The Rev Ian Paisley Dies Aged 88

The Rev Ian Paisley, Protestant firebrand and former leader of the Democratic Unionist Party, has died at the age of 88.

The Rev Paisley served as First Minister of Northern Ireland for a year when power was first devolved in 2007.

His deputy, Martin McGuinness of Sinn Féin, expressed sadness at the news of his death.

“Over a number of decades we were political opponents and held very different views on many, many issues but the one thing we were absolutely united on was the principle that our people were better able to govern themselves than any British government,” he said.

“I want to pay tribute to and comment on the work he did in the latter days of his political life in building agreement and leading unionism into a new accommodation with republicans and nationalists.

“No we don’t know that, because how can one learn the alleged tactics of an enemy faster than the actual tactics of an ally?”

When a practice is universal, learning it takes no time at all.

“I dismiss no reality, but I take a dim view of fabrications.”

No you go so far as to dismiss reality that you dismiss facts because you don’t like who is publishing them.

“You are a bit too quick to insert “Jews” into an unrelated subject, too.”

Actually, no. I was no faster in inserting Jews than you were in inserting Hamas. And if you’re going to bring up Hamas out of the blue, why not retort with Jews if the instance in question is the same? It’s perfect irony and it shows what poor logic you used in the first place.

Are you trying to persuade us that Paisley spent most of his time and energies preaching and ministering to his tiny flock and that he dabbled in politics on the side? Is that your argument?

Again, one has no personal knowledge of how Paisley ever chose to apportion his time.

What we do know is that the time he accorded to both aspects of his career was spent very effectively.

You appear to be plagued with a kind of zero-sum myopia. That is: if he was doing activity related to his ministry he could not possibly have been doing things politically at the same time -- and vice versa.

It may be that your perspective is simply jaded by all that "popular" talk about separation of church and state in the US, which at its core is only meant to effect separation of Biblical morality from political discourse.

From what I know of Paisley (and you might know too if you listened to any of his sermons, as I have already recommended to you twice before) it would be entirely fair to say that Paisley considered his participation in the political debates and processes of his time to be something he did both as the voice of Christian morality and as an extension of his ministry.

That said, most of us can walk and chew gum at the same time. Others, perhaps yourself included, are not able to do more than one thing well at a time. And that's OK. That's not necessarily a "bad" thing, per se, but it might be that this condition is impoverishing your perspective somewhat -- at least in this discussion.

So, did your priest say he'd provide at least some measure of absolution for you, if the two of you sat down and listed to Paisley's sermons together -- if for no other reason than learning how one who is both a theologian and a statesman might be able to hold forth so effectively and for so long on what he believes about issues in both contexts?

FReegards!

Again, one has no personal knowledge of how Paisley ever chose to apportion his time.

Apparently you do.

I told you the majority of his time and energies were spent on politics and you disagreed.

I'm forced to conclude that you're arguing for the opposite case; namely that most of his time and energies were spent on ministering to his tiny flock.

Right?

I'm unpersuaded and unimpressed by your condescending "I'm a Paisley expert" shtick. From the times and dates you gave in posts above, it appears that you really know very little about Paisley. He was a Member of Parliament for 40 years (not 44) and quit in 2010. Further, his political activism long predates his entry into Parliament in 1970. He spent most of the 1960s fighting the Catholic civil rights campaign then in its infancy and founded the Ulster Defence Committee and several paramilitary affiliates including the Ulster Volunteer Force during this period. Your claim that he spent 20 years as a dedicated minister prior to 1970 is pure fantasy. His election to Parliament was simply the culmination of all the political activism in the preceding decade and a half.

For 25 years he was actually a member of not one but two Parliaments simultaneously; one in London and one in Strasbourg. One wonders just how much time he actually spent in Belfast, still less ministering to his congregation.

I'm here to tell you that all his public utterances during this period addressed political issues related to the "Troubles" and the governance of Northern Ireland. Again, entirely consistent with the political focus of his work.

The remainder of your post does you no favors. The self-congratulatory bombast is an embarrassment to you.

Marshmallow, I am sorry for your sake that you are apparently one who may be named among those who are incapable of walking and chewing gum at the same time. It causes you to be more slim-sightful than in-sightful, unfortunately.

Paisley's ministry was to be found both in the pulpit and at the podium. Quibbling about a year spent here or there doing this or that is all very irrelevant and overly pedantic when you realize that for Paisley his entire life's work was an outworking and extension of his Christian ministry -- as it often is with other ministers who have served in public life (e.g., former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee).

There really is no "secular" vs. "sacred." It's all sacred.

Just to be fair and for purposes of contrast for what has played out on the Catholic side of things (and to be diametrically opposite that of Paisley's sensibilities) one reasonably suspects that St. Sabina's Father Michael Pfleger considers his political agitation and spreading of his Marxist "liberation theology" in Chicago's "projects" to be every bit as much an outworking and extension of his "ministry," as well.

Perhaps you'll recall some of his antics at Jeremiah Wright's church back in 2008

Massachusetts Democrat (and erstwhile pedophile) Congressman, Fr. Robert Drinan wore his collar throughout his Congressional service until Pope John Paul II (whom I happen to greatly admire as a statesman in his own right) declared that priests should no more run for and serve in political office. One may rightly infer that Drinan saw public service as his ministry (somewhere between all the serial molestations), as well.

I guess your priest friend wouldn't grant you absolution for listening to a Paisley sermon after all, is that it?

FReegards!

"Walking and chewing gum" is indeed an impressive achievement (beyond me alas) but being in two different places simultaneously would be a little more challenging, I feel.

Not easy to conduct a Bible study when one is leading a political protest march down the Shankhill Rd. Difficult to provide spiritual counseling when one is huddled at party headquarters working on political position papers. Hard to deliver a sermon on Scripture when one is being interviewed by the BBC about your latest threat to boycott a meeting with the Catholic opposition. Not easy to come to the Church bake sale when one is in Strasbourg on Monday and Tuesday and in Westminster for the remainder of the week. Difficult to get to the Wednesday evening church service when one is meeting with the paramilitary leadership of the UVF.

That might be a little too much even for Paisley's unquestioned powers, wouldn't you say?

All of those activities are political activities and those who engage in them are known as politicians. When the Presbyterian Church ordains men for ministry, I doubt if any of those things are part of the job description.

As for Paisley's political activities being an extension of his Christian ministry, one could say the same about any politician who professes Christianity and attempts to put his Christian principles into action. However, that in no way negates the fact that he is a politician.

All of those activities are political activities and those who engage in them are known as politicians. When the Presbyterian Church ordains men for ministry, I doubt if any of those things are part of the job description.

I am puzzled as to how you'd know, really. Do you happen to write job descriptions for Presbyterian ministers in your spare time at the monastery?

Apparently you must not know that Ian Paisley was ordained by his own father in 1946, and according to today's article in the Belfast Telegraph, one would not be surprised if Ian Paisley's ordination ceremony might not have in fact had some significant political overtones in his commissioning:

"The fact that Ian Paisley would later recount the story of his father James's role in the bitter fight against Home Rule and show people his bandolier and rifle, mementoes of an earlier Ulster Says No campaign, indicate that his father also played a significant role in shaping his destiny.

Ian Paisley death: Devoted family man, his children were in awe of him

A minister, a statesman, and father of 5 adoring (now adult and very accomplished) children.

I can see you stomping around now, pulling your hair and at the same time screaming, "But he's a politician! He's a politician!!!When did he ever find the time to be a daddy!"

Proof's in the pudding, as they say. Apparently he did. My point from the beginning has been this: highly effective people have a way of making their own time to do what they intend to do.

Now I know from another one of your postings that you think I have some sort of "I'm a Paisley expert shtick" going on here, but it would help if you did more thorough research of your subject matter before you decided to post.

JP II may have forbade the likes of (pedophile) Fr. Robert Drinan (D-MA) from continuing to serve as a Congressman, but unlike Drinan, Paisley never reported to Rome.

Ecclesiastically speaking, Presbyterian ministers may serve as statesmen with the permission of their congregations. As foreign a concept as it might seem to some Catholics, Paisley's parishioners likely found his work in both Parliaments to be an extension of their church's Christian ministry and saw Paisley's work as a mission field for living the Christian faith.

Of course at the rate you're going you'll probably upbraid him for being too much of a missionary and not enough of a minister -- as though they are somehow mutually exclusive.

FReegards!

As foreign a concept as it might seem to some Catholics, Paisley's parishioners likely found his work in both Parliaments to be an extension of their church's Christian ministry and saw Paisley's work as a mission field for living the Christian faith

"Likely"?? That's a little speculative from one who demands such a high degree of certitude from others, isn't it?

To cut and paste an exact phrase from your own post..."I am puzzled as to how you'd know, really"

Have you spoken to them? No?............LOL!!

Carry on and declare victory.

Timewaster.

"Likely"?? That's a little speculative from one who demands such a high degree of certitude from others, isn't it?

I know it pains you to know that I actually had the privilege of meeting and speaking with Paisley, who made it very clear to me and those with whom I sitting that there was no difference to him between what was considered by some to be "sacred" and what was "secular". To him it was all sacred.

I say "likely" in the context of his parishioners, only because I didn't happen to speak to others of them personally, but since they continued to have him at the helm of the denomination for the better part of his 60-odd years in ministry -- one in which I happened to have been reared -- what would be obvious to most casual readers somehow is for some prideful reason a sticking point for a clearly envious hyper-critic of Paisley like yourself.

To cut and paste an exact phrase from your own post..."I am puzzled as to how you'd know, really" Have you spoken to them? No?............LOL!!

You seem to have missed that I was speaking about you. Read more slowly, carefully, and deliberately in the future and it's likely that you will make fewer glaring comprehension mistakes.

Carry on and declare victory.

Yes, I agree. You have been clearly outgunned and outflanked in this debate. Thank you, I will accept your surrender in this present discussion, graciously.

Timewaster.

OK, I wasn't going to rub your face in it, but if you can't keep up with the discussion on a thread that you posted yourself, just don't post.

FReegards!

You seem to have missed that I was speaking about you. Read more slowly, carefully, and deliberately in the future and it's likely that you will make fewer glaring comprehension mistakes. Yes, I agree. You have been clearly outgunned and outflanked in this debate. Thank you, I will accept your surrender in this present discussion, graciously. OK, I wasn't going to rub your face in it, but if you can't keep up with the discussion on a thread that you posted yourself, just don't post.

Classic......absolutely classic! It was worth all the time invested in this thread just to read that.....:-) Thanks for posting.

That is the best combination of adolescent put-downs, self-congratulatory bombast and vacuous puffery I've read on the Religion forum in a long time.

And all that for telling us nothing more than you've met Paisley and got his autograph....ROFL..........

I think some sort of reward is in order.....Enjoy...

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.