The Root Of All Evil?

It is a conflict between the Irish and the English, and would exist with or without religious differences. You should study the history of that area to obtain a better understanding of the conflict.

if religion had never been a problem, the 'political' problem would never have arisen

.,

than it looks. There's not doubting that England took control of the area (under Cromwell, I believe) and that they were Anglican Protestants. England already had a history of subjugating it's conquered peoples by taking away their culture. Such is how Irish and Scottish peoples had even their musical instruments and dance forms banned. The replacement of their religions would also be necessary in order to bring them fully under British authority. It was not a waring of one religion against another. It was different peoples wanting or resisting rule over other peoples who had different religions and cultures. Religious persecution was commonplace but it often had less to do with the desire for religious conversion than it did with gaining power. To defeat an enemy, it's necessary to attack what causes strength and unity in them. Religion was seen as having these properties and became a target rather than a weapon.

You recommended studying the history of that area to better understand the conflict and ill feeling. I would suggest looking into the Irish "Penal Laws" as illustration of the friction based on religious beliefs. There are also things like the "Popery Act" that can help in understanding the situation.

The root of the conflict is that the Irish protestants that wanted to remain part of the United Kingdom out of the fear of living under a government in Ireland controlled by the Catholic majority. Anyone's that looked into Irish history would know this. The issue is political but only because of the different political ideologies arising from each sides core religious beliefs.

It was true that "Protestants" feared living under "Catholic" rule. But, those Protestants weren't always there. They came with the English taking control of the area. It was much later that the movement by those who descended more from the older inhabitants caused that fear. As well, there were economic issues. The Irish "Catholic" population was comparatively poor. The "rich" didn't want to be ruled by the poor. It just so happened that the two sides at odds didn't share the same religion. It became that their religious identifications rather than their heritages got the most publicity making it look like a war of religion.

Supposing the remaining Native Americans in the US decided they wanted control of what was their country by heritage. They had their own religious beliefs. In the US, the majority is Judeo-Christian. If a war came about, would it be religion against religion?

The island had been invaded several times over the centuries (like by the Vikings). Irish Chieftains fought each other even before and after.

I have my doubts that any invader gave a whit what the predominant religion was.

Visitors to the Republic have probably noticed that, in addition to so many stone fences, most homes are also fenced. Those define their land, and the importance of the land.

The Flight of the Earls precipitated the Plantation, not religion

The Plantation of Ulster happened in 1611,after the flight of Earls in which the main Ulster Gaelic chiefs, the O?Neills and O?Donnells fled to the continent. The English Government has spent 9 years (1594 -1603) and a lot of money reducing the Gaelic chiefs of Ulster to submission and they were intent on insuring it would not have to be done again.

The natives were driven to the bogs and the moors where it was hoped that they would starve to death. The solution was to remove the natives from their land and replace them with English and Scottish settlers. The scheme included 6 Ulster counties The Plantation is an event that echoes to the present day. In North-east Ulster it planted very deep roots and within a generation many parts of NE Ulster were as English (and Scottish) as the land the settlers had left.

The Elizabethan conquest, the Flight of the Earls and the Ulster Plantation occurred at a time of intense religious division in Europe. Those divisions were kept alive in the north of Ireland - by fear, insecurity and instability - long after they had been largely dissipated in the rest of Europe

The Gaelic Irish were confronted by alien planters adhering to a variety of Protestantism far distant from their own Catholicism: in Ulster, in particular, the uncompromising spirit of the Counter-Reformation faced the inflexible determination of the Presbyterian and Puritan settlers.

So it was that the Flight of the Earls and the Plantation of Ulster left a grim legacy of mistrust and bitterness persisting all too durably to our own time

http://www.mccaskie.org.uk/Plantation.htm

Now Oliver Cromwell/

In August 1649, Cromwell and 12,000 soldiers arrived in Ireland to eradicate the military threat of the alliance between the Irish Confederate Catholics and English royalists, and also to punish the Irish for their rebellion in 1641.

http://www.conservapedia.com/Oliver_Cromwell

He massacred at least 3500 Irish, including women and children.. His goal was to rid the land of them.

Later the Battle of the Boyne, fought in 1690.

It was not the end of the Williamite campaign, and the King had returned to England before the Dutch general Ginkel's victory at Aughrim and the formal Irish surrender after the siege of Limerick in 1691. The Treaty of Limerick was not ungenerous to the defeated Catholics, but they were soon to suffer from penal laws designed to reinforce Protestant ascendancy throughout Irish life.

http://www.irelandseye.com/aarticles/history/events/dates/ch5.shtm

Now, the Penal Laws

From the consolidation of English power in 1691 until well into the nineteenth century, religion was the gulf which divided the colonial rulers of Ireland from the native majority. This sectarian division resulted from deliberate government policy. It reached into political, economic, and personal life, through a series of statutes known as the Penal Laws. This site contains the texts of these laws. (emphasis mine.)

http://www.law.umn.edu/irishlaw/

Then came the landlords evicting families on the rest of the island.

The Plantation was colonization. This may have happened over time later in the counties that make up the Republic.

As noted earlier, there was "intense religious division in Europe" at the time of the Plantation. Ireland was primarily Catholic, and had a good representation of Presbyterians (who also suffered under the Penal Laws.) Thus the Laws were not just directed at the Pope.

Thus the root of the Irish "problem" was colonization, the Power of the Crown, and land.

Angeline
Speakeasy Moderator

I don't know about the Penal laws not being directed at the Pope, I looked at part of the link and found a few examples which I listed below:

And for as much as great disquiet and many dangerous attempts have been made to deprive their Majesties of the said Realme of Ireland by the liberty which the Popish Recusants there have had to sit and vote in Parliament, no peer of that realm shall vote in the house of peers, nor shall any member of the house of commons vote or sit during any debate until he take said oaths and make the following declaration against transubstantiation.
This oath said: "I, A.B., do solemnly and sincerely, in the presence of God, profess, testify, and declare, that I do believe that in the sacrament of the Lord's Supper there is not any transubstantiation of the elements of bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ at or after the consecration thereof by any person whatsoever, and that the invocation or adoration of the virgin Mary or any other saint, and the sacrifice of the mass, as they are now used in the church of Rome, are superstitious and idolatrous.
And I do solemnly in the presence of God, profess, testify, and declare, that I do make this declaration, and every part thereof, in the plain and ordinary sense of the words read unto me, as they are commonly understood by English Protestants, without any evasion, equivocation, or mental reservation whatsoever, and without any dispensation already granted me for this purpose by the pope, or any other authority or person whatsoever, or without any hope of any such dispensation from any person or authority whatsoever, or without thinking that I am or can be acquitted before God or man, or absolved of this declaration, or any part thereof, although the pope or any other person or persons or power whatsoever, should dispense with or annul the same, or declare that it was null and void from the beginning.".

Then there was: An Act to Restrain foreign Education
Sec. 1. In case any of his Majesty's subjects of Ireland shall go or send any child or other person beyond the seas to be trained in any popish university, college or school, or in any private popish family, or shall send any money for the support of any such person, then the person sending and the person sent shall, upon conviction, be disabled to prosecute any action in a court of law, or be a guardian or executor, or receive any legacy or gift, or bear any public office, and shall forfeit all their lands and estates during their lives.

Same act: Sec. 9. Whereas it has been found by experience that tolerating at papists keeping schools or instructing youth in literature is one great reason of many of the natives continuing ignorant of the principles of the true religion, and strangers to the scriptures, and of their neglecting to conform themselves to the laws of this realm, and of their not using the English habit and language, no person of the popish religion shall publicly teach school or instruct youth, or in private houses teach youth, except only the children of the master or mistress of the private house, upon pain of twenty pounds, and prison for three months for every such offence.

Then there was: An Act for the better securing the government, by disarming papists
Sec. 1. All papists within this kingdom of Ireland shall before the 1st day of March, 1696, deliver up to some justice of the peace or corporation officer where such papist shall dwell, all their arms and ammunition, notwithstanding any licence for keeping the same heretofore granted. Justices of the peace, mayors, sheriffs, and chief officers of cities and towns and persons under their warrants, may search and seize all arms and ammunition of papists, or in the hands of any persons in trust for them, wherever they shall suspect they may be concealed. And such arms shall be preserved for the use of his Majesty.

Same act: Sec. 3. Every papist who shall have or keep any arms or ammunition, or who shall refuse to declare what arms or ammunition they or any other to their knowledge shall have, or shall hinder the delivery thereof to the said justices, or being summoned, shall refuse to appear or make discovery under their oath, shall forfeit, if a peer or peeress, for the first offence, one hundred pounds sterling, and for a second offence, suffer praemunire*. If such offenders are under the degree of peer, they shall for a first offence forfeit thirty pounds and suffer imprisonment for one year, and until they pay the penalty, and for a second offense, incur the penalties of a person attainted in a praemunire. The penalties and sums forfeited shall go one half to his Majesty, one half to the informer who shall sue for the same.
Source: *Praemunire: "that from the conviction, the defendant shall be out of the king's protection, and his lands and tenements, goods and chattels, forfeited to the king, and that his body shall remain in prison at the king's pleasure..... Such delinquent can bring no action for any private injury, how atrocious soever, being so far out of the protection of the law, that it will not guard his civil rights, nor remedy any grievance which he as an individual may suffer. And no man, knowing him to be guilty, can with safety give him comfort, aid, or relief." Blackstone, vol. iv, p. 117-118.

Then there was: An Act for banishing all papists exercising any ecclesiastical jurisdiction and all regulars of the popish clergy...
Sec. 1. Whereas it is notoriously known, that the late rebellions in this kingdom have been promoted by popish bishops and other ecclesiastical persons of the popish religion, and forasmuch as the peace and publick safety of this kingdom is in danger by the great number of said the clergy now residing here, and settling in fraternities contrary to law, and to the great impoverishing of his Majesty's subjects who are forced to maintain them, and said the clergy do not only endeavour to withdraw his Majesty's subjects from their obedience, but do daily stir up and move sedition and rebellion , all popish archbishops, bishops, vicars-general, deans, jesuits, monks, friars, and all other regular popish clergy shall depart out of this kingdom before the 1st day of May, 1698, and if any of said ecclesiastical persons shall after that day be in this kingdom, they shall suffer imprisonment, and remain in prison until transported out of his Majesty's dominions, wherever his Majesty or the chief governors of this kingdom shall see fit, and if any person so transported shall return, he shall be guilty of high treason.


An Act to prevent Protestants intermarrying with Papists
Sec. 1 cont. Any protestant minister or popish priest or other person who shall join in marriage any protestant woman without such certificate shall for each offence suffer one year's imprisonment, and forfeit 20 pounds, one half to the king, one half to the informer.

An Act to prevent Papists being Solicitors
Sec. 1. Whereas by experience in this kingdom papist solicitors are the common disturbers of the peace of his Majesty's subjects in general, and whereas there are great number of papist solicitors practising within the several courts of law and equity, by whose numbers and the daily increase of them, great mischiefs are likely to ensue, no person shall practice as a solicitor or agent in any suit in law or equity, who has not taken the oaths of allegiance and abjuration, and subscribed to the declaration against transubstantiation.

There are more examples, but this post is already too long.

It's not just religious faith I raise issue with. It is that faith that is contrary to skepticism. The firm belief in things for which there is no logical proof or material evidence. The same faith Mike Difong had that the lacrosse players he was prosecuting were guilty. That faith which obstructs an objective search for the truth. The same faith thats driven many law enforce officers to coerce confessions from people that really weren't guilty. I'm sure anyone can find some good examples of faith but are they worth the price that others pay when they are denied the truth because faith gets in the way?

Does G

i used to think much the same way as you Bill, then one day they came out with the "Chaos Theory"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory

life as i knew it changed

.,

The question remains though, is faith an obstacle in our objective search for truth? To what extent is it the cause of false conclusions?

First, there's the "faith" of religious beliefs, and secondly, as noted in your example of police actions, there's the "faith" of preformed beliefs.

I'll tackle the secular definition since the religious definition seems to be the focus elsewhere in this discussion. Faith can prevent objectivity, but it is part of our nature. It is, in fact, based on logic. In the case of the Duke players, Nifong identified them according to a stereotype based partially in reality that predicts that the players would have sexually assaulted a woman. As such, a prejudice formed that guided him away from the facts.

This faith is present in all of us no matter how hard we try to avoid it. Evolutionarily, this type of "faith" allows us to analyze situations and predict future events. The advantage of this is that we can avoid dangerous situations or pursue beneficial situations based upon early analysis. These abilities are present in animals and seem to be hard-wired into our nervous system. There is a cost to having this faith, but there is a clear and necessary benefit to it also.

I'll suggest that faith comes sometimes from an obsession to know and share truths about that which we have no current ability to obtain or convey. Faith based answers are sometimes found to be wrong but are often validated. They aren't without value.

but there is no way to determine beforehand what things are provable and what things are not. Thus the burden of faith has not been mitigated.

Dan

There has been some recent material on the exchange of ideas between Einstein and G

is not all we humans are willing to accept. An example of faith in the [unbelieveable] resurrection of Jesus is given by Paul:

"For I handed on to YOU [when he first proselytized in Corinth], among the first things, that which I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures; and that he was buried, yes, that he has been raised up the third day according to the Scripture[al prophecies; also "unbelieveable"]; and that he appeared to [Peter], then to the twelve. After that he appeared to upward of five hundred brothers at one time, (Mt 28:17) the most of whom remain to the present, but some have fallen asleep [in death]. After that he appeared to James, then to all the apostles; but last of all he appeared also to me as if to one born prematurely." (Acts 9:4)

So: Paul was not asking Corinthians to take the resurrection on blind faith. He said they could, if they wished, ask over 250 eyewitnesses about it. These were men and women whom they knew or knew of by name, people willing to risk death for their belief. Why do I believe it, in turn? Because the bible accounts like this have the ring of truth; Paul and James (different James) and Jude (who wasn't there) are my reliable witnesses. Example: It's said by many that Paul was autocratic in his Christianity, even that he hijacked it and bent it to his own purposes. So, why not talk just about his road-to-Damascus experience, and command the congregation to believe him?

Let's look again at Mt 28. "However, the eleven disciples went into Gal?i

Speakeasy: The Root Of All Evil?

smug!

Do you think it could be a "sign".