Agnosticism IS the most dishonest position

[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.