Madam, - Lord Laird's criticisms of Pádraig Pearse (February 4th) are more persuasive then the vituperation of Kevin Myers. However, I am a little troubled by his claim that Pearse was uttering "nascent fascism" when he wrote, in December 1913: "There are many things more horrible than bloodshed, and slavery is one of them".
When the Ulster Covenanters started arming themselves from September 1912 onwards, were they not threatening bloodshed to prevent the imposition, by British law, of what they regarded as slavery (viz. Home Rule for an undivided Ireland)? And when they joined the British army en masse after the war started, were they not choosing bloodshed over German hegemony?
As for Pearse's "messianic Roman Catholicism", I should have thought that his belief that "one Man redeemed the world" was shared by all Christians. In response to Lord Laird's question, imagery that approves self-sacrifice for resembling that of Christ is not blasphemy. A simile that condemned it on those grounds would be.
What has Police Casualties in Ireland 1019-1922 to do with the case against the 1916 Rising? The killing of two unarmed DMP constables was indeed a stain on the Rising, but the "police" of 1919-1922 were heavily-armed (and lightly-disciplined) forces trying to overthrow an elected parliament and government.
I was surprised that the President chose David as a biblical symbol for the Easter insurgents. After all, his stone killed Goliath, whereas theirs only started a tiny landslide that took 50 years to run its course. Why not Judith or Samson, who are honoured for striking at their people's enemies, even though their actions were undoubtedly immoral and not sanctioned by a democratic mandate? - Yours, etc,
MICHAEL DRURY, Avenue Louise, Brussels.