Who they know was responsible; who they think was responsible; who their informants identified, etc. The State's own assassinations could also be revealed. But all of this could only come if amnesty/indemnity/pardons were applied to all cases that could be prosecuted. 

The Language issue could be settled with similar status given to Ulster Scots - Not based on numbers of each community, but on the numbers of those who express a firm interest in the language. That is, on those who Actually sign up for the language, in schools and evening classes. The devolved government would have to find the money from its devolved pot. If they can sell language above hospitals to their electorate, so be it. 

The Victims issue could be settled if we treated as victims everyone injured by unlawful force, be they terrorists assassinated by paramilitaries or dark State actions; State forces; or non-combatants. 

Culture/Parades could be settled on a equal-insult basis: if you parade through an area where you are not wanted, then I can parade through yours. A careful examination of routes would result. Other solutions are of course possible.

⏭Ian Major grew up a heathen Protestant, was converted at 17. He lives out his Evangelical faith as a Baptist.  

Some Thoughts On Our Current Crisis

Ian Major with some thoughts from his Covid bed.

Citizens of the UK have enjoyed the benefits of the Welfare State for generations. As I lay in bed and reflected on the care I was receiving from the hospital staff, the drugs being supplied, the excellent meals, I was so grateful that I did not have to pay for that directly. 

My taxes and National Insurance contributions over my working life were my part in making a free National Health Service possible. My fellow-citizens paid their part too. Some of us more than others, as our incomes differed, yet all get the same access.

Some people, good brethren among them, look on State Welfare as if it is Socialism. They go to the root of public welfare, the authority and mandate of the State, and insist that the State goes beyond its mandate when it intervenes to supply the needs of its citizens. The only legitimate role they see for the State is to defend the nation from foreign aggression and from criminality at home. Exactly where they draw the line on State intervention may differ – I reckon many will be happy for the State to employ fire-fighters as well as policemen. But here I will make the case for welfare as opposed to their minimalist understanding of the State's role in governance of the nation.

The mandate given to the State by God is clearly stated in several Scripture passages. The most famous is that given in Paul's letter to the Romans:
 
Romans 13:1 Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. 2 Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves. 3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same. 4 For he is God’s minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil. 5 Therefore you must be subject, not only because of wrath but also for conscience’ sake. 6 For because of this you also pay taxes, for they are God’s ministers attending continually to this very thing. 7 Render therefore to all their due: taxes to whom taxes are due, customs to whom customs, fear to whom fear, honor to whom honor.
 
Peter also addresses the issue of the Christian and the State:
 
1 Peter 2:13 Therefore submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord’s sake, whether to the king as supreme, 14 or to governors, as to those who are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers and for the praise of those who do good. 15 For this is the will of God, that by doing good you may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men— 16 as free, yet not using liberty as a cloak for vice, but as bondservants of God. 17 Honor all people. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the king.
 
Do these texts limit the State to restraining criminality internally and military defence toward external foes? Not at all.

They tell us that the State is ordained to not only defend us from criminals and foreign foes, but to be for our good; to not only punish the wicked but to praise those who do good.

In addition to that, the role of the State is revealed in the rest of Scripture to be pastoral; the king is appointed to care for his people as a shepherd cares for his sheep.
 
2 Samuel 5:2 Also, in time past, when Saul was king over us, you were the one who led Israel out and brought them in; and the LORD said to you, ‘You shall shepherd My people Israel, and be ruler over Israel.’ ”

Isaiah 44:28 Who says of Cyrus, ‘He is My shepherd,
And he shall perform all My pleasure,
Saying to Jerusalem, “You shall be built,”
And to the temple, “Your foundation shall be laid.” ’

Jeremiah 25:35 And the shepherds will have no way to flee,
Nor the leaders of the flock to escape.

Ezekiel 34:10 Thus says the Lord GOD: “Behold, I am against the shepherds, and I will require My flock at their hand; I will cause them to cease feeding the sheep, and the shepherds shall feed themselves no more; for I will deliver My flock from their mouths, that they may no longer be food for them.”

Nahum 3:18 Your shepherds slumber, O king of Assyria;
Your nobles rest in the dust.
Your people are scattered on the mountains,
And no one gathers them.

Matthew 2:6 ‘But you, Bethlehem, in the land of Judah, Are not the least among the rulers of Judah; For out of you shall come a Ruler Who will shepherd My people Israel.’ ”
 
The shepherd not only defends the sheep from predators, he leads them to good pasture, and treats their sickness and injuries. The welfare of the flock is his mandate.

Same for those whom God has appointed rulers over a nation. God will require an accounting for that office. Lazy or abusive rulers will answer for it in the day of Judgment.

So it is not right that the State sits on its hands and expects each citizen to look after his/her own welfare, no matter their resources and circumstances. It is perfectly within the State’s duties to tax everyone to ensure sufficient resources will be available for those in need. Medical care, basic food and shelter. No one should have to live on the streets or go hungry, or suffer without medical care.

Not that the State has to be directly involved in operating a NHS – it would be sufficient for them to require everyone to enter a private medical insurance scheme of the person's choice. As long as the State makes sure it works for all.

Nor is the State obliged to aid those who are able to work but refuse to. The Scripture gives the rule : Those who will not work, should not eat:
 
2 Thessalonians 3:10 For even when we were with you, we commanded you this: If anyone will not work, neither shall he eat. 11 For we hear that there are some who walk among you in a disorderly manner, not working at all, but are busybodies.
 
I thank God for the NHS the governments of the UK set up and continue to fund. Yes, it could be organized and funded a lot better, but it is a blessing even in its neglected state.

⏭Ian Major grew up a heathen Protestant, was converted at 17. He lives out his Evangelical faith as a Baptist.  

Welfare Is Not Socialism

Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)