McIlroy Declares for Britain?

First topic message reminder :

Rory McIlroy has declared "I’ve always felt more British than Irish", "Maybe it is the way I was brought up, I don’t know, but I have always felt more of a connection with the UK than with Ireland". This seems like a pretty strong indication to me that McIlroy will represent Team GB at the Olympics in 4 years. I think its a smart move to declare his allegiance early and in good time rather than letting the media make a storm in a tea cup about the whole issue in 4 years time close to the games.

People like to believe in something spiritual is way too general for me Im afraid. It doesnt explain faith or calling which is a massive phenomena, probably the bigest human phenomena that exists.
So you can say that faith is all the evidence that anyone who believes actually needs. Funnily enough I was listening to thought for the day on Radio 4 this morning and it was discussing science and religion, the guy was the Chief Rabi in England, and his belief was the more complex discoveries sciene made the more he was assured of the existence of a god creating them.
It certainly has casued massive problems, then again look at how Stalin and Hitler managed to persuade whole populations to turn against particular religions in utterly abhorent ways causing the deaths of millions. Its not only religous people who are zealots.

navyblueshorts wrote:

Sin é wrote:...If there was no such thing as religion/faith (no Adam and Eve in the garden/bible) how would you decide what is right and wrong?

Whether you have no time for religion/faith, you have derived your morality from the bible.

Sorry. Can't pass this up. Rubbish. Utter nonsense. They were discussing ethics and morals in Greece long before the supposed Jesus appeared on the scene - or any of his teachings for that matter. In most recent conflicts, statistically it was far more likely that those 'Samaritans' rescuing/saving people were not religious. Talking of the 'Good Samaritan', am I mistaken (I think not) but wasn't he dong good around the time (before?) Jesus' teachings took hold? If so, what was his moral guiding light as it certainly wasn't Christianity was it?

The Bible is chock full of utterly immoral baloney, which isn't surprising as it's a work of man and of it's time i.e. the childhood of mankind.

I've no doubt they were - the Greeks worshipped many gods (Zeus etc) long before Christianity.

You obviously don't realise that there is an Old Testament (pre-Jesus) as well as a New Testament. You may have heard of the Book of Genesis which was the first one. Jews & many religions share the Old Testament - even the Moslems regard Jesus as a Prophet.

Here is some info on both.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Testament
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Testament

navyblueshorts wrote:

SecretFly wrote:No it don't.
It wasn't a lecture, it was the truth.
If 'Science' was what "you do" you'd be able to understand the concept. Ciao.

Groundless: not based on any good reason. (That's a definition by the way). I'd say that sums up religion fine wouldn't you? "Ciao"? I hope so. Don't let the door hit you on the way out eh?

You DO science? You don't analyse very deeply for one. Sleep on it. Try again. You'll come to understand the logic if you use some. Take your time, take all the time in the world if need be. I'll try Bye this time just to keep it in a language you like.

Sin, you do realise that referencing Wikipedia denudes any argument of credibility don't you.

Anyway, stop trying to dodge your preposterous claim that morals only emerged with the bible.

#laughingstock

Which asylum is that guy Sin from?
Who is using abortion as a morning after pill?
Typical religious blindness. Why would anyone think that a group of bible thumpers should dictate whether a woman can terminate a pregnancy. What's it got to do with them. There's a million reasons why abortions might be a better solution than going full term, ridiculous that the church or those deluded enough to attend should be involved in that decision. Disgusting.

It wasn't that long ago that a bunch of bible thumpers were campaigning against an abortion in which the foetus was so badly disabled it wouldn't have survived the first day. Great idea Catholics.

super_realist wrote:Which asylum is that guy Sin from?
Who is using abortion as a morning after pill?
Typical religious blindness. Why would anyone think that a group of bible thumpers should dictate whether a woman can terminate a pregnancy. What's it got to do with them. There's a million reasons why abortions might be a better solution than going full term, ridiculous that the church or those deluded enough to attend should be involved in that decision. Disgusting.

It wasn't that long ago that a bunch of bible thumpers were campaigning against an abortion in which the foetus was so badly disabled it wouldn't have survived the first day. Great idea Catholics.

Yeah, that's the advert, super, now talk about the facts.

Why was the man who wanted to be allowed to die not allowed to die? If abortion is a sign of Civilisation over the thatched cottage, pig farmer smell of Catholicism, why was the man refused the right to control what happens to his own body? Same rights sought by pregnant women.

And why were the millions of reasons for abortion being openly flouted (in law) by many clinics across the Uk recently? Not enough reasons in the millions already available to them?

And as for the abortion/morning after pill link, I refer you to the guy above who actually made the pretty irregular and bizarre comparison. At least if we're going to pretend knowledge of all things, let's do the thinking that might back us up.

Oh one last thing - back to the old generalisations I see - 'Catholics'...I suppose they're like the 'Americans' - see one, see them all? - and from a man who assumes the position of refusing to acknowledge 'nationality'. Disappointed in you, super, I felt you had the depth to accept the argument we were engaged in earlier that generalisations are lazy references to use.

Sin, Catholics, protestants, whatever, I don't discriminate in my dislike for all types of organised religion.
Yes I agree the guy should have been able to end his own life, but it isn't a decision based on the behest of religious crackpots like the oirish abortion laws.

I suppose you think gay people should be allowed to get married either?

I am sure that Rory has not said it but why does everyone on here assume that he will be selected in FOUR years time.

Diggers wrote:...It certainly has casued massive problems, then again look at how Stalin and Hitler managed to persuade whole populations to turn against particular religions in utterly abhorent ways causing the deaths of millions. Its not only religous people who are zealots.

Stalin trained for the seminary for one thing and he and Hitler made themselves into Gods, effectively. It's much the same thing.

Sin é wrote:I've no doubt they were - the Greeks worshipped many gods (Zeus etc) long before Christianity.

You obviously don't realise that there is an Old Testament (pre-Jesus) as well as a New Testament. You may have heard of the Book of Genesis which was the first one. Jews & many religions share the Old Testament - even the Moslems regard Jesus as a Prophet.

Here is some info on both.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Testament
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Testament

Oh dear. You can actually sit there (wherever 'there' is) and hold up the Old Testament as evidence that it has something to tell us about decent morals?? Most religions share text from the Torah/Old Testament - not surprising really when they've plagiarised what's gone before. As I might have mentioned, not surprising and pretty decent evidence to support the idea that religion is man made.
Incidentally, you believe everything you read in Wikipedia????

Doon the Water wrote:I am sure that Rory has not said it but why does everyone on here assume that he will be selected in FOUR years time.

I spose because he is so much better than all other British golfers.

SecretFly wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

SecretFly wrote:No it don't.
It wasn't a lecture, it was the truth.
If 'Science' was what "you do" you'd be able to understand the concept. Ciao.

Groundless: not based on any good reason. (That's a definition by the way). I'd say that sums up religion fine wouldn't you? "Ciao"? I hope so. Don't let the door hit you on the way out eh?

You DO science? You don't analyse very deeply for one. Sleep on it. Try again. You'll come to understand the logic if you use some. Take your time, take all the time in the world if need be. I'll try Bye this time just to keep it in a language you like.

I thought you'd left already. I suspect you need a double door to get into a room judging by your above comments. There's no logic in your oh, so deep posts. I would have thought a dictionary definition of 'groundless' would have put an end to your nonsense but you don't know when to stop digging it would seem.

Crikey. This guys research methods make Macs look factual.

It was good for a while but I 'believe' this thread has now lost it's way.

Skerries wrote:It was good for a while but I 'believe' this thread has now lost it's way.

I think you may have a point there .

Hitler made himself into a God........... what a cop out. So even atheists are all probably closet Christians or Buddists or Muslims if they get around to killing folks and being generally bad people.

navyblueshorts wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

SecretFly wrote:No it don't.
It wasn't a lecture, it was the truth.
If 'Science' was what "you do" you'd be able to understand the concept. Ciao.

Groundless: not based on any good reason. (That's a definition by the way). I'd say that sums up religion fine wouldn't you? "Ciao"? I hope so. Don't let the door hit you on the way out eh?

You DO science? You don't analyse very deeply for one. Sleep on it. Try again. You'll come to understand the logic if you use some. Take your time, take all the time in the world if need be. I'll try Bye this time just to keep it in a language you like.

I thought you'd left already. I suspect you need a double door to get into a room judging by your above comments. There's no logic in your oh, so deep posts. I would have thought a dictionary definition of 'groundless' would have put an end to your nonsense but you don't know when to stop digging it would seem.

There are shorter ways of saying the argument went over your head, navy. Down with the Christians, say I. Down with Religion! Let's nuke 'em all like good respectable atheists.

super_realist wrote:Sin, Catholics, protestants, whatever, I don't discriminate in my dislike for all types of organised religion.
Yes I agree the guy should have been able to end his own life, but it isn't a decision based on the behest of religious crackpots like the oirish abortion laws.

No it's based on the good Queen's Law - I'll say again, Leader of the Church of England who is also your Head of State.

And who deliberates on these laws? No not Catholic Priests and Bishops but a bunch of unelected gents who claim leadership cause they is Lords and Lassies and Church of England Bishops and who wear nice gold and red and silver and ermine and whatever-you're-having-yourself gear once a year when the Queen comes visiting.

Modern society indeed. Unelected Head of State, unelected House of Lords and the Head of State also the Head of Anglican Faith[/quote]

Yeah, you've moved way ahead of the Oirish in the last few centuries there super.

SecretFly wrote:Hitler made himself into a God........... what a cop out. So even atheists are all probably closet Christians or Buddists or Muslims if they get around to killing folks and being generally bad people.

Didn't think you'd understand that and you say the argument went over my head?? You also seem to be one of those people who willfully misinterprets what someone else has said/written. The adulation given to Hitler (and Stalin) was exactly the sort of blind, fear-driven devotion that organised religions require of their subjects throughout history. I haven't the inclination to correct your misapprehensions; as you might suggest, go and think about it. Read some authors who're far more perceptive thinkers than you obviously are.

You've said you were off twice so far - do everyone a favour and actually be as good as your word for once.

navyblueshorts wrote:

SecretFly wrote:Hitler made himself into a God........... what a cop out. So even atheists are all probably closet Christians or Buddists or Muslims if they get around to killing folks and being generally bad people.

Didn't think you'd understand that and you say the argument went over my head?? You also seem to be one of those people who willfully misinterprets what someone else has said/written. The adulation given to Hitler (and Stalin) was exactly the sort of blind, fear-driven devotion that organised religions require of their subjects throughout history. I haven't the inclination to correct your misapprehensions; as you might suggest, go and think about it. Read some authors who're far more perceptive thinkers than you obviously are.

You've said you were off twice so far - do everyone a favour and actually be as good as your word for once.

No I'll hang around as long as I hang around navy. Sorry if that makes you feel all on edge and uncomfortable. No, actually, honesty is the best policy here - I don't feel sorry at all.

You've been misinterpreting cold logic since we encountered each other - but then you have an excuse, you're lost.

Man does the damage, not his beliefs and certainly not any of his worldly Gods... we do it - we do the damage as humans, and if it isn't for God, it's for the excuse of God (generally atheists in on that one - an example being God Save the King and God Bless the United States of America - bull, it's God Protect Our World Interests)

Moving on, then you have the excuse of bringing freedom, or bringing liberation, or to claim territory, or to claim Empires, or to gain oil, or to gain Military bases, or to protect your people, or to protect democracy, or to protect communism. There are many ways to kill a humanbeing - and as I said ages ago now, he/she doesn't really care what your reasons are when you kill them - they're dead.

We'll always find excuses to kill people - there's nothing special about us - we're animals. Animals dominate through force - we're following an evolutionary trail of which!!!! religion is a MAJOR defining process in that journey. Religion is belief - now, if you want to stubbornly attack it at kindergarten level, that's your prerogative (the old man with big beard on the throne doesn't exist fools!) I'll choose a more modern concept for debate and define it as simply the belief that you're right.

I'll do au revoir this time just to stop you misinterpreting the finality of my goodbyes. Don't read authors by the way - think instead, it's what the brain likes to do. Wouldn't want you getting sucked into undue blind adulation of certain authors now, would we?.

navyblueshorts wrote:

Sin é wrote:I've no doubt they were - the Greeks worshipped many gods (Zeus etc) long before Christianity.

You obviously don't realise that there is an Old Testament (pre-Jesus) as well as a New Testament. You may have heard of the Book of Genesis which was the first one. Jews & many religions share the Old Testament - even the Moslems regard Jesus as a Prophet.

Here is some info on both.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Testament
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Testament

Oh dear. You can actually sit there (wherever 'there' is) and hold up the Old Testament as evidence that it has something to tell us about decent morals?? Most religions share text from the Torah/Old Testament - not surprising really when they've plagiarised what's gone before. As I might have mentioned, not surprising and pretty decent evidence to support the idea that religion is man made.
Incidentally, you believe everything you read in Wikipedia????

Look, you had no idea that the Bible comprised of two Testaments

Give over.

It's amazing how big this thread has become for an event that is almost 4 years away. How big will it have become on the eve of the games?

SecretFly wrote:

super_realist wrote:Sin, Catholics, protestants, whatever, I don't discriminate in my dislike for all types of organised religion.
Yes I agree the guy should have been able to end his own life, but it isn't a decision based on the behest of religious crackpots like the oirish abortion laws.

No it's based on the good Queen's Law - I'll say again, Leader of the Church of England who is also your Head of State.

And who deliberates on these laws? No not Catholic Priests and Bishops but a bunch of unelected gents who claim leadership cause they is Lords and Lassies and Church of England Bishops and who wear nice gold and red and silver and ermine and whatever-you're-having-yourself gear once a year when the Queen comes visiting.

Modern society indeed. Unelected Head of State, unelected House of Lords and the Head of State also the Head of Anglican Faith

In the whole time that 606 Golf has been existence there have been quite a few discussions on religion and you have by far been the most potty and deluded respondent. A perfect example of a religious nut happy to expunge their crazy, wacky belief but not to have them questioned.

You say it was a referendum, so the public decided based on their religious beliefs that it was their jurisdiction to decide what others do with their bodies. Great.

The whole belief doesn't need proof nonsense is just a very juvenile way of getting round that god doesn't actually exist.
I'll refer you to the onion analogy. If you believe you were created by an onion does that mean it's ok because it's what you believe?
Hitler believed in the extermination of the Jew's. Is that OK because it's his faith and belief?

If religion started now, there'd be a lot of people in asylums, it's only that it's been around so long that it isn't on the Mental Health Act statutes as a sectionable condition. The likes of Scientologists are rightly described as lunatics, but what's the difference between that and the made up nonsense of The Bible or organised religion. It's all the same to me. There is ZERO proof in the bible of the existence of god, but people are gullible enough to believe it. I suppose society needs the less intelligent and suggestible in it.
The earth is billions of years old, what is the likelihood that one tinpot and half baked religion such as whatever one you belong to has all the answers but has only been around a millennia and a bit. Absolute zero.

How literally do you take the bible by the way? Do you believe the earth is only 8000 years old and that evolution doesn't exist? Bet you do. Most zealots are that deluded

super_realist wrote:

You say it was a referendum, so the public decided based on their religious beliefs that it was their jurisdiction to decide what others do with their bodies. Great.

So who do you think should decide - the Government?

Just to inform you - the real debate about abortion is when does a foetus become a Human. Catholic's believe that this happens as soon as the egg is fertilised, so an abortion is taking a life and humans in Ireland have equal rights (to life).

Pity the scientists can't tell us when a fertilised egg becomes a human. When do you think a foetus becomes human.

Sin,
I would expect a government to give a person who required one the right to decide whether they should have one or not. Not have it decided by a bunch of crazy religionists.
However I think the same for euthanasia too.

I don't really care when a foetus becomes a human, there are plenty good reasons for having an abortion which outweigh the views of catholics who will not be the ones who deal with the consequences of making someone have a baby. Typical ivory tower holier than thou cowards.

Anyway, thought you'd said goodnight?

Are you a creationist then with views on evolution and the age of the earth or do you fear further ridicule by answering in the affirmative?

Sin é wrote:

Pity the scientists can't tell us when a fertilised egg becomes a human. When do you think a foetus becomes human.

Actually, they can and do. 24 weeks is the duration after which a foetus is more likely to survive ex-uterus.

Sin é wrote:Look, you had no idea that the Bible comprised of two Testaments

Give over.

Give me strength. I've had more meaningful conversations with my pet cats.

Secret

And still you talk pompous BS. I think we're done with this you and I. I'll continue to read and you can continue to be a legend between your own ears.

Why would you talk to your cats? Why would anyone want pet cats anyway?

super_realist wrote:Sin,
I would expect a government to give a person who required one the right to decide whether they should have one or not. Not have it decided by a bunch of crazy religionists.
However I think the same for euthanasia too.

Everyone over the age of 18 resident in Ireland has a vote, not just the crazy religionists Thats how democracy works! You get a concensus.

I don't really care when a foetus becomes a human, there are plenty good reasons for having an abortion which outweigh the views of catholics who will not be the ones who deal with the consequences of making someone have a baby. Typical ivory tower holier than thou cowards.

I don't think the people of countries that have abortion on demand are in anyway happier than the Irish. In fact, despite all its financial troubles, Ireland still ranks as a very good place to live.

You actually sound miserable, so your lack of belief, access to abortion etc. etc. hasn't made your life any better.

Anyway, thought you'd said goodnight?

No, I didn't.

Are you a creationist then with views on evolution and the age of the earth or do you fear further ridicule by answering in the affirmative?

No, I'm an agnostic. Obviously you missed my point when I posted that our morality came from a belief in a superior being and that the Bible (both Testament contain just a set of parables explaining that morality).

Yes, Everyone over 18 does, but if your population is predominantly religious nutters then they are going to vote against the choice of the individual and on the basis of what concurs with their potty religion.

You don't know anything about me so don't try to say my sanity by not believing in god makes me miserable.

I just don't think a bunch of religious crackpots should be deciding whether someone has an abortion or not. Surely that is the choice of the individual. At least that is what a sane person would think.

I think we've got our new Keizo/Samba/Max here. What a plum.

Looking through the forum, there's a few on here who worship 606v2. Perhaps you can spend too much time talking to virtual people. I think spirituality is more likely to happen in the real world.

Sounds a bit gay skerrie

SecretFly wrote:Don't read authors by the way - think instead, it's what the brain likes to do. Wouldn't want you getting sucked into undue blind adulation of certain authors now, would we?.

I've not posted on here for quite some time but was having a read through and i couldn't resist commenting on the irony of someone spouting on about religion telling someone else not to read for risk of blind adulation. If believing everything written in the Bible isn't "getting sucked into undue blind adulation of certain authors" i've no idea what is!?! Possibly the most narrow minded post i've ever seen. Brilliantly funny though!

super_realist wrote:Yes, Everyone over 18 does, but if your population is predominantly religious nutters then they are going to vote against the choice of the individual and on the basis of what concurs with their potty religion.

I'm not a religious nutter and I don't have a problem in living in this society.

You don't know anything about me so don't try to say my sanity by not believing in god makes me miserable.

You know nothing about me or Irish society (or the bible/its function) yet you have no problem referring to us as religious nutters because we don't have abortion on demand! Your lack of respect for others who do believe in a God does make you miserable, not the fact that you don't believe in him.

I just don't think a bunch of religious crackpots should be deciding whether someone has an abortion or not. Surely that is the choice of the individual. At least that is what a sane person would think.

So, who should decide whether there should be abortion on demand?

I think we've got our new Keizo/Samba/Max here. What a plum.

Impressive comeback

Clearly the person who requires an abortion should be the one who decides. Not bible thumpers in a backward country.

Have you even mentioned golf at all or are you just here to be a WUM?

super_realist wrote:Clearly the person who requires an abortion should be the one who decides. Not bible thumpers in a backward country.

Have you even mentioned golf at all or are you just here to be a WUM?

Its not that simple though is it, though I agree with the basic premise. There has to be a cut off point, I think any sensible person would agree that having an abortion past 24 weeks is pretty dodgy, thats the UK cut off point. But there are different rules in say India and different again depending what state you are in in the States.
So there has to be some kind of state control whether the country allows abortion or not.

I would say abortion should be allowed to at least the 87th trimester. Only by that point will someone have shown wether they will be of any use or not to society.

super_realist wrote:Clearly the person who requires an abortion should be the one who decides. Not bible thumpers in a backward country.

Have you even mentioned golf at all or are you just here to be a WUM?

I'd like to see a couple of statements from woman who have had an abortion to judge whether abortion is a good thing or not.

Is British society any better for having abortion on demand?

And yes, I have mentioned golf (and my level of interest in it). But this thread isn't about golf!

Is British society any better for having abortion on demand?

Probably


You should read this;

http://pricetheory.uchicago.edu/levitt/Papers/DonohueLevittTheImpactOfLegalized2001.pdf

Sin é wrote:

super_realist wrote:Clearly the person who requires an abortion should be the one who decides. Not bible thumpers in a backward country.

Have you even mentioned golf at all or are you just here to be a WUM?

I'd like to see a couple of statements from woman who have had an abortion to judge whether abortion is a good thing or not.

Is British society any better for having abortion on demand?

And yes, I have mentioned golf (and my level of interest in it). But this thread isn't about golf!

this thread was about golf..... Rory Mcilroys olympic decison... but you chose to take it off on a tangent. a mod should close this thread

This thread is about Rory McIlroy's olympic decision. And the fact that he comes from a catholic background in NI is one of the reasons why its such big news.

hend085 wrote:

Sin é wrote:

super_realist wrote:Clearly the person who requires an abortion should be the one who decides. Not bible thumpers in a backward country.

Have you even mentioned golf at all or are you just here to be a WUM?

I'd like to see a couple of statements from woman who have had an abortion to judge whether abortion is a good thing or not.

Is British society any better for having abortion on demand?

And yes, I have mentioned golf (and my level of interest in it). But this thread isn't about golf!

this thread was about golf..... Rory Mcilroys olympic decison... but you chose to take it off on a tangent. a mod should close this thread

I think it was SR that took it off in a tangent which is what seems to happen a lot on the golf boards.

Its big news because he's the worlds no 1 Golfer so the media want to make a big thing out of it.

Otherwise its a non story. Every NI athlete regardless of religious denomination and polictical view faces a descision of who to represent in major tournaments. For some that is an easy one but for others it isn't.

For McIlroy its clearly a difficult one, probably not because he feels it is a big deal but because he knows it is for many who follow him. It's a no win situation for him.

It's also a sporting descision, not a political one.

He's said, alledgedly, he feels more british than Irish and I can see how a lot of Irish people in the south of Ireland particularly would feel slighted by that. However for many in the North the two aren't entirely mutually exclusive. Its probably not as black and white as it sounds.

Rory is a fantastic ambassador for Irish, Northern Irish and British golf and he should be supported what ever descision he makes.

Rodders, McIlroy is a "proud product of Irish golf" to quote the man himself. He has only represented Ireland in golf to date therefore to represent GB in the Olympics represents a change of allegiance.

This is why it is a big deal plus because as you say he is world number 1. Obviously as he feels more British than Irish therefore its his choice. He will still get the support from down south.

He hasn't made a choice and has clearly said this.

He may well feel more British than Irish but that can be interpreted in many ways.

I could make such a statement and in many ways it would be true. I don't speak Irish, don't follow GAA, have a limited knowledge of traditional Irish music and culture. I am probably more aware of british politics and current affairs than Irish because it is the former which impacts me more directly. The UK pound is my currency and when I post I use Royal Mail. I pay my taxes to the UK treasury.

None of that means necessarily that given the choice that I would rather represent Great Britain at sport than Ireland. It really isn't as black and white as some are making out and McIlroys last statement on this demonstrates that.

What is black and white is that however complicated it is the simple fact is he will have to make a decision should he, as he says he wants to, become an Olympian.
The only matter open to debate is whether he should make that choice now or in 3-4 years time. It will still be the same choice with the same resulting implications and he is only likely to be an even bigger name then than he is now.

Absolutely, at some point he will have to nail his colours to the mast but he hasn't yet...most likey because it isn't a straightforward descision with all sorts of factors to consider.

If Rory was a golfer of English (or Welsh or Scottish) lineage whose parents had moved to NI and who had been "a product of Irish golf", would he still have a choice of who to represent? In that situation surely he would have to play for GB&NI despite the fact that he may have represented "All Ireland" in some competitions? He could also be Catholic.

the Olympic charter doesnt allow competitors to hold dual nationality. Therefore being an independant Olympic athlete may be an option open to Rory McIlroy.

In all likelyhood he will choose to represent Britain however, this might be an option if he just wants to represent himself and avoid all debate.

golfermartin wrote:If Rory was a golfer of English (or Welsh or Scottish) lineage whose parents had moved to NI and who had been "a product of Irish golf", would he still have a choice of who to represent? In that situation surely he would have to play for GB&NI despite the fact that he may have represented "All Ireland" in some competitions? He could also be Catholic.

If Rory was born in NI, he would be entitled to an Irish passport even if his parents were English or Welsh.

There was a soccer player (Alan Kernaghan) with a similar history who was born in England to English parents, but grew up in NI, but because the NI soccer people had some sort of a deal with the English FA he wasn't allowed play for NI senior team, so he ended up playing for the Republic!