Commenter Ploni Almoni chides me for describing Northern Ireland’s Troubles in my post yesterday as an instance of “tribal violence based on religion” when in fact (Almoni says) the strife was “based on nationality, or ethnicity if you prefer”, between Irishmen and Orangemen, and sectarian only as an incidental corollary. Perhaps more surprising, Almoni contends a similar analysis would apply to “other national conflicts such as the Israeli-Palestinian war. You can’t blame these fights on religion.”
One way of looking into this question would be to examine how the various sects and their clergy behaved: did their doctrinal holdings, actions and associations tend to fuel intergroup hatreds and frictions, or overcome them? Commenter Dave offers a few observations along these lines, as does the Daily Telegraph obituary of Conor Cruise O’Brien linked in the original post (penultimate paragraph). I wouldn’t be entirely surprised, though, to hear the argument made either way on the Ulster Troubles.
As to the Middle East, on the other hand, I’m tempted to let it go by linking the funny Onion satire from 2006, “War-Torn Middle East Seeks Solace In Religion“.
By most accounts, both the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland have become drastically more secular in the past couple of decades, even as the South and increasingly the North as well have enjoyed an extraordinarily fruitful period of prosperity, civil peace and dynamism. Interesting posts on this topic can be found at AtlanticBlog (taking up some more problematic aspects of modernity) and at the U.K. Conservative Party Northern Ireland site.
Race and religion aren’t motives, they are justifications; they how they tell themselves it is necessary as the killing starts in order to live with themselves. It is much easier if you dehumanize your enemy.
Religion serves the same purpose in war that it does everywhere else; It tells you what you want to hear so you can be happy. Racism is the darker side of the same coin. It is a conduit for rage and frustration.
Either way, the answer is the same: Attack their ideology directly. Reality and reason are the solvent that unglues theocracy. Once they lose their group identity, the need for war disappears.
and sectarian only as an incidental corollary
Functionalist theorists of religion, from Durkheim in the past to David Sloan Wilson today, argue that religion’s social function is to cement the ties between groups. Therefore, to say it is “incidental” is misleading, religion is one of the most powerful ties which bind together groups and generate within group cohesion…but this is often accompanied by between group conflict and competition. In many cases national identity and religious zeal served each other synergistically. Luther’s occasional appeals to German national resentment of the Italian dominated Catholic hierarchy, and the importance of his translation of the Bible in the development of modern German, for example. Conversely in France the Huguenots were expelled in the late 17th century in part because the Sun King believed that the unitary national identity required a homogeneous confession, the Catholic one.
One common model holds that religious competition tends to increase affiliation and observance. The 2001 UK Census showed that 24% of people had no religion, but in Northern Ireland only 14% were classified as such.
If race and religion weren’t motives, you would expect to see the same level of violence within racially and religiously homogeneous communities as you do with racially and religiously diverse communities.
I think the motive tends to be something like land or retaliation. Religion and race are more likely to be used for propaganda than motive. Claiming holy right to the land the enemies reside on, the moral depravity or genetic inferiority of the rival, those are justifications; the importance of which in causing war shouldn’t be understated.
I’m claiming diversity reduces war. We may just be arguing semantics.
the importance of which in causing war shouldn’t be understated.
This is a fair enough point. But you can think of racial & religious difference which correlates with the differences in material considerations as catalysts.
…and where there isn’t a racial or religious cleavage, class often comes to the fore.
How do you think the American Civil War fits in with this thinking?
The disagreement is whether it’s the national or religious aspect that’s primary, or basic. Since I don’t deny that religion intensifies a basically national or ethnic conflict, it doesn’t clarify much to bring up examples of nuns scaring children into not going near Protestant churches. On O’Brien’s comment, I don’t doubt that Catholicism was more important than Marxism. Again, see Walker Connor: national conflicts are often expressed in terms of religion, language, etc.
The question of which cause is more basic is crucial when it comes to “blaming” these conflicts on religion. Underlying this blame seems to be the sentimental-cynical assumption that the conflicts are really not necessary, that if it weren’t for religious differences between Irishmen and Ulstermen, between Jews and Arabs, they would all just get along. If that assumption is false, then the question of blame for religious intensification gets a lot more complicated. What if, contrary to the usual sentimental assumptions, one side is basically right and the other is basically wrong? If the churches on the “good” side help lead to victory (for instance by demonizing the enemy), then shouldn’t that item be recorded in the credit rather than the debit column when assessing religion?
On Israel-Palestine, it’s a truism that what Fatah used to insist was a secular national-liberation struggle has over the past decade or two become much more religious. It’s true that, worldwide, non-Arab Muslims view Israel/Palestine through the lens of religion, not nationality. But in the Levant the divisions cleave closer to (ethno)national than religious lines, though religion and ethnicity together still don’t explain all the divisions. Some Levantine Christian communities support the Jews against the Arabs, while others support their fellow Arabs against the Jews. It’s been that way for decades. Until recently a significant Muslim population, the Bedouin (who view themselves as ethnically distinct), served in the IDF.
One commenter pointed to religious Israeli Jews and their refusal to let go of Judea and Samaria. He’s right that they’re a minority of Israelis. It’s significant, though, that the national-religious Jews (that’s what they call themselves, and they’re the majority of religious Jews) are the ones most concerned about Israeli control of the territories. The ultra-Orthodox minority is, in theory if not always in practice, non-Zionist. So it’s the self-identified nationalists, not all religious Jews, who want to hang on to the territories.
How do you think the American Civil War fits in with this thinking?
Sectionalism. There was a strong ethnic difference between the North and South, and particular antipathy between the Slave Owner class which dominated the South and Greater New England culture which was influential in the North (the Middle Atlantic merchant class were wild cards, and due to their connection with the cotton trade often aligned with the South until finally the hinterlands revolted against the ‘dough faces’). John Brown exemplifies this. Remember that before the Civil War we were these United States.
Also, there were strong religious differences. Both the Northern and Southern denominations to some extent viewed the others as heretical by the 1850s because of the cleavage over slavery (which split Presbyterians, Methodists and Baptists on sectional lines).
On Israel-Palestine, it’s a truism that what Fatah used to insist was a secular national-liberation struggle has over the past decade or two become much more religious. It’s true that, worldwide, non-Arab Muslims view Israel/Palestine through the lens of religion, not nationality.
I’ve seen numbers which suggest that in what is today Israel-Palestine 20% of the Arabs were Christian in 1900. Due to migration and low birth rates the proportion is closer to 2% now (aside from some heavy concentrations around Nazareth, but even then they are now a minority from what I have heard). In the 1970s Christian origin Arabs were still prominent as radicals in the PFLP and their thousand splinter groups. But they lack the demographic base now. The Palestinian nationalist cause has no reason to be secular now since its religious pluralist element is dissipating.
Do you think the civil war would have happened without the ethnic and religious differences? It is an odd case to me because it seems to be more a matter of geography than anything. I can see why they call it North vs. South.
I tend to see unity as the primary cause of war, and religion as one of the more horrendous forms of unity.
@Steel Phoenix
Well, the ethno-cultural differences long preceded the rise of “Slave Power” due to the economic productivity of cotton culture. I don’t know enough about this to comment, but note that Brazil didn’t have a civil war over slavery, and their south was like our north, it was dominated by free labor, often European immigrants, and the northeast by slavery. I know it brought down the monarchy. Slavery was abolished across much of Latin America during the revolutions which liberated regions from Spanish control.
Let me suggest that *perhaps* if there was more cultural unity in the American colonies in the late 18th century then they might have done away with slavery early enough before the economic trap took over. Around 1800 most educated southerners saw slavery as a necessary evil, and assumed it would whither away. By 1850 they were defending it as a stool upon which civilization rested (though there was a major economic case at this point, because of cotton culture and the slave exporting wealth in the border states like Virginia).
If you read Albion’s Seed you do see that the Northern and Southern cultures were different from the 17th century. In fact, they are “planted” from different regions of England.
Also, remember that small differences can lead to big events. The 3/5 of a person rule in the Constitution, whereby slaves counted for representation in Congress, resulted in de facto Southern domination of the United States government for most of the period before 1860 (many of the Northern presidents, such as Buchanan, Pierce and Fillmore, noticeably kow-towed to the South). John Adams would have won the 1800 election if not for this rule. And some close votes in Congress might have gone to the North if not for this rule.
Many thanks for the cross-link to our site. Your analysis of the Northern Ireland conflict is correct – we have a political system and a civil society that exhibits inherent religious based sectarianism. However, the Conservatives in Northern Ireland have been working to replace this with the normalising influence of right/left politics. Our recent agreement with the Ulster Unionist Party also puts that Party on a course towards secularism. Both Parties will be contesting European and Westminster elections on a joint Conservative & Unionist ticket focused on real political issues rather than the usual “border” question. This is a huge development in Northern Ireland politics and David Cameron has been hugely supportive.