Agnosticism IS the most dishonest position

[Peebothuhlu]

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.

[Belacqua]

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.

You could make a strong case that for Cromwell, the religious was not separate from the political. I hear that he was motivated in large part by opposition to Catholicism. So I think that if Christopher Hitchens wants to claim that religious divisions cause violence, Cromwell would be a better bet. It wouldn't fit with his rhetoric about places that begin with B however. 

We'd have to be careful about what is economic, what is colonial, what is religious, etc., but in Cromwell's case they are harder to tease apart.

[Peebothuhlu]

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.

You could make a strong case that for Cromwell, the religious was not separate from the political. I hear that he was motivated in large part by opposition to Catholicism. So I think that if Christopher Hitchens wants to claim that religious divisions cause violence, Cromwell would be a better bet. It wouldn't fit with his rhetoric about places that begin with B however. 

We'd have to be careful about what is economic, what is colonial, what is religious, etc., but in Cromwell's case they are harder to tease apart.

Yes, well... I'm not aware of the Hitchin's side of this discussion.

Just working at getting a level understanding of things, as it were.

Cheers.

Not at work.

[Abaddon_ire]

When you have seen your friends catholic child walking to her catholic school being stoned by Protestants, then you earn the right to have an opinion.

As always, your reply here is emotional -- full of ire and insult.

You neglect to address the topic at hand, which is why Catholics and Protestants were committing violence to each other. 

It had nothing at all to do with their differences over the ontology of the Trinity, and everything to do with politics.

If have no problem insulting an arrogant ignorant c***.

You are so enamoured with your self percieved pseudo intellectual superior status that you have no hesitation about taking a massive dump on anyone and anything..

You get a massive boner over that. 

I had thought that your covert, sneaky christianity was so low that you could not sink any further. Turns out I was wrong.

[Belacqua]

Yes, well... I'm not aware of the Hitchin's side of this discussion.

Just working at getting a level understanding of things, as it were.

Cheers.

Not at work.

The whole Ireland topic got started here because we were talking about how people justify the violence that they do. Rahn127 said that religion is by far the most common thing people use to defend doing violence. He said:

When looking at justification, religious reasons are at the top of the chart. The normal everyday human response of anger will cause some harm, but when you compare that to the religious justification for widespread hatred, civil unrest, regional conflicts, world wars, there is truly no comparison.

The justification used for world wide harm is religious in nature.

I asked why he thought this is true, because I think that people are so good at justifying violence that there are all kinds of reasons. Skin color, money, political ideology, etc. etc. I completely agree that religious things have caused violence in the past, but deny that it's "The justification used for world wide harm," or "at the top of the chart." 

Rahn replied with a video link to Hitchens doing his usual rhetorical schtick. The video mentioned violence in Belfast, and I argued that the violence in Belfast is not religious in nature. It is political. 

Naturally, this got a reaction.

[Peebothuhlu]

The whole Ireland topic got started here because we were talking about how people justify the violence that they do. Rahn127 said that religion is by far the most common thing people use to defend doing violence. He said:

Rahn replied with a video link to Hitchens doing his usual rhetorical schtick. The video mentioned violence in Belfast, and I argued that the violence in Belfast is not religious in nature. It is political. 

Naturally, this got a reaction.

Ah.

*Nods*

Well.. as some one who's only got a 'Tangential' relation ship to the subject I would actually tend to agree with Rahn in regards to religion in Northern Ireland.

I personally know people who are now 'Here' and not 'There' and the simple reason is religious division, persecution and other wise horrible buggery involved with the situation there. Take the religion out of the aspect of the conflict and you've got one less splinter festering in the wound.

Cheers.

Not at work.

[Belacqua]

one less splinter festering in the wound.

That's a reasonable way to put it. 

Still, I think that when issues of colonial oppression and political violence are causing turbulence, religion mostly provides a rallying point and a useful identity. Take that away, and people would still fight. 

No one has addressed my earlier question: in nearly all cities in nearly the whole of the 19th and 20th centuries, Protestants and Catholics have not bombed each other. What makes N. Ireland the exception? People who simply say that it's religious sectarianism should explain why those two sects have a problem only there.

And we should also acknowledge that the sectarianism there has no element of personal acceptance of a religious credo. As all of that region becomes less religious, it seems certain that more and more people in N. Ireland are in fact atheists. So we end up with the paradoxical situation that Protestant atheists are attacking Catholic atheists and vice versa.

I suspect that even our colleague Mr. Ire, who is an atheist and seems rather to dislike religion, knows whether he is Catholic or Protestant in the terms of the N. Ireland battles. When it becomes purely tribal rather than credal, I question whether it is actually religion. Enmity could then just as easily be aligned along the lines of which football team one supports. But it does suggest a reason as to why Mr. Ire might be so emotional about all this. If he is defining "religion" as merely violent tribes, his ire would be more understandable.

[Peebothuhlu]

That's a reasonable way to put it. 

Still, I think that when issues of colonial oppression and political violence are causing turbulence, religion mostly provides a rallying point and a useful identity. Take that away, and people would still fight. 

No one has addressed my earlier question: in nearly all cities in nearly the whole of the 19th and 20th centuries, Protestants and Catholics have not bombed each other. What makes N. Ireland the exception? People who simply say that it's religious sectarianism should explain why those two sects have a problem only there.

And we should also acknowledge that the sectarianism there has no element of personal acceptance of a religious credo. As all of that region becomes less religious, it seems certain that more and more people in N. Ireland are in fact atheists. So we end up with the paradoxical situation that Protestant atheists are attacking Catholic atheists and vice versa.

I suspect that even our colleague Mr. Ire, who is an atheist and seems rather to dislike religion, knows whether he is Catholic or Protestant in the terms of the N. Ireland battles. When it becomes purely tribal rather than credal, I question whether it is actually religion. Enmity could then just as easily be aligned along the lines of which football team one supports. But it does suggest a reason as to why Mr. Ire might be so emotional about all this. If he is defining "religion" as merely violent tribes, his ire would be more understandable.

Because, in the case of Northern Ireland, religion is one of the foundational aspects of discrimination and oppression. It really is as simple as that.

To the extent that two people of different aspects of the same faith pretty much HAD to leave their land of birth and travel to the other side of the world so that their relation ship could flourish into a family and their children did NOT suffer under such a bipartisan environment.

Cheers.

Not at work.

[Mr Greene]

Nationalists of all stripes have a fetish for dragging up wrongs from centuries ago as a justification for current viewpoints. Implicit in this is the idea that population 'x' and population 'y' are somehow completely separate and that the ancestors of the nationalists aren't drawn from both groups.
I do know that the IRA attempted to enforce a 'purity' during the Troubles attacking 'mixed' couples, this gets to the point of beatings, arson and death threats.

[GUBU]

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.