The
Importance of Religion to the Irish Troubles
Sean
Whalen
Since the Battle
of the Bogside in August 1969, Ireland has been the scene of violent conflict
between the Protestant unionists and the Catholic nationalists, who favor UK
government and independence respectively. Though these conflicts were officially
brought to an end in 1998 with the Belfast Agreement, there continues to be
minor clashes between civilians that make Ireland a dangerous place to be. The
main reason for fighting was over the fate of Ireland as a state; however,
religion played a major role in determining the path and nature of the
violence, and is recognized by many people around the world as the primary
reason for the tensions. It’s not true that religion was the only factor behind
the conflicts, but the Irish troubles illustrate how religion can factor in to
international relations by acting as an institution, an actor and a basis for
identity.
The Good
Friday Agreement, or the Belfast Agreement, formally established the relational
structure between Northern Ireland, Ireland and the UK and set a time limit for
the transition to the new structure of relations. At no point in the agreement
is religion mentioned other than to affirm “the right to freedom and expression
of religion,” as well as other identities such as gender, race and political
opinion (“Belfast Agreement”). In their resolution, The Troubles were formally
identified as a political struggle, and religion was largely ignored in implementing
the new relations. This should not be taken as a signal that religious intentions
were not present, just that politics has moved towards a more secular approach
to issues like this over time. In fact, religion played a significant role as
an actual institution influencing politics and as a cultural identifier shaping
relations between people, which were coupled with other factors to generate
unrest that escalated into violent conflict.
A lesser
identifiable aspect of religion in The Troubles, its role as an institution,
shaped the way that the conflicts grew and played out. The book Religion, Identity and Politics: Boundaries
of Belonging by Claire Mitchell addresses this issue thoroughly, as she
points out that the Irish culture is based around strong social connections,
and the churches play a crucial role in organizing those social structure
within the lives of both Northern and Southern Irish (Mitchell, 8). This
premise of controlling the manifestations of identity gives the churches in
Ireland a great deal of influence over the workings of the island. Mitchell provides
historical evidence to “analyze how religion has been used to construct
opposition from the top down, [a] crucial point that is sometimes lost in
accounts that emphasize the importance of religion” (Mitchell, 9). She has seen
that much of the historical happenings would not have occurred the way that
they did were it not for religious officials who spread their beliefs and
approaches to an issue through the church system and guided the actions of
people all around the country.
There is
also the direct relationship between the church and the politicians, which
places religion in the realm of a direct actor. Mitchell’s approach to research
on the issue has found that both the Catholic and Protestant churches “are
involved in political consultation, mediation and representation of their
members’ interests” (Mitchell, 39). Despite the move towards a more secular
governing style in general, there is still a strong connection between the
church and the state, particularly in states like the UK that have a deep
connection to the church on a governmental level and a personal level. The government
of the UK has a more direct tie to the Protestant church than the Irish does to
the Catholic church, which was demonstrated by the observation that the “Protestant
church has more representatives in the unionist political parties, but play a
less important role in the organization of community life” (Mitchel, 39). With
centuries of history connecting it to the government of the UK, the Protestant
church relies less on its members influencing society and more on directly
working with those in positions of power.
There are
other ways for religion to function as an actor, such as using figures like the
Pope for the Catholic church to spread information and influence policy makers
directly, but the nature of The Troubles did not allow for a great deal of that
action to occur. Nonetheless, in 1979 the Pope visited Ireland amid much of the
fighting and saw the devastation of the fighting, he issued a plea to the
nationalist provisional government: “On my knees I beg you to turn away from
the paths of violence” (Coogan, 228). The Pope is a powerful figure, and his
statements can be very influential to politics, but here we can see the role of
religion as an actor working against the motives of The Troubles. The plea can
be seen to reaffirm the belief that the conflict was entirely religious, as the
Catholic church was vehemently opposed to the actions that the Catholics in
Ireland were taking, though it did not affect the situation very much. As such,
religion as an actor plays a limited role today, as the church leaders do not
always share the same politics as the members, and their words seem to have
little effect.
Instead,
religion is most influential in relations due to its nature as a social
identifier and a creator of values. In her assessment of religion as a cultural
issue, Claire Mitchel found that “there is a strong relationship between
religious identity and political attitudes” in Ireland, and that “the
relationship between churchgoing and strength of theological beliefs and
political attitudes is weak” (Mitchell, 21). Even as church attendance
decreases, identity with religious issues continues to dictate political
attitude. This shows how pervasive religious upbringing can be for defining the
outlook of a person, and given that most Northern Irish were protestant and
most Southern Irish were Catholic, it seems no surprise that conflicts in
ideology would occur. There were clear tensions between the two denominations,
but that alone did not cause The Troubles.
According
to John Greer, religion only provided grounding for other issues to come out
and manifest themselves in violence. In his research, Greer discovered that as
Irish grow older, they become less accepting of other religious groups, but
that they are still more accepting than the world average for the same study
(Greer). In fact, he found that secondary school pupil were more open towards ‘the
other side,’ with Catholics being even more open than Protestants. It would be
odd if a group that is more open to other religions than average would break
out into violent conflict over religion alone, a statement which Claire
Mitchell believes just proves that religion only exacerbated the socioeconomic
and cultural issues that were troubling Ireland ever since the British settled
on the island (Mitchell, 9). She feels that so called religious tensions were
really other issues at heart, but that religious institutions still had a
significant role in The Troubles as actors and institutions in their own right,
supposedly working for their members. Nonetheless, religious identity is cited
more often than any other reason for the conflict, showing that religion can be
seen as more of an influence on international relations than it really is, but
that religion does have a strong enough role in the world to be recognized for
its impact.
Thirteen
years after the Belfast Agreement was implemented, Ireland is still home to
tensions around the nations. Despite the occasional phenomenon of violence,
Ireland and Northern Ireland are relatively recovered, and the battle grounds
of the late 20th century have transformed into centers of art and
culture, but they are still distinctly rooted in The Troubles and shaped by a
culture that emerged from them (Spiegel). For thirty years, religion was used
in various ways to fuel a war of independence, something vaguely similar to
other situations around the world today. With very few theocracies left in the
world today, what role will religion continue to play in international relations?
It is clear that it will always provide identity for citizens and cause
conflict between beliefs, but it seems less likely that religious institutions
will be as influential as they have been in the past.
Even in the Arab uprisings of the
middle east, religion played only a minor role; instead citizens were revolting
to attain rights and representation that are granted around the world. The
situation in Israel and the work of terrorist organizations such as al-Qaeda derive
most of their conflict from religious values it seems, but how much of their actions
come directly from religion. There is no doubt that religion is an integral
factor behind much of international relations, but it must not be overlooked
that many of the same issues could stem from cultural identities beyond
religion, and that religion is only used as justification and reasoning for
actions to attain a political end. It is easy to make religion into a sort of
scape-goat for actions that result in violence, and its great diversity in the
way it interacts with politics would support those claims, but just like the
case in Ireland, those actions might be coming from an entirely different source.
Works
Cited
Coogan,
Tim. The Troubles: Ireland’s Ordeal and
the Search for Peace. Palgrave Macmillan: Basingstoke. 2002. Web.
Greer,
John. “Viewing "the Other Side" in Northern Ireland: Openness and
Attitudes to Religion Among Catholic and Protestant Adolescents.” Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion
vol. 24 (3): 1985. Web.
Mitchell,
Claire. Religion, Identity and Politics:
Boundaries of Belonging. Belfast Books: London. 2006. Web.
Spiegel,
Brendan. “Where Irish ‘Troubles’ Began, the Arts Heal.” The New York Times. New York City. 16 Nov. 2012. Web.
United
Kingdom, The Republic of Ireland. Belfast Agreement. 1998. Web.
<http://www.dfa.ie/uploads/documents/Anglo-Irish/agreement.pdf>.
Thanks for the great post Sean! I agree that religion is over-emphasized as the motivation for actions by people groups. When I read about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict I understood the division between those two groups of people mostly by differences of religion. After I interviewed people about the topic, I found that the division between Israelis and Palestinians is based on a complicated combination of factors that all contribute to each group’s sense of identity. Religious alone doesn’t serve as a strong enough reasoning to explain the conflict in this region, much like the situation in Ireland that you described. At one point in your post you said, “Religion is most influential in relations due to its nature as a social identifier and a creator of values.” I feel that your description of religion here defines it as an aspect of a greater culture. Would you agree that the cultural identity of a people group, as it is made up of several traits including religious beliefs, motivates the actions of that group more than religion does alone?
ReplyDeleteI would absolutely agree with that statement. As I stated in the post, less Irish are attending church, but that has not affected their overall religious identity. It can be seen through that fact alone that religious values and association extend beyond the church, and seem to relate to a large degree with a larger cultural outlook and structure. This is why I personally find a religious excuse for conflicts to be so misguided, as personal values can come from everywhere, and the social attitudes around a person can coincide with religious values, but that does not mean that that person has those attitudes because of religion. This is visible in your example of the Israel/Palestine conflict, as the attitudes of each of the cultures have created a group of people who view and approach the conflict in specific ways not because of their religion as such, but because of the values that they grew up in. For Ireland those values were split between individual autonomy and reliance on Britain for support. I hoped that this point came across in the article, and thank you for the question to give me more space to address it directly.
Delete