Talk:Rome Rule

message: The article currently states:
:"All major Christian denominations have very similar views on ethical matters related to human life and press that view whenever possible."
I think this last sentence needs rephrasing for clarity and NPOV: Are we referring to abortion? the death penalty? euthanasia? contraception? war and peace? stem cell research? Please believe me, I don't want to start a polemic; I just think we should be more specific. QuartierLatin1968  20:56, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems a complete Non sequitur to me.  Why is that sentence there?  What does it have to do with anything?  I will delete it: the editor responsible may reinsert it if he provides a context and clarity. --Red King 00:55, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ethical matters 

message: I suppose it would offend NOR to comment that Gavan Duffy's judgement (in which he applied Ne Temere cannon law rather than the law of the land), had it been take to the Supreme Court, would have been found repugnant to the Consitution.  Despite great pressure at the time from the Catholic Church (which had succeed [I believe] in inserting such clauses in the Spanish and Italian constitutions), de Valera specifically refused to include any special place for that Church in the constition.  So, whereas it was certainly true in the 1950s that the RC Church was revered in the nation de facto, it was not so de jure.  --Red King 00:55, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Tilson case (1948-50) did reflect the law of the land, and at the time the 1937 Irish Constitution did have an article (44.1.2) reading - "The State recognises the special position of the Holy Catholic Apostolic and Roman Church as the guardian of the Faith professed by the great majority of the citizens." This was repealed in the 5th Amendment that became law in January 1973. However Tilson came decades after the Rome Rule arguments had been made, and so it is not essential to the main page, plus the Free State constitution (1922-37) had no special position for any church.86.42.205.205 (talk) 10:26, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Gavan Duffy judgement

message: Could someone reference this? I could not be assed with it. It should be referenced, or the content removed. --Domer48 (talk) 22:41, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I would agree totally, and support your reasonable suggestion. --Domer48 (talk) 07:53, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If it's not going to be an article it at least needs to be a redirect. It is (or was) a common enough term that someone looking for what it means should be given some basic information. The article as it stands now is pretty weak, but it is neutral and accurate. A merge/redirect to Irish Home Rule bills might work, but I generally don't like redirects in which you have to read3/4 of the article to find the redirected term. I'm sure there's enough information on Unionist religious opposition to Home Rule, as well as the Catholic Church and the Free State government for an article on this. -R. fiend (talk) 14:21, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference 

message: I have removed the reference as it clearly dose not reflect the source cited. It dose not specify who said it, when and how much used it enjoyed then or now. It is devoide of context and therefore distorts is meaning. For example, was it used because of the Protestant Church’s Disestablishment by the British Government, something the Fenians were also accused of causing? 
The sentence dose simply not reflect the information the source is being used to support. --Domer48 (talk) 19:04, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As per my comments above, I have reverted factually incorrect information, and an erroneous use of a source. --Domer48 (talk) 20:26, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rome Rule 

message: Requested AfD as this thread seems to be going nowhere let the community decide. BigDunc (talk) 20:52, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, as evident by the above discussion, it's not going anywere. --Domer48 (talk) 21:06, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely NO WAY should this definition be deleted just because it is regarded as a red rag in certain circles. If only for that reason it needs to remain actively defined, but in particular because fear of it was one of the key issues in resistance to Home Rule, and indeed to any kind of Irish independence, right from 1886 through to 1914 and later. For Unionist the  question was not simply unionism for its own sake, but deep down a fear of, and a need to protect themselves against Rome Rule, which ultimately led to partition, remaining at the root of sectarianism, ultimately leading to partition within partition. If this AfD goes ahead the definition will be reinstated as a foot note in the articles it is mentioned in.Osioni (talk) 15:59, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: With all due respect, Osioni, if you're going to contribute to a discussion you should read it first.  Firstly, nobody ever suggested the article should be deleted "just because it is regarded as a red rag in certain circles"; the reasons were clearly stated and discussed on their merits.  Secondly, the AfD is already closed and the result was "keep".  At the risk of sounding like a stuck record, what's needed now is somebody to write the article instead of telling us why there should be one.  Scolaire (talk) 18:43, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, sorry Scolaire how very right you are, apologies, my alert button triggered on seeing "the discussion is not going anywhere" and interpreted imminent deletion. Will see what I can turn up. Osioni (talk) 09:48, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

text: This article has grown hugely since my last visit in April 2008.Red Hurley (talk) 13:50, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: AfD

message: Following section was deleted on 00:37, 12 September 2011 by "24.11.168.41" on the grounds that:"I'm removing this because it seems to be an improperly cited quote from one journalist whose reputation is, let's say, "questionable" (e.g. tinyurl dot com/3w8jz) If not, although I agree with it, it's clearly more opinion than objective analysis."
Protestants didn’t make waves, they didn’t cause a fuss, they got on with their lives, and endured whatever degree of Catholic governance that Dáil Éireann wished to impose upon them. The Ulster Unionist warning had turned out to be accurate: Home Rule was Rome Rule, as draconian censorship, a ban on contraception and divorce and a special constitutional position for the Catholic Church all became state law. Into the 1960s, many Irish restaurants refused to serve meat on Fridays, the National University made Catholic feast days into holidays, and RTE even broadcast the Angelus twice-daily: all incompatible with a secular republic. Myers, Kevin: Irish Independent p.28 Comment, 4 May 2011.  
I am preserving the deleted text here because I am not in agreement with the anonymous deletion for the reason given - "alhough '24.11.168.41' agrees with it!" Osioni (talk) 10:09, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Reflection 2011

message: Douglas Hyde died in 1949, the first president of Ireland, and was buried from St Patrick's cathedral; the cabinet did not attend but waited at the railings outside because they could not enter a protestant church. See - http://www.stpatrickscathedral.ie/the-state-and-saint-patricks-cathedral/  Hard to believe now in very different times.78.17.61.105 (talk) 11:29, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Douglas Hyde's funeral