Agnosticism IS the most dishonest position

[Mr Greene]

So... you're aware, then, of a one Mr Cromwell and his actions?

For those 'Closer to the events' please correct me.

I would think his innitial actions would be the correct 'Beginning' of the events in northern ireland. Or why there even 'Is' a Northern ireland.

Not at work.

Actually the problems in the north are a mite older than Billy the Butcher.  Their direct primary cause was the Ulster Plantations of 1607, under James VI & I.  Billy the Butcher casued separate problems endemic to the whole of Ireland, largely by the endemic economic destruction caused by his war in Ireland and the attendant mass murder of the Irish and by the submitting the rule of the country directly to the whim of Westminster.

What's stopping you going back to the Statutes of Kilkenny 1366 or the imposition of English law on Ireland in 1495? If you're going back centuries any date and wrong is ultimately arbitrary.
You may as well date it from Henry II's conquest of Ireland in 1171.

[LastPoet]

Whenever there is a thread about how bad religion is, there comes Bel in his shining armor to the rescue with a drivel of pseudo philosophical ranting about how mean atheists are. Bel the atheist... seems legit.

---

Heh, bel knows more about NI, than those that live or lived there. Because Aristotle, Aquinas and whoever thought instead of him. I guess that's fine.

[Belacqua]

I guess that's fine.

I hold that group-identifying labels can change their meanings over time, especially in eras of political turmoil. What used to be a religious term can serve as a convenient identity or rallying point for political factions. 

There are a lot of examples of this in history. Maybe the most famous is the feud between Guelphs and Ghibellines in Italy. Originally the Guelphs were a political faction that thought the Pope should have secular power as well as religious authority. The other side wanted the Emperor to hold secular power, in an early version of the separation of church and state.

Before long, however, the political situation changed and the two factions devolved into inherited tribal identities. There were Guelphs who supported imperial power and Ghibellines who supported the Pope. The tribe you were a member of became detached from its original purpose. There were times when this resulted in violence, banishment, etc. There were also ridiculously trivial but passionate fights -- for example, there was a time during which all sculptures in church had to be facing straight ahead, because a sculpture facing slightly to the left or the right was thought to be supporting one or the other faction. Many towns were unable to select governmental leaders, because everyone in the town was in one or the other faction, and they could never allow a mayor from the other group. Michelangelo's father had a career as an independent magistrate, who would serve in the government of towns where he had no interest, because he didn't identify with either faction. 

There was a similar situation in ancient Byzantium. The town was divided into four demes, labeled red, white, blue, and green. Each faction supported a different team in the chariot races. (Justinian I was a blue.) Eventually the color factions lost their connection to sports and became associated with political issues. They murdered each other under the colors of a chariot team, but not for reasons of sports. 

I hold that something similar has happened in Northern Ireland. 

To support this, I have posed these questions:

~ It is almost certain that many of the combatants in the troubles lack a belief in God. Thus there are Catholics who are atheists fighting Protestants who are atheists. If we get to the point of talking about atheist Catholics, are we really talking about religious issues? 

~ There was very little violent conflict between Protestants and Catholics in most of the world in the 19th and 20th centuries. What made the situation violent in Northern Ireland? I hold that it was political disagreement, but I am willing to listen to your reasons for calling it religious. 

These are the reasons I put down, without insults, for my position here. If you have reasons to believe differently, I am happy to read them.

[The Grand Nudger]

All conflict between groups of people are political, even religious conflict - religion is politics. Always has been.

It remains a fact that protestants attempted to disenfranchise catholics. This was useful for unionists in their attempt to minimize seperatists...but it doesn't explain why the civil service was a dead end for catholics....and it doesn't explain why Tommy on the street threw a bomb into a gaggle of catholic kids. Both are examples of violence.

When a group of people who demonstrably do want to join in and participate in government are excluded, and very plainly on the basis of their religious beliefs, religion is involved. When some thick headed zealot torches kids, who have no political persuasions, targeting them very plainly on the basis of their (or their parents) religion, religion is involved.

That there are "atheist catholics" - and protestants..is a matter of fact. Just ask the bishops and pastors of their respective faiths, who complain to no end about exactly that. You don't have to believe in god to believe in a religion. They show up every week and take the positions on (gasp) political issues that they're supposed to take....but they don't really believe. Standard cultural hegemony. If and when that religion becomes a cudgel..even though you(they) don't believe in gods, you(they) will still..very likely, swing it. So...I suppose, if you prefer to see this as a case of savvy politicians manipulating people with the usual god and country song and dance..then fine. Those people were manipulable, by that specific lever.

Civil service applicants and schoolchildren weren't seperatists, but they were catholic enough to be killed like one.
Working class plebs and their children weren't unionists, but they were protestant enough to be killed like one.

The animus between protestants and catholics has never gone away and it never will. Not there and then or here and now. They sometimes decide to stop skullfucking each other for a couple generations to consolidate their shared political power, a span of time which only seems long to us on account of how human beings have much shorter lifespans than a church - but that's as chummy as two directly opposed faiths with their attendant claims to authority can ever be. Theism is a fucking plague on humanity.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

All conflict between groups of people are political, even religious conflict - religion is politics.  Always has been.

It remains a fact that protestants attempted to disenfranchise catholics.  This was useful for unionists in their attempt to minimize seperatists...but it doesn't explain why the civil service was a dead end for catholics....and it doesn't explain why Tommy on the street threw a bomb into a gaggle of catholic kids.   Both are examples of violence.

When a group of people who demonstrably do want to join in and participate in government are excluded, and very plainly on the basis of their religious beliefs, religion is involved.  When some thick headed zealot torches kids, who have no political persuasions, targeting them very plainly on the basis of their (or their parents) religion, religion is involved.

That there are "atheist catholics" - and protestants..is a matter of fact.  Just ask the bishops and pastors of their respective faiths, who complain to no end about exactly that.  You don't have to believe in god to believe in a religion.  They show up every week and take the positions on (gasp) political issues that they're supposed to take....but they don't really believe.  Standard cultural hegemony.  If and when that religion becomes a cudgel..even though you(they) don't believe in gods, you(they) will still..very likely, swing it.   So...I suppose, if you prefer to see this as a case of savvy politicians manipulating people with the usual god and country song and dance..then fine.  Those people were manipulable, by that specific lever.

Civil service applicants and schoolchildren weren't seperatists, but they were catholic enough to be killed like one.
Working class plebs and their children weren't unionists, but they were protestant enough to be killed like one.

The animus between protestants and catholics has never gone away and it never will.  Not there and then or here and now.  They sometimes decide to stop skullfucking each other for a couple generations to consolidate their shared political power, a span of time which only seems long to us on account of how human beings have much shorter lifespans than a church - but that's as chummy as two directly opposed faiths with their attendant claims to authority can ever be.  Theism is a fucking plague on humanity.

I've been denied employment, housing, and had property vandalized for no other reason than I have a Catholic-sounding surname.  It was EXACTLY that sort of treatment that (briefly) radicalized me and sent me into the streets. I've honestly never given as much as two shits about a united Ireland, one way or the other. For me, and for a LOT of people I know, the discrimination and violence (sometimes fatal) was religion-based, the political aspect was either non-existent or peripheral.

Boru

[GUBU]

Actually the problems in the north are a mite older than Billy the Butcher.  Their direct primary cause was the Ulster Plantations of 1607, under James VI & I.  Billy the Butcher casued separate problems endemic to the whole of Ireland, largely by the endemic economic destruction caused by his war in Ireland and the attendant mass murder of the Irish and by the submitting the rule of the country directly to the whim of Westminster.

What's stopping you going back to the Statutes of Kilkenny 1366 or the imposition of English law on Ireland in 1495? If you're going back centuries any date and wrong is ultimately arbitrary.
You may as well date it from Henry II's conquest of Ireland in 1171.

Hey it's not my fault that English rule in Ireland was an unmitigated disaster from the creation of the Pale onwards. And the reason why I chose the Plantations was because it was the first time that a systematic attempt was made to purge the Irish from Ireland and replace them with English settlers.

But hey, why look at the truth of the matter when you've got a big brush and lots of whitewash?

[Mr Greene]

Except that there is no direct link from events half a millennium ago to the Troubles. Even linking to the Easter rising is tenuous and all you have is nationalist propaganda. Particularly as the Irish of today are descended from both sides of the historical divide, that's simply the bottom line when you live on a island with limited gene pool. Racial purity is nothing but a myth used to justify bigotry.
More solid is the bigotry of Ian Paisley and associates

[Belacqua]

I've been denied employment, housing, and had property vandalized for no other reason than I have a Catholic-sounding surname.  It was EXACTLY that sort of treatment that (briefly) radicalized me and sent me into the streets. 

So you are an atheist, and in terms of the conflict you are identified as a Catholic. The people who discriminate against you have no idea of your beliefs. They aren't treating you badly because of the way you take communion, or your views on the Trinity. They identify you with a tribe. 

I'm sure I would be radicalized as well. I've never been so livid as when I was denied housing by a potential landlord because I wasn't Japanese. ("We feel you'd be more comfortable with your own kind.") And I'm sure my experience was a tiny fraction of what you've been through. 

I've honestly never given as much as two shits about a united Ireland, one way or the other. For me, and for a LOT of people I know, the discrimination and violence (sometimes fatal) was religion-based, the political aspect was either non-existent or peripheral.

I think that the denial of housing is not a theological or religious issue, it's a tribal issue. And when we look to the historical reasons for the enmity between so-called Catholics and Protestants, it has to do with English rule and not beliefs concerning the role of saints in prayer. The fact that the discrimination has become detached from history and has devolved into local hate and violence doesn't change its origins in history, and it doesn't mean that it's changed into theology. It has changed into discriminatory aggression between two inherited non-credal groups. Wikipedia is careful to call it "ethnopolitical" because it isn't really ethnic -- I assume both sides are indistinguishable in terms of skin color or other traditional ethnic markers. And it is political in terms of local arguments about who has the desire to discriminate against whom. 

The fact that you're defining it as "religious," when it has nothing at all to do with beliefs, is interesting to me. In this usage, a religion is determined by the sound of your surname. It's possible to be both Catholic and atheist. You could be Catholic and Zen Buddhist, as far as your enemies are concerned. So it's understandable you'd dislike religion when you define it as groups determined by birth, unrelated to personal belief or practice, that cause irrational discrimination. 

"Religion" ends up being a word with no definition -- or several incompatible definitions. I think of religion as a set of beliefs and practices, but in this case it's entirely unrelated to beliefs and practices. It's operating in the way that formerly political parties in Italy did -- the Guelphs in Italy stopped being a political alignment and became an inherited tribe.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

I've been denied employment, housing, and had property vandalized for no other reason than I have a Catholic-sounding surname.  It was EXACTLY that sort of treatment that (briefly) radicalized me and sent me into the streets. 

So you are an atheist, and in terms of the conflict you are identified as a Catholic. The people who discriminate against you have no idea of your beliefs. They aren't treating you badly because of the way you take communion, or your views on the Trinity. They identify you with a tribe. 

I'm sure I would be radicalized as well. I've never been so livid as when I was denied housing by a potential landlord because I wasn't Japanese. ("We feel you'd be more comfortable with your own kind.") And I'm sure my experience was a tiny fraction of what you've been through. 

I've honestly never given as much as two shits about a united Ireland, one way or the other. For me, and for a LOT of people I know, the discrimination and violence (sometimes fatal) was religion-based, the political aspect was either non-existent or peripheral.

I think that the denial of housing is not a theological or religious issue, it's a tribal issue. And when we look to the historical reasons for the enmity between so-called Catholics and Protestants, it has to do with English rule and not beliefs concerning the role of saints in prayer. The fact that the discrimination has become detached from history and has devolved into local hate and violence doesn't change its origins in history, and it doesn't mean that it's changed into theology. It has changed into discriminatory aggression between two inherited non-credal groups. Wikipedia is careful to call it "ethnopolitical" because it isn't really ethnic -- I assume both sides are indistinguishable in terms of skin color or other traditional ethnic markers. And it is political in terms of local arguments about who has the desire to discriminate against whom. 

The fact that you're defining it as "religious," when it has nothing at all to do with beliefs, is interesting to me. In this usage, a religion is determined by the sound of your surname. It's possible to be both Catholic and atheist. You could be Catholic and Zen Buddhist, as far as your enemies are concerned. So it's understandable you'd dislike religion when you define it as groups determined by birth, unrelated to personal belief or practice, that cause irrational discrimination. 

"Religion" ends up being a word with no definition -- or several incompatible definitions. I think of religion as a set of beliefs and practices, but in this case it's entirely unrelated to beliefs and practices. It's operating in the way that formerly political parties in Italy did -- the Guelphs in Italy stopped being a political alignment and became an inherited tribe.

Tribalism, schmibalism.

Boru

[Abaddon_ire]

[
So you are an atheist, and in terms of the conflict you are identified as a Catholic.

False. What Boru said was that he was identified as catholic merely by his surname. This is commonplace, as you would know if you had lived in the midst of it.

The people who discriminate against you have no idea of your beliefs.

False. One's religious affiliation is quickly determined by a mere phone call, or casual conversation about the weather. That is how it actually works on the ground.

They aren't treating you badly because of the way you take communion, or your views on the Trinity. They identify you with a tribe. 

False. Those are exactly the reasons given as pointed out in the video I provide to you which you refuse to watch.

I'm sure I would be radicalized as well.

Then why are so many of us actual Irish who have lived through your happy clappy nonsense NOT radicalised

I've never been so livid as when I was denied housing by a potential landlord because I wasn't Japanese. ("We feel you'd be more comfortable with your own kind.") And I'm sure my experience was a tiny fraction of what you've been through.

And you would be flat out wrong. 

I've honestly never given as much as two shits about a united Ireland, one way or the other. For me, and for a LOT of people I know, the discrimination and violence (sometimes fatal) was religion-based, the political aspect was either non-existent or peripheral.

I think that the denial of housing is not a theological or religious issue, it's a tribal issue. And when we look to the historical reasons for the enmity between so-called Catholics and Protestants, it has to do with English rule and not beliefs concerning the role of saints in prayer. The fact that the discrimination has become detached from history and has devolved into local hate and violence doesn't change its origins in history, and it doesn't mean that it's changed into theology. It has changed into discriminatory aggression between two inherited non-credal groups. Wikipedia is careful to call it "ethnopolitical" because it isn't really ethnic -- I assume both sides are indistinguishable in terms of skin color or other traditional ethnic markers. And it is political in terms of local arguments about who has the desire to discriminate against whom. 

Oh FFS. Do not even attempt to tell me about the country in which I live or the motivation of those I live with. It is the height of arrogant fuckwittery.

The fact that you're defining it as "religious," when it has nothing at all to do with beliefs, is interesting to me. In this usage, a religion is determined by the sound of your surname. It's possible to be both Catholic and atheist. You could be Catholic and Zen Buddhist, as far as your enemies are concerned. So it's understandable you'd dislike religion when you define it as groups determined by birth, unrelated to personal belief or practice, that cause irrational discrimination. 

Nope. Now you are misrepresenting, and flat out lying on the basis of FUCK ALL ACTUAL KNOWLEDGE. Philosophy my butt.

"Religion" ends up being a word with no definition -- or several incompatible definitions. I think of religion as a set of beliefs and practices, but in this case it's entirely unrelated to beliefs and practices. It's operating in the way that formerly political parties in Italy did -- the Guelphs in Italy stopped being a political alignment and became an inherited tribe.

What an arrogant c**t you are. I have family that fought and died in that conflict. You have no clue what you are vomiting about.

I do not appreciate you taking a massive shit on my family.