Dawkins: Is religion the root of all evil?

Religions > Atheism > Dawkins: Is religion the root of all evil?

LINK TO THIS PAGE

rating : 0 | 0

Page 1 of 3

Topic:	Religions > Atheism
User:	"Jason Spaceman"
Date:	08 Jan 2006 04:31:20 AM
Object:	Dawkins: Is religion the root of all evil?

From the article:
-------------------------------------------------------------
Professor Richard Dawkins
06 January 2006
Known as ‘ Darwin’s Rottweiler’, Professor Richard Dawkins relishes
controversy. In his new TV series he explains how religion is a form
of abuse – and why God is man’s most destructive invention ++ Why do
you believe in your God? Because he talks to you inside your head? The
Yorkshire Ripper claimed his murders were ordered by Jesus
Imagine, sang John Lennon, a world with no religion. Imagine no
suicide bombers, no 9/11, no 7/7, no Crusades, no witch-hunts, no
Gunpowder Plot, no Kashmir dispute, no Indian partition, no
Israel/Palestine war, no Serb/Croat/Muslim massacres, no Northern
Ireland “troubles”. Imagine no Taliban to blow up ancient statues, no
public beheadings of blasphemers, no flogging of female skin for the
crime of showing an inch of it. Imagine no persecutions of the Jews –
no Jews to persecute indeed, for, without religious taboos against
marrying out, the Diaspora would long ago have merged into Europe.
Hitler invoked “My feelings as a Christian” to justify his
anti-Semitism, and he wrote in Mein Kampf: “I believe that I am acting
in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending
myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.”
Nevertheless, most such atrocities are not directly motivated by
religion. IRA gunmen didn’t kill Protestants (or vice versa) over
disagreements about transubstantiation or such theological niceties.
The motive was more likely to be tribal vengeance. One of “them”
killed one of “us”. “They” drove “our” great-grandfathers out of
ancestral lands. Grievances are economic and political, not religious;
and vendettas stretch “unto the third and fourth generation of them
that hate me”. Quoting Exodus reminds me, incidentally, that humanists
prefer Gandhi’s version: “An eye for an eye make the whole world
blind.”
But if tribal wars are not about religion, the fact that there are
separate tribes at all frequently is. Some tribes may divide along
racial or linguistic lines, but in Northern Ireland what else is there
but religion? The same applies to Indo-Pakistan, Serbo-Croatia, and
various regions of Indonesia and Africa. Religion is today’s most
divisive label of group identity and hostility. If a social engineer
set out to devise a system for perpetuating our most vicious enmities,
he could find no better formula than sectarian education. The main
point of faith schools is that the children of “our” tribe must be
taught “their own” religion. Since the children of the other tribe are
simultaneously being taught the rival religion with, of course, the
rival version of the vendetta-riven history, the prognosis is all too
predictable.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Read it at
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/opinion/story.jsp?story=674933
J. Spaceman
.

User: "Dale"
Title: Re: Dawkins: Is religion the root of all evil?	08 Jan 2006 09:32:13 PM

"Jason Spaceman" <notreally@jspaceman.homelinux.org> wrote in message
news:oee1s1tot864k64nv2hpku4jr81fiibfk0@4ax.com...

People who rant against religion need to see Monty Python's Life of Brian.
You might as well rant about the evils of eyes, hands, penises and vaginas.
There's no point to it, because ranting against religion misses the point of
what it is to be human. Complaining that religion fosters division and
rivalry only causes more division and rivalry, because it casts the
religious as an inferior class to be separated from the rest.
I'm not religious myself, but I know plenty of people who could never get by
in life without religion. I recognize that some use religion for evil ends,
but condemn them, not all religions or religious people.
Dawkins of all people should know that religious tendencies and magical
thinking are a product of evolution, and are a natural and inseparable
aspect of being human. He is a bigoted fool to condemn all religion as the
root of all evil.
.

User: "LP"
Title: Re: Dawkins: Is religion the root of all evil?	08 Jan 2006 11:16:02 PM

On Mon, 09 Jan 2006 03:32:13 GMT, "Dale" <dmgreer@nspm.airmail.net>
wrote:

"Jason Spaceman" <notreally@jspaceman.homelinux.org> wrote in message
news:oee1s1tot864k64nv2hpku4jr81fiibfk0@4ax.com...

People who rant against religion need to see Monty Python's Life of Brian.
You might as well rant about the evils of eyes, hands, penises and vaginas.
There's no point to it, because ranting against religion misses the point of
what it is to be human. Complaining that religion fosters division and
rivalry only causes more division and rivalry, because it casts the
religious as an inferior class to be separated from the rest.

I'm not religious myself, but I know plenty of people who could never get by
in life without religion. I recognize that some use religion for evil ends,
but condemn them, not all religions or religious people.

Dawkins of all people should know that religious tendencies and magical
thinking are a product of evolution, and are a natural and inseparable
aspect of being human. He is a bigoted fool to condemn all religion as the
root of all evil.

People who steal, rape and murder are also a product of evolution.
This does not mean we cannot condemn them. Irrational behavior should
be condemned no matter how it manifests itself.
I have never read anywhere where R. Dawkins condemns ALL religions,
he explicitly focuses attention on the more common irrational ones,
which just happens to include the Judeo-Christian-Muslem religions.
.

User: "lcastro"
Title: Re: Dawkins: Is religion the root of all evil?	08 Jan 2006 04:17:28 PM

"Jason Spaceman" <notreally@jspaceman.homelinux.org> wrote in message
news:oee1s1tot864k64nv2hpku4jr81fiibfk0@4ax.com...

From the article:
-------------------------------------------------------------
Professor Richard Dawkins
06 January 2006

Known as ' Darwin's Rottweiler', Professor Richard Dawkins relishes
controversy. In his new TV series he explains how religion is a form
of abuse - and why God is man's most destructive invention ++ Why do
you believe in your God? Because he talks to you inside your head? The
Yorkshire Ripper claimed his murders were ordered by Jesus

Imagine, sang John Lennon, a world with no religion. Imagine no
suicide bombers, no 9/11, no 7/7, no Crusades, no witch-hunts, no
Gunpowder Plot, no Kashmir dispute, no Indian partition, no
Israel/Palestine war, no Serb/Croat/Muslim massacres, no Northern
Ireland "troubles". Imagine no Taliban to blow up ancient statues, no
public beheadings of blasphemers, no flogging of female skin for the
crime of showing an inch of it. Imagine no persecutions of the Jews -
no Jews to persecute indeed, for, without religious taboos against
marrying out, the Diaspora would long ago have merged into Europe.

Hitler invoked "My feelings as a Christian" to justify his
anti-Semitism, and he wrote in Mein Kampf: "I believe that I am acting
in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending
myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord."
Nevertheless, most such atrocities are not directly motivated by
religion. IRA gunmen didn't kill Protestants (or vice versa) over
disagreements about transubstantiation or such theological niceties.
The motive was more likely to be tribal vengeance. One of "them"
killed one of "us". "They" drove "our" great-grandfathers out of
ancestral lands. Grievances are economic and political, not religious;
and vendettas stretch "unto the third and fourth generation of them
that hate me". Quoting Exodus reminds me, incidentally, that humanists
prefer Gandhi's version: "An eye for an eye make the whole world
blind."

But if tribal wars are not about religion, the fact that there are
separate tribes at all frequently is. Some tribes may divide along
racial or linguistic lines, but in Northern Ireland what else is there
but religion? The same applies to Indo-Pakistan, Serbo-Croatia, and
various regions of Indonesia and Africa. Religion is today's most
divisive label of group identity and hostility. If a social engineer
set out to devise a system for perpetuating our most vicious enmities,
he could find no better formula than sectarian education. The main
point of faith schools is that the children of "our" tribe must be
taught "their own" religion. Since the children of the other tribe are
simultaneously being taught the rival religion with, of course, the
rival version of the vendetta-riven history, the prognosis is all too
predictable.
----------------------------------------------------------------

Read it at
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/opinion/story.jsp?story=674933

J. Spaceman

Thanks for posting this, it's a challenging thought. However, I've got to
go with my gut instinct that not all religions carry the same load of guilt.
I would have to agree with Joseph Campbell who said that a culture losing
its mysticism would slowly deconstruct into anarchy. It seems that humans
need to believe in a system that imbues their lives with purpose and, for
most, religion fills that niche. The real problem is the content of some
religions. Joseph Campbell also called the three dominant religions
(Christianity, Judaism and Islam) the Killer Religions because, in them, god
actually takes political/militarirstic sides and has a "chosen people".
This is a significant difference from all the precedent religions where the
god(s) were more human-like and took sides but could be wrong or didn't take
sides at all. (There are some religions like the one of the Aztecs and
Toltecs that were also quite brutal but they're not causing problems today.)
I believe what we need is a more intelligent view of our existence. Those
who want to be religious need to understand that religion is nothing more
than opinion and philosophy. Religion does not give the bearer the right to
infringe on the beliefs or property of anyone else.
My point being that, if we lost all religion right now, new religions would
just replace them. You'd lose the infrastructure that keep some of the more
zealous adherents in check. (Just imagine the possible damage if the pope
called for a jihad against whomever!) So, I think that the evils wrought by
modern religions will need to be overcome by education and introspection, in
other words, evolution.
.

User: ""
Title: Re: Dawkins: Is religion the root of all evil?	08 Jan 2006 04:24:10 PM

(http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,5673,1681235,00.html)
No wonder atheists are angry: they seem ready to believe anything
Richard Dawkins's latest attack on religion is an intellectually lazy
polemic not worthy of a great scientist
Madeleine Bunting
Saturday January 7, 2006
The Guardian
On Monday, it's Richard Dawkins's turn (yet again) to take up the
cudgels against religious faith in a two-part Channel 4 programme, The
Root of All Evil? His voice is one of the loudest in an increasingly
shrill chorus of atheist humanists; something has got them badly
rattled. They even turned their bitter invective on Narnia. By all
means, let's have a serious debate about religious belief, one of the
most complex and fascinating phenomena on the planet, but the suspicion
is that it's not what this chorus wants. Behind unsubstantiated
assertions, sweeping generalisations and random anecdotal evidence,
there's the unmistakable whiff of panic; they fear religion is on the
march again.
Article continues
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------There's
an aggrieved frustration that they've been short-changed by history; we
were supposed to be all atheist rationalists by now. Secularisation was
supposed to be an inextricable part of progress. Even more grating,
what secularisation there has been is accompanied by the growth of
weird irrationalities from crystals to ley lines. As GK Chesterton
pointed out, the problem when people don't believe in God is not that
they believe nothing, it is that they believe anything.
There's an underlying anxiety that atheist humanism has failed. Over
the 20th century, atheist political regimes racked up an appalling (and
unmatched) record for violence. Atheist humanism hasn't generated a
compelling popular narrative and ethic of what it is to be human and
our place in the cosmos; where religion has retreated, the gap has been
filled with consumerism, football, Strictly Come Dancing and a mindless
absorption in passing desires. Not knowing how to answer the big
questions of life, we shelve them - we certainly don't develop the awe
towards and reverence for the natural world that Dawkins would want. So
the atheist humanists have been betrayed by the irrational, credulous
nature of human beings; a misanthropy is increasingly evident in
Dawkins's anti-religious polemic and among his many admirers.
This is the only context that can explain Dawkins's programme, a piece
of intellectually lazy polemic which is not worthy of a great
scientist. He uses his authority as a scientist to claim certainty
where he himself knows, all too well, that there is none; for example,
our sense of morality cannot simply be explained as a product of our
genetic struggle for evolutionary advantage. More irritatingly, he
doesn't apply to religion - the object of his repeated attacks - a
fraction of the intellectual rigour or curiosity that he has applied to
evolution (to deserved applause). Where is the grasp of the
sociological or anthropological explanations of the centrality of
religion? Sadly, there is no evolution of thought in Dawkins's
position; he has been saying much the same thing about religion for a
long time.
There are three areas in his programmes where the lack of rigour is
most striking. First, Dawkins is featured in Jerusalem; the point is
that religion causes violence and most of the world's conflicts can be
traced back to faith. If only they didn't have segregated schooling in
Israel and Palestine then peace could emerge. Likewise in Northern
Ireland.
Let's leave the political scientists to point out the absurd
simplification of these political struggles over land, rights and
resources, but take a wider point. Human beings develop collective
identities - ethnic, nationalist, religious or political - and find in
them a sense of belonging, of personal identity and solidarity; the
problem is how, at points of competition and threat, those identities
flare up into horrible violence. Pinning all the blame on religion
blindly ignores the evidence; the Rwandan tragedy was about ethnicity,
the Holocaust about a racist political ideology. Crucially it fails to
grasp the modern phenomenon of fundamentalism and how religious
identity is being mobilised in an attempt to carve out positions of
power within a rapidly globalising world; this kind of violent religion
is a political product of rapid social and economic change.
Second, Dawkins mounts a charge of "child abuse" against religious
education; it manipulates childish minds, inculcating in them a terror
of hell and damnation. On this argument, I'm with Dawkins for a while;
he's right that many religions have a horrible habit of using fear to
shore up their authority. But that's only part of the story - religion
can also provide children with a deep sense of confidence from the
teaching that they are each precious in the eyes of God, of reverence
for their gift of life and of ethical bearings.
His conclusion is that no children should be exposed to religion until
they are old enough to make a choice; anything else is indoctrination.
But this is quixotic; how can they ever make any choice without
knowledge and how can they ever have knowledge without running into
Dawkins's allegation of indoctrination? Furthermore, the concept of a
child to be kept a blank slate, free from parental influence, is absurd
- or does it just apply to religion, and if so, why? What about the
many ways in which parents shape children (so constraining many
choices) for both good and ill? Isn't the point that children should be
encouraged to develop thoughtful, inquiring minds and a strong ethical
framework - and that this is possible both with, or without, religious
belief?
Finally, Dawkins returns to the old complaint that religion "cuts off a
source of wonder"; he once famously described the medieval view of the
cosmos as "little" and "pokey". It's a revealing comment because it
exposes a remarkable lack of empathy for how people in other ages or
cultures imagine the world. That seems a terrible poverty of his
imagination. Just think: when most people's radius of experience was a
few miles, the world must have seemed a vast, deeply mysterious entity.
That lack of empathy also lies behind Dawkins's reference to a "process
of non-thinking called faith". For thousands of years, religious belief
has been accompanied by thought and intellectual discovery, whether
Islamic astronomy or the Renaissance. But his contempt is so profound
that he can't be bothered to even find out (in an interview he
dismissed Christian theology in exactly these terms). If this isn't the
"hidebound certainty" of which he accuses believers, I'm not sure what
is.
Let's be clear: it's absolutely right that religion should be subjected
to a vigorous critique, but let's have one that doesn't waste time
knocking down straw men. It's also right for religion to concede ground
to science to explain natural processes; but at the same time, science
has to concede that despite its huge advances it still cannot answer
questions about the nature of the universe - such as whether we are
freak chances of evolution in an indifferent cosmos (Dawkins does
finally acknowledge this point in the programmes).
Dawkins seems to want to magic religion away. It's a silly delusion
comparable to one of another great atheist humanist thinker, JS Mill.
He wanted to magic away another inescapable part of human experience -
sex; using not dissimilar arguments to Dawkins's, he pointed out the
violence and suffering caused by sexual desire, and dreamt of a day
when all human beings would no longer be infantilised by the need for
sexual gratification, and an alternative way would be found to
reproduce the human species. As true of Mill as it is of Dawkins: dream
on.
The Root of All Evil? begins on Channel 4 on Monday at 8pm
.

User: "maff"
Title: Re: Dawkins: Is religion the root of all evil?	09 Jan 2006 07:28:45 AM

lcastro wrote:

"Jason Spaceman" <notreally@jspaceman.homelinux.org> wrote in message
news:oee1s1tot864k64nv2hpku4jr81fiibfk0@4ax.com...

Any religion with the power of the state to enforce it is suspect.

I believe what we need is a more intelligent view of our existence. Those
who want to be religious need to understand that religion is nothing more
than opinion and philosophy. Religion does not give the bearer the right to
infringe on the beliefs or property of anyone else.

My point being that, if we lost all religion right now, new religions would
just replace them. You'd lose the infrastructure that keep some of the more
zealous adherents in check. (Just imagine the possible damage if the pope
called for a jihad against whomever!) So, I think that the evils wrought by
modern religions will need to be overcome by education and introspection, in
other words, evolution.

User: "maff"
Title: Re: Dawkins: Is religion the root of all evil?	08 Jan 2006 07:48:46 PM

lcastro wrote:

"Jason Spaceman" <notreally@jspaceman.homelinux.org> wrote in message
news:oee1s1tot864k64nv2hpku4jr81fiibfk0@4ax.com...

It can be any religion (or non-religion) with the power of the state to
enforce it.

User: "kathryn"
Title: Re: Dawkins: Is religion the root of all evil?	08 Jan 2006 07:03:10 AM

But if tribal wars are not about religion, the fact that there are
separate tribes at all frequently is. Some tribes may divide along
racial or linguistic lines, but in Northern Ireland what else is there
but religion?

Then it'd be Irish v British or Nationalist v Unionist
.

User: "Féachadóir"
Title: Re: Dawkins: Is religion the root of all evil?	08 Jan 2006 07:39:00 AM

Scríobh "kathryn" <nospam@here.com>:

Then it'd be Irish v British or Nationalist v Unionist

It already is. As the article itself notes, "IRA gunmen didn't kill
Protestants (or vice versa) over disagreements about
transubstantiation or such theological niceties."
--
'Donegal: Up Here It's Different'
© Féachadóir
.

User: "kathryn"
Title: Re: Dawkins: Is religion the root of all evil?	08 Jan 2006 07:42:21 AM

"Féachadóir" <Féach@d.óir> wrote in message
news:rc52s1d4d3tuvmpnafgbc702e6or0l1u03@4ax.com...

Scríobh "kathryn" <nospam@here.com>:

Then it'd be Irish v British or Nationalist v Unionist

It already is. As the article itself notes, "IRA gunmen didn't kill
Protestants (or vice versa) over disagreements about
transubstantiation or such theological niceties."

--
'Donegal: Up Here It's Different'
© Féachadóir

Which is what I've always said to no avail but it then said "what is there
but religion?"
.

User: "Féachadóir"
Title: Re: Dawkins: Is religion the root of all evil?	08 Jan 2006 08:09:23 AM

Scríobh "kathryn" <nospam@here.com>:

"Féachadóir" <Féach@d.óir> wrote in message
news:rc52s1d4d3tuvmpnafgbc702e6or0l1u03@4ax.com...

Scríobh "kathryn" <nospam@here.com>:

Then it'd be Irish v British or Nationalist v Unionist

It already is. As the article itself notes, "IRA gunmen didn't kill
Protestants (or vice versa) over disagreements about
transubstantiation or such theological niceties."

--
'Donegal: Up Here It's Different'
© Féachadóir

Which is what I've always said to no avail but it then said "what is there
but religion?"

History.
--
'Donegal: Up Here It's Different'
© Féachadóir
.

User: "kathryn"
Title: Re: Dawkins: Is religion the root of all evil?	08 Jan 2006 10:33:51 AM

"Féachadóir" <Féach@d.óir> wrote in message
news:b872s1hrm2nmvljsm8225gbo750hrggu92@4ax.com...

Scríobh "kathryn" <nospam@here.com>:

"Féachadóir" <Féach@d.óir> wrote in message
news:rc52s1d4d3tuvmpnafgbc702e6or0l1u03@4ax.com...

Scríobh "kathryn" <nospam@here.com>:

Then it'd be Irish v British or Nationalist v Unionist

It already is. As the article itself notes, "IRA gunmen didn't kill
Protestants (or vice versa) over disagreements about
transubstantiation or such theological niceties."

--
'Donegal: Up Here It's Different'
© Féachadóir

Which is what I've always said to no avail but it then said "what is there
but religion?"

History.

--
'Donegal: Up Here It's Different'
© Féachadóir

Which is more where the problem lies
--
Kathryn
a.a # 2216
"We have toasters in this country...and they lie to us! Because it has
numbers from one to six and it lies to us!"
Eddie Izzard
.

User: ""
Title: Re: Dawkins: Is religion the root of all evil?	08 Jan 2006 01:07:41 PM

Féachadóir wrote:

Scríobh "kathryn" <nospam@here.com>:

"Féachadóir" <Féach@d.óir> wrote in message
news:rc52s1d4d3tuvmpnafgbc702e6or0l1u03@4ax.com...

Scríobh "kathryn" <nospam@here.com>:

Then it'd be Irish v British or Nationalist v Unionist

It already is. As the article itself notes, "IRA gunmen didn't kill
Protestants (or vice versa) over disagreements about
transubstantiation or such theological niceties."

--
'Donegal: Up Here It's Different'
© Féachadóir

Which is what I've always said to no avail but it then said "what is there
but religion?"

History.

--
'Donegal: Up Here It's Different'
© Féachadóir

Dawkins is right on many counts. But as you say, he's only partly right
when it comes to Ireland. You surely know more than I, but even I know
that when you lop off part of an island, install foreign lords over the
indigenous people, tax them mightily, and in general treat them like
scum, well, you shouldn't come all surprised when you generate some
hard feelings.
Yes, there were religious differences, but those are more an accident
and an excuse than a cause. The English did more than enough by way of
persecuting the Irish on all sorts of things besides religion to
generate the troubles. The bottom line is that they took land by
conquest and yes, it made some people upset. Kinda like China against
Japan, or France and Germany, or Vietnam and a whole slew of other
countries.
Chris
.

User: "Bonfire of the Deities..."
Title: Re: Dawkins: Is religion the root of all evil?	09 Jan 2006 06:48:11 AM

<chris.linthompson@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1136747261.808389.95150@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...

Féachadóir wrote:

Scríobh "kathryn" <nospam@here.com>:

"Féachadóir" <Féach@d.óir> wrote in message
news:rc52s1d4d3tuvmpnafgbc702e6or0l1u03@4ax.com...

Scríobh "kathryn" <nospam@here.com>:

Then it'd be Irish v British or Nationalist v Unionist

It already is. As the article itself notes, "IRA gunmen didn't kill
Protestants (or vice versa) over disagreements about
transubstantiation or such theological niceties."

--
'Donegal: Up Here It's Different'
© Féachadóir

Which is what I've always said to no avail but it then said "what is
there
but religion?"

History.

--
'Donegal: Up Here It's Different'
© Féachadóir

Dawkins is right on many counts. But as you say, he's only partly right
when it comes to Ireland. You surely know more than I, but even I know
that when you lop off part of an island, install foreign lords over the
indigenous people, tax them mightily, and in general treat them like
scum, well, you shouldn't come all surprised when you generate some
hard feelings.

Yes, there were religious differences, but those are more an accident
and an excuse than a cause. The English did more than enough by way of
persecuting the Irish on all sorts of things besides religion to
generate the troubles. The bottom line is that they took land by
conquest and yes, it made some people upset. Kinda like China against
Japan, or France and Germany, or Vietnam and a whole slew of other
countries.

Chris

The degree of near-dementia shown in posts of this kind staggers me. The
*only reason* that 'history' has the effect it currently does in the ongoing
Irish tragedy is that the division of the community *on religious lines*
tells people what 'side' of a past conflict they are supposed to be
supporting. Without religious labels and religious beliefs being passed down
family lines, there would be *no possible reason* for one Irish person to
think they knew what another Irish person's
great-great-great-great-grandfather did to their
great-great-great-great-grandfather. Without religious labels, in other
words, every Irish person would start out as just another Irish person.
Let's go through this one last time: when an Englishman meets a German, it's
'history' that tells him that one or more of his ancestors might have been
on the other side of a war to one or more of the German's; but when I meet
another Irishman, I don't have a clue until he tells me *what his family's
religious affiliation is*. Don't embarrass yourselves by making me go over
this again.
Idiots.
Bonf.
.

User: "Chris Thompson"
Title: Re: Dawkins: Is religion the root of all evil?	09 Jan 2006 06:58:55 PM

"'Bonfire of the Deities...'" <Bonfire@tert.com> wrote in
news:fYswf.29836$yu.9318@newsfe6-gui.ntli.net:

<chris.linthompson@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1136747261.808389.95150@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...

Féachadóir wrote:

Scríobh "kathryn" <nospam@here.com>:

"Féachadóir" <Féach@d.óir> wrote in message
news:rc52s1d4d3tuvmpnafgbc702e6or0l1u03@4ax.com...

Scríobh "kathryn" <nospam@here.com>:

But if tribal wars are not about religion, the fact that there
are separate tribes at all frequently is. Some tribes may
divide along racial or linguistic lines, but in Northern
Ireland what else is there
but religion?

Then it'd be Irish v British or Nationalist v Unionist

It already is. As the article itself notes, "IRA gunmen didn't
kill Protestants (or vice versa) over disagreements about
transubstantiation or such theological niceties."

--
'Donegal: Up Here It's Different'
© Féachadóir

Which is what I've always said to no avail but it then said "what
is there
but religion?"

History.

--
'Donegal: Up Here It's Different'
© Féachadóir

Dawkins is right on many counts. But as you say, he's only partly
right when it comes to Ireland. You surely know more than I, but even
I know that when you lop off part of an island, install foreign lords
over the indigenous people, tax them mightily, and in general treat
them like scum, well, you shouldn't come all surprised when you
generate some hard feelings.

Yes, there were religious differences, but those are more an accident
and an excuse than a cause. The English did more than enough by way
of persecuting the Irish on all sorts of things besides religion to
generate the troubles. The bottom line is that they took land by
conquest and yes, it made some people upset. Kinda like China against
Japan, or France and Germany, or Vietnam and a whole slew of other
countries.

Chris

The degree of near-dementia shown in posts of this kind staggers me.

"Near-dementia"? Do you think you're going a little over the top?

The *only reason* that 'history' has the effect it currently does in
the ongoing Irish tragedy is that the division of the community *on
religious lines* tells people what 'side' of a past conflict they are
supposed to be supporting. Without religious labels and religious
beliefs being passed down family lines, there would be *no possible
reason* for one Irish person to think they knew what another Irish
person's great-great-great-great-grandfather did to their
great-great-great-great-grandfather. Without religious labels, in
other words, every Irish person would start out as just another Irish
person.

You don't know a lot about the importance of geneaology in Ireland, do
you?
And what do you do with a Protestant who supports Sinn Fein? They're out
there, you know.

Let's go through this one last time: when an Englishman meets a
German, it's 'history' that tells him that one or more of his
ancestors might have been on the other side of a war to one or more of

Excellent analogy.
Except for the fact that the Germans were supporting factions of the IRA
during World War II. When you meen an Irish person, how do you discern-
on religious grounds or otherwise- which side of that fence the Irishman
was standing on?

the German's; but when I meet another Irishman, I don't have a clue
until he tells me *what his family's religious affiliation is*. Don't
embarrass yourselves by making me go over this again.

Idiots.

Gracious, as always.
Chris

Bonf.

User: "Tiny Bulcher"
Title: Re: Dawkins: Is religion the root of all evil?	09 Jan 2006 08:00:54 AM

'Bonfire of the Deities...' wrote:

<chris.linthompson@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1136747261.808389.95150@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...

Féachadóir wrote:

Scríobh "kathryn" <nospam@here.com>:

"Féachadóir" <Féach@d.óir> wrote in message
news:rc52s1d4d3tuvmpnafgbc702e6or0l1u03@4ax.com...

Scríobh "kathryn" <nospam@here.com>:

Then it'd be Irish v British or Nationalist v Unionist

It already is. As the article itself notes, "IRA gunmen didn't kill
Protestants (or vice versa) over disagreements about
transubstantiation or such theological niceties."

--
'Donegal: Up Here It's Different'
© Féachadóir

Which is what I've always said to no avail but it then said "what is
there
but religion?"

History.

--
'Donegal: Up Here It's Different'
© Féachadóir

Dawkins is right on many counts. But as you say, he's only partly right
when it comes to Ireland. You surely know more than I, but even I know
that when you lop off part of an island, install foreign lords over the
indigenous people, tax them mightily, and in general treat them like
scum, well, you shouldn't come all surprised when you generate some
hard feelings.

Yes, there were religious differences, but those are more an accident
and an excuse than a cause. The English did more than enough by way of
persecuting the Irish on all sorts of things besides religion to
generate the troubles. The bottom line is that they took land by
conquest and yes, it made some people upset. Kinda like China against
Japan, or France and Germany, or Vietnam and a whole slew of other
countries.

Chris

The degree of near-dementia shown in posts of this kind staggers me. The
*only reason* that 'history' has the effect it currently does in the ongoing
Irish tragedy is that the division of the community *on religious lines*
tells people what 'side' of a past conflict they are supposed to be
supporting. Without religious labels and religious beliefs being passed down
family lines, there would be *no possible reason* for one Irish person to
think they knew what another Irish person's
great-great-great-great-grandfather did to their
great-great-great-great-grandfather. Without religious labels, in other
words, every Irish person would start out as just another Irish person.

Let's go through this one last time: when an Englishman meets a German, it's
'history' that tells him that one or more of his ancestors might have been
on the other side of a war to one or more of the German's; but when I meet
another Irishman, I don't have a clue until he tells me *what his family's
religious affiliation is*. Don't embarrass yourselves by making me go over
this again.

Idiots.

Idiot yourself. Do you think all Catholics are Republican, or all
Republicans are Catholic? Or all Unionists are Protestant, or all
Protestants are Unionist? Do you think politics = religion? Is Unionism
or Republicanism a religious belief? Which 'side' 'should' an atheist
or a Jew take?
--
Tiny
.

User: "Lizz Holmans"
Title: Re: Dawkins: Is religion the root of all evil?	09 Jan 2006 01:59:01 PM

On 9 Jan 2006 06:00:54 -0800, "Tiny Bulcher" <RSGD9000@aol.com> wrote:

As the old joke says, 'Are you a Protestant atheist or a Catholic
athiest?'
Lizz 'as the wise man said, there will never be peace in Ireland
because neither side wants peace--they want to win' Holmans
--
I was too far out all my life
.

User: "Féachadóir"
Title: Re: Dawkins: Is religion the root of all evil?	09 Jan 2006 09:24:09 AM

Scríobh "Tiny Bulcher" <RSGD9000@aol.com>:

'Bonfire of the Deities...' wrote:

<chris.linthompson@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1136747261.808389.95150@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...

Féachadóir wrote:

Scríobh "kathryn" <nospam@here.com>:

"Féachadóir" <Féach@d.óir> wrote in message
news:rc52s1d4d3tuvmpnafgbc702e6or0l1u03@4ax.com...

Scríobh "kathryn" <nospam@here.com>:

Then it'd be Irish v British or Nationalist v Unionist

It already is. As the article itself notes, "IRA gunmen didn't kill
Protestants (or vice versa) over disagreements about
transubstantiation or such theological niceties."

--
'Donegal: Up Here It's Different'
© Féachadóir

Which is what I've always said to no avail but it then said "what is
there
but religion?"

History.

--
'Donegal: Up Here It's Different'
© Féachadóir

Dawkins is right on many counts. But as you say, he's only partly right
when it comes to Ireland. You surely know more than I, but even I know
that when you lop off part of an island, install foreign lords over the
indigenous people, tax them mightily, and in general treat them like
scum, well, you shouldn't come all surprised when you generate some
hard feelings.

Yes, there were religious differences, but those are more an accident
and an excuse than a cause. The English did more than enough by way of
persecuting the Irish on all sorts of things besides religion to
generate the troubles. The bottom line is that they took land by
conquest and yes, it made some people upset. Kinda like China against
Japan, or France and Germany, or Vietnam and a whole slew of other
countries.

Chris

The degree of near-dementia shown in posts of this kind staggers me. The
*only reason* that 'history' has the effect it currently does in the ongoing
Irish tragedy is that the division of the community *on religious lines*
tells people what 'side' of a past conflict they are supposed to be
supporting. Without religious labels and religious beliefs being passed down
family lines, there would be *no possible reason* for one Irish person to
think they knew what another Irish person's
great-great-great-great-grandfather did to their
great-great-great-great-grandfather. Without religious labels, in other
words, every Irish person would start out as just another Irish person.

Let's go through this one last time: when an Englishman meets a German, it's
'history' that tells him that one or more of his ancestors might have been
on the other side of a war to one or more of the German's; but when I meet
another Irishman, I don't have a clue until he tells me *what his family's
religious affiliation is*. Don't embarrass yourselves by making me go over
this again.

Idiots.

Idiot yourself. Do you think all Catholics are Republican,

About half of them. And the rest are mostly nationalists.

or all
Republicans are Catholic?

Its the way to bet.

Or all Unionists are Protestant, or

Its the way to bet.

all Protestants are Unionist?

Its the way to bet.

Do you think politics = religion? Is Unionism
or Republicanism a religious belief? Which 'side' 'should' an atheist
or a Jew take?

Depends. Are we talking Catholic jews or Protestant jews?
--
'Donegal: Up Here It's Different'
© Féachadóir
.

User: "Tiny Bulcher"
Title: Re: Dawkins: Is religion the root of all evil?	09 Jan 2006 10:31:25 AM

Féachadóir wrote:

Scríobh "Tiny Bulcher" <RSGD9000@aol.com>:

'Bonfire of the Deities...' wrote:

<chris.linthompson@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1136747261.808389.95150@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...

Féachadóir wrote:

Scríobh "kathryn" <nospam@here.com>:

"Féachadóir" <Féach@d.óir> wrote in message
news:rc52s1d4d3tuvmpnafgbc702e6or0l1u03@4ax.com...

Scríobh "kathryn" <nospam@here.com>:

Then it'd be Irish v British or Nationalist v Unionist

It already is. As the article itself notes, "IRA gunmen didn't kill
Protestants (or vice versa) over disagreements about
transubstantiation or such theological niceties."

--
'Donegal: Up Here It's Different'
© Féachadóir

Which is what I've always said to no avail but it then said "what is
there
but religion?"

History.

--
'Donegal: Up Here It's Different'
© Féachadóir

Dawkins is right on many counts. But as you say, he's only partly right
when it comes to Ireland. You surely know more than I, but even I know
that when you lop off part of an island, install foreign lords over the
indigenous people, tax them mightily, and in general treat them like
scum, well, you shouldn't come all surprised when you generate some
hard feelings.

Yes, there were religious differences, but those are more an accident
and an excuse than a cause. The English did more than enough by way of
persecuting the Irish on all sorts of things besides religion to
generate the troubles. The bottom line is that they took land by
conquest and yes, it made some people upset. Kinda like China against
Japan, or France and Germany, or Vietnam and a whole slew of other
countries.

Chris

The degree of near-dementia shown in posts of this kind staggers me. The
*only reason* that 'history' has the effect it currently does in the ongoing
Irish tragedy is that the division of the community *on religious lines*
tells people what 'side' of a past conflict they are supposed to be
supporting. Without religious labels and religious beliefs being passed down
family lines, there would be *no possible reason* for one Irish person to
think they knew what another Irish person's
great-great-great-great-grandfather did to their
great-great-great-great-grandfather. Without religious labels, in other
words, every Irish person would start out as just another Irish person.

Let's go through this one last time: when an Englishman meets a German, it's
'history' that tells him that one or more of his ancestors might have been
on the other side of a war to one or more of the German's; but when I meet
another Irishman, I don't have a clue until he tells me *what his family's
religious affiliation is*. Don't embarrass yourselves by making me go over
this again.

Idiots.

Idiot yourself. Do you think all Catholics are Republican,

About half of them. And the rest are mostly nationalists.

Yes, but not all. Some don't give a toss and there were once quite a
sizable body of Catholic Unionists - their descendants are to be found
in the Alliance Party these days.

or all
Republicans are Catholic?

Its the way to bet.

Did you know that in the 1930s and 40s there was a Shankill Road
Company of the IRA? It was one of the more organised units, as it
happens. (Not that that's saying much).

Or all Unionists are Protestant, or

Its the way to bet.

all Protestants are Unionist?

Its the way to bet.

Yes, I know, but my point was that political views are not absolutely
contiguous with religious views, even in Norn Iron, and to blame the
entire situation on nothing but religion is incorrect. (I blame Paisley
entirely on religion, though. Graduate of Bob Jones U., no less).

Do you think politics = religion? Is Unionism
or Republicanism a religious belief? Which 'side' 'should' an atheist
or a Jew take?

Depends. Are we talking Catholic jews or Protestant jews?

That's a very old joke.

--
'Donegal: Up Here It's Different'
© Féachadóir

I knew a Republican family from Donegal once. More rabid than anybody I
ever knew in Belfast.
--
Tiny
.

User: "Féachadóir"
Title: Re: Dawkins: Is religion the root of all evil?	10 Jan 2006 07:35:53 AM

Scríobh "Tiny Bulcher" <RSGD9000@aol.com>:

Féachadóir wrote:

Scríobh "Tiny Bulcher" <RSGD9000@aol.com>:

'Bonfire of the Deities...' wrote:

<chris.linthompson@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1136747261.808389.95150@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...

Féachadóir wrote:

Scríobh "kathryn" <nospam@here.com>:

"Féachadóir" <Féach@d.óir> wrote in message
news:rc52s1d4d3tuvmpnafgbc702e6or0l1u03@4ax.com...

Scríobh "kathryn" <nospam@here.com>:

Then it'd be Irish v British or Nationalist v Unionist

It already is. As the article itself notes, "IRA gunmen didn't kill
Protestants (or vice versa) over disagreements about
transubstantiation or such theological niceties."

--
'Donegal: Up Here It's Different'
© Féachadóir

Which is what I've always said to no avail but it then said "what is
there
but religion?"

History.

--
'Donegal: Up Here It's Different'
© Féachadóir

Dawkins is right on many counts. But as you say, he's only partly right
when it comes to Ireland. You surely know more than I, but even I know
that when you lop off part of an island, install foreign lords over the
indigenous people, tax them mightily, and in general treat them like
scum, well, you shouldn't come all surprised when you generate some
hard feelings.

Yes, there were religious differences, but those are more an accident
and an excuse than a cause. The English did more than enough by way of
persecuting the Irish on all sorts of things besides religion to
generate the troubles. The bottom line is that they took land by
conquest and yes, it made some people upset. Kinda like China against
Japan, or France and Germany, or Vietnam and a whole slew of other
countries.

Chris

The degree of near-dementia shown in posts of this kind staggers me. The
*only reason* that 'history' has the effect it currently does in the ongoing
Irish tragedy is that the division of the community *on religious lines*
tells people what 'side' of a past conflict they are supposed to be
supporting. Without religious labels and religious beliefs being passed down
family lines, there would be *no possible reason* for one Irish person to
think they knew what another Irish person's
great-great-great-great-grandfather did to their
great-great-great-great-grandfather. Without religious labels, in other
words, every Irish person would start out as just another Irish person.

Let's go through this one last time: when an Englishman meets a German, it's
'history' that tells him that one or more of his ancestors might have been
on the other side of a war to one or more of the German's; but when I meet
another Irishman, I don't have a clue until he tells me *what his family's
religious affiliation is*. Don't embarrass yourselves by making me go over
this again.

Idiots.

Idiot yourself. Do you think all Catholics are Republican,

About half of them. And the rest are mostly nationalists.

Yes, but not all. Some don't give a toss and there were once quite a
sizable body of Catholic Unionists - their descendants are to be found
in the Alliance Party these days.

APNI attracts miniscule vote. Three to five percent isn't a sizeable
body of anything.

or all
Republicans are Catholic?

Its the way to bet.

Did you know that in the 1930s and 40s there was a Shankill Road
Company of the IRA? It was one of the more organised units, as it
happens. (Not that that's saying much).

Its not saying anything.

Or all Unionists are Protestant, or

Its the way to bet.

all Protestants are Unionist?

Its the way to bet.

Do you think politics = religion? Is Unionism
or Republicanism a religious belief? Which 'side' 'should' an atheist
or a Jew take?

Depends. Are we talking Catholic jews or Protestant jews?

That's a very old joke.

And it carries a germ of truth.

'Donegal: Up Here It's Different'
© Féachadóir

I knew a Republican family from Donegal once. More rabid than anybody I
ever knew in Belfast.

Wouldn't surprise me.
--
'Donegal: Up Here It's Different'
© Féachadóir
.

User: "Tiny Bulcher"
Title: Re: Dawkins: Is religion the root of all evil?	10 Jan 2006 09:58:49 AM

Féachadóir wrote:

Scríobh "Tiny Bulcher" <RSGD9000@aol.com>:

Idiot yourself. Do you think all Catholics are Republican,

About half of them. And the rest are mostly nationalists.

Yes, but not all. Some don't give a toss and there were once quite a
sizable body of Catholic Unionists - their descendants are to be found
in the Alliance Party these days.

APNI attracts miniscule vote. Three to five percent isn't a sizeable
body of anything.

One of the worst effects of the conflict has been the polarising of
positions: in the 1960s aspirant middle-class Catholics were much more
likely to be attracted to Unionism, especially as it still had a
Liberal wing then. Since those days people have tended to either adopt
more polarised, more 'tribal' political viewpoints (or at least to
offer support for parties displaying such), or feck off elsewhere.
--
Tiny
.

User: "Alexander"
Title: Re: Dawkins: Is religion the root of all evil?	09 Jan 2006 11:22:03 AM

Tiny Bulcher wrote:

Féachadóir wrote:

Scríobh "Tiny Bulcher" <RSGD9000@aol.com>:

'Bonfire of the Deities...' wrote:

<chris.linthompson@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1136747261.808389.95150@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...

Féachadóir wrote:

Scríobh "kathryn" <nospam@here.com>:

"Féachadóir" <Féach@d.óir> wrote in message
news:rc52s1d4d3tuvmpnafgbc702e6or0l1u03@4ax.com...

Scríobh "kathryn" <nospam@here.com>:

Then it'd be Irish v British or Nationalist v Unionist

It already is. As the article itself notes, "IRA gunmen didn't kill
Protestants (or vice versa) over disagreements about
transubstantiation or such theological niceties."

--
'Donegal: Up Here It's Different'
© Féachadóir

Which is what I've always said to no avail but it then said "what is
there
but religion?"

Dawkins is right on many counts. But as you say, he's only partly right
when it comes to Ireland. You surely know more than I, but even I know
that when you lop off part of an island, install foreign lords over the
indigenous people, tax them mightily, and in general treat them like
scum, well, you shouldn't come all surprised when you generate some
hard feelings.

Yes, there were religious differences, but those are more an accident
and an excuse than a cause. The English did more than enough by way of
persecuting the Irish on all sorts of things besides religion to
generate the troubles. The bottom line is that they took land by
conquest and yes, it made some people upset. Kinda like China against
Japan, or France and Germany, or Vietnam and a whole slew of other
countries.

Chris

The degree of near-dementia shown in posts of this kind staggers me. The
*only reason* that 'history' has the effect it currently does in the ongoing
Irish tragedy is that the division of the community *on religious lines*
tells people what 'side' of a past conflict they are supposed to be
supporting. Without religious labels and religious beliefs being passed down
family lines, there would be *no possible reason* for one Irish person to
think they knew what another Irish person's
great-great-great-great-grandfather did to their
great-great-great-great-grandfather. Without religious labels, in other
words, every Irish person would start out as just another Irish person.

Let's go through this one last time: when an Englishman meets a German, it's
'history' that tells him that one or more of his ancestors might have been
on the other side of a war to one or more of the German's; but when I meet
another Irishman, I don't have a clue until he tells me *what his family's
religious affiliation is*. Don't embarrass yourselves by making me go over
this again.

Idiots.

Idiot yourself. Do you think all Catholics are Republican,

About half of them. And the rest are mostly nationalists.

Yes, but not all. Some don't give a toss and there were once quite a
sizable body of Catholic Unionists - their descendants are to be found
in the Alliance Party these days.

or all
Republicans are Catholic?

Its the way to bet.

Did you know that in the 1930s and 40s there was a Shankill Road
Company of the IRA? It was one of the more organised units, as it
happens. (Not that that's saying much).

Or all Unionists are Protestant, or

Its the way to bet.

all Protestants are Unionist?

Its the way to bet.

Do you think politics = religion? Is Unionism
or Republicanism a religious belief? Which 'side' 'should' an atheist
or a Jew take?

Depends. Are we talking Catholic jews or Protestant jews?

That's a very old joke.

Also has some semblance of truth. When I was with the BBC I did apply
for jobs in NI and my application had to state whether I would be
'considered' as Protestant or Catholic. Not whether I followed a
specific creed but which part of the community I would be seen to be
'for'. The rider on the application made it clear that it didn't
matter if you felt you were not part of the religious troubles there,
you still had to state how your background would place you in one or
other of the camps.
The really sad thing about situations such as NI and other divisive
political regions is that if you live/work in those areas you are
pretty much forced to take sides whether active or not.
I don't believe in the notion that it's ever as simple as a basic
religious or political divide. It's always far more complicated than
stating there is a single factor driving conflict between groups but
it's pretty clear where some of those dividing lines have been drawn in
places such as NI.

I knew a Republican family from Donegal once. More rabid than anybody I
ever knew in Belfast.

--
Tiny

User: "Richard Forrest"
Title: Re: Dawkins: Is religion the root of all evil?	09 Jan 2006 11:28:33 AM

Alexander wrote:

Tiny Bulcher wrote:

Féachadóir wrote:

Scríobh "Tiny Bulcher" <RSGD9000@aol.com>:

'Bonfire of the Deities...' wrote:

<chris.linthompson@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1136747261.808389.95150@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...

Féachadóir wrote:

Scríobh "kathryn" <nospam@here.com>:

"Féachadóir" <Féach@d.óir> wrote in message
news:rc52s1d4d3tuvmpnafgbc702e6or0l1u03@4ax.com...

Scríobh "kathryn" <nospam@here.com>:

Then it'd be Irish v British or Nationalist v Unionist

It already is. As the article itself notes, "IRA gunmen didn't kill
Protestants (or vice versa) over disagreements about
transubstantiation or such theological niceties."

--
'Donegal: Up Here It's Different'
© Féachadóir

Which is what I've always said to no avail but it then said "what is
there
but religion?"

Dawkins is right on many counts. But as you say, he's only partly right
when it comes to Ireland. You surely know more than I, but even I know
that when you lop off part of an island, install foreign lords over the
indigenous people, tax them mightily, and in general treat them like
scum, well, you shouldn't come all surprised when you generate some
hard feelings.

Yes, there were religious differences, but those are more an accident
and an excuse than a cause. The English did more than enough by way of
persecuting the Irish on all sorts of things besides religion to
generate the troubles. The bottom line is that they took land by
conquest and yes, it made some people upset. Kinda like China against
Japan, or France and Germany, or Vietnam and a whole slew of other
countries.

Chris

The degree of near-dementia shown in posts of this kind staggers me. The
*only reason* that 'history' has the effect it currently does in the ongoing
Irish tragedy is that the division of the community *on religious lines*
tells people what 'side' of a past conflict they are supposed to be
supporting. Without religious labels and religious beliefs being passed down
family lines, there would be *no possible reason* for one Irish person to
think they knew what another Irish person's
great-great-great-great-grandfather did to their
great-great-great-great-grandfather. Without religious labels, in other
words, every Irish person would start out as just another Irish person.

Let's go through this one last time: when an Englishman meets a German, it's
'history' that tells him that one or more of his ancestors might have been
on the other side of a war to one or more of the German's; but when I meet
another Irishman, I don't have a clue until he tells me *what his family's
religious affiliation is*. Don't embarrass yourselves by making me go over
this again.

Idiots.

Idiot yourself. Do you think all Catholics are Republican,

About half of them. And the rest are mostly nationalists.

Yes, but not all. Some don't give a toss and there were once quite a
sizable body of Catholic Unionists - their descendants are to be found
in the Alliance Party these days.

or all
Republicans are Catholic?

Its the way to bet.

Did you know that in the 1930s and 40s there was a Shankill Road
Company of the IRA? It was one of the more organised units, as it
happens. (Not that that's saying much).

Or all Unionists are Protestant, or

Its the way to bet.

all Protestants are Unionist?

Its the way to bet.

Do you think politics = religion? Is Unionism
or Republicanism a religious belief? Which 'side' 'should' an atheist
or a Jew take?

Depends. Are we talking Catholic jews or Protestant jews?

That's a very old joke.

Also has some semblance of truth. When I was with the BBC I did apply
for jobs in NI and my application had to state whether I would be
'considered' as Protestant or Catholic. Not whether I followed a
specific creed but which part of the community I would be seen to be
'for'. The rider on the application made it clear that it didn't
matter if you felt you were not part of the religious troubles there,
you still had to state how your background would place you in one or
other of the camps.

The really sad thing about situations such as NI and other divisive
political regions is that if you live/work in those areas you are
pretty much forced to take sides whether active or not.

I don't believe in the notion that it's ever as simple as a basic
religious or political divide. It's always far more complicated than
stating there is a single factor driving conflict between groups but
it's pretty clear where some of those dividing lines have been drawn in
places such as NI.

My mother, who is from Northern Ireland, blames the sorry state of
affairs on the segregation of the educationial system into Catholic and
Protestant Schools. When you live in a society in which you never meet
the "other" side, it makes it easy to demonise them.
RF

I knew a Republican family from Donegal once. More rabid than anybody I
ever knew in Belfast.

--
Tiny

User: "Féachadóir"
Title: Re: Dawkins: Is religion the root of all evil?	09 Jan 2006 07:17:17 AM

Scríobh "'Bonfire of the Deities...'" <Bonfire@tert.com>:

<chris.linthompson@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1136747261.808389.95150@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...

Féachadóir wrote:

Scríobh "kathryn" <nospam@here.com>:

"Féachadóir" <Féach@d.óir> wrote in message
news:rc52s1d4d3tuvmpnafgbc702e6or0l1u03@4ax.com...

Scríobh "kathryn" <nospam@here.com>:

Then it'd be Irish v British or Nationalist v Unionist

It already is. As the article itself notes, "IRA gunmen didn't kill
Protestants (or vice versa) over disagreements about
transubstantiation or such theological niceties."

--
'Donegal: Up Here It's Different'
© Féachadóir

Which is what I've always said to no avail but it then said "what is
there
but religion?"

Dawkins is right on many counts. But as you say, he's only partly right
when it comes to Ireland. You surely know more than I, but even I know
that when you lop off part of an island, install foreign lords over the
indigenous people, tax them mightily, and in general treat them like
scum, well, you shouldn't come all surprised when you generate some
hard feelings.

Yes, there were religious differences, but those are more an accident
and an excuse than a cause. The English did more than enough by way of
persecuting the Irish on all sorts of things besides religion to
generate the troubles. The bottom line is that they took land by
conquest and yes, it made some people upset. Kinda like China against
Japan, or France and Germany, or Vietnam and a whole slew of other
countries.

Chris

No exactly. There are other indicators. Surnames for one. Religion is
a label identifying the tribes, but religion is not the reason for the
troubles.

Let's go through this one last time: when an Englishman meets a German, it's
'history' that tells him that one or more of his ancestors might have been
on the other side of a war to one or more of the German's; but when I meet
another Irishman, I don't have a clue until he tells me *what his family's
religious affiliation is*.

Really? You would be able to make an educated guess if you met two
Irishmen, or called Eoghan Ó Niall and the other called Alasdair
Stewart?

Don't embarrass yourselves by making me go over
this again.

User: "Ken Shackleton"
Title: Re: Dawkins: Is religion the root of all evil?	09 Jan 2006 12:00:11 AM

Jason Spaceman wrote:

Dawkins [and Lennon] missed the point entirely. Conflict between people
[including war] comes about when interests clash and people view the
other person as a threat to their position, livelihood, or very life!
Even if we could say "poof" and eliminate religion and all
superstitious thought....we would still find ourselves in a world where
people compete for scarce resources, where some hold all the cards and
others hold none. Until we can fix that....there will still be want,
hunger, crimes, murder and wars.

Hitler invoked "My feelings as a Christian" to justify his
anti-Semitism, and he wrote in Mein Kampf: "I believe that I am acting
in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending
myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord."
Nevertheless, most such atrocities are not directly motivated by
religion. IRA gunmen didn't kill Protestants (or vice versa) over
disagreements about transubstantiation or such theological niceties.
The motive was more likely to be tribal vengeance. One of "them"
killed one of "us". "They" drove "our" great-grandfathers out of
ancestral lands. Grievances are economic and political, not religious;
and vendettas stretch "unto the third and fourth generation of them
that hate me". Quoting Exodus reminds me, incidentally, that humanists
prefer Gandhi's version: "An eye for an eye make the whole world
blind."

But if tribal wars are not about religion, the fact that there are
separate tribes at all frequently is. Some tribes may divide along
racial or linguistic lines, but in Northern Ireland what else is there
but religion? The same applies to Indo-Pa