I feel compelled to write in my own defence following the letter from Mr Gerry Devlin (October 2) regarding the Loyal Orange Institution. He responds to my earlier letter about attacks on us and seeks to debunk my legitimately held views. I feel therefore a need to respond, although I do not intend to enter into an eternal back and forth.
Addressing Mr Devlin’s points, I am not aware of the events he describes in Dundonald and Coleraine so cannot speak to them. However, I would say there are no such occurrences in any of the parades I have been present at across southern England. The comments I made were made sincerely and in earnest.
He calls my attempts to convey the true nature of our fraternity delusional. It is unfortunate that Mr Devlin makes his response to my comments an attack on me personally. I do not intend to attack him at all. I merely differ from his opinions with mine.
It has been claimed that the Orange Institution is ‘blatantly sectarian and openly discriminatory’. I respectfully suggest this is wrong. While it is right that we do not accept to membership practising Catholics because of their differing beliefs, it is not because of them as people. Therefore, it is not discriminatory in the commonly accepted sense. It is a matter of difference.
I would further argue that we are not sectarian because our membership is open to anyone who shares our beliefs, which are Protestant Trinitarian and Christian in nature.
It is right that the Roman pope (there are several other popes across the world as well) is a figure we condemn. We do so in order to defend our right to believe something different to that which Rome would have us believe. He is burnt in effigy on July 11 and also on November 5 because of his predecessors’ support for what we today would call terrorism; namely the attempt to blow up parliament and the king by Guido Fawkes and his associates. Of course we burn effigies of the Roman pope as a symbol of what they did, and would do if we gave them the power over us once again.
This differs from Rome’s own past practices, which originally was to burn people in reality. I cite as just one example Tomasina Wood, a Sussex lady who was burnt to death at Lewes by Queen Mary I under the auspices of the Roman church (which has never recanted its behaviour in such matters) simply for her devotion to Our Lord Jesus. Given that, is it any wonder that Protestants are permanently and irrevocably ‘against’ every aspect of the Roman church?
In the context of Northern Ireland, this type of differing view shows exactly how any future annexation of Northern Ireland by the Irish Republic simply wouldn’t work, unless that same republic were to become an oppressive regime, denying to over one million of what would then be their citizens the right to belief. In the United Kingdom we are a free society and all are free to follow whichever belief we wish. There is no such corresponding freedom in the Vatican City, which is an absolute monarchy. That however is an entirely different topic of discussion.
I believe I have made my point and defended myself. Of course Mr Devlin has very different views to mine and he is entirely entitled to express his views, which I trust he will be able to do so in a way which is not derogatory to myself (or anyone else). I would never seek to undermine his right to express himself reasonably. I simply ask of him the same right.
Andrew Landriani, LOL848 Sussex Crown Defenders, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
