The religious war continuum: Northern Ireland and the Crusades

Introduction

Religion, taken by itself, is a very complicated topic. When combined with another, equally complex issue it becomes a huge mass of interweaving, correlated variables, ideas, and beliefs. In our western culture it is generally accepted that there have been a few, if not many, religious wars in our history. In this paper I will compare the Crusades with what is known as the Troubles in Northern Ireland, both considered religious wars in their own right. Rarely is there any issue in this world which is black and white, especially when humans are variables in the equation. And so, just like the rest of the world, war is trapped in a blend of black and white—gray. Instead of the rather simplistic distinction between a religious war and one which is not; I suggest a continuum. I propose that there are certain degrees to which a war can be caused by religious issues based on certain different variables. These variables can include culture, land, education, system of governing, and technology. I believe that both the Crusades and Northern Ireland (along with every other war/violent conflict in history) can be found on this continuum and neither resides on either extreme, although they both have a definite direction; the Crusades more towards a religious war and Northern Ireland not quite as much. I believe this because in both cases you can find traces (large or small) of religion. However, both Northern Ireland and the Crusades are more complicated than they seem at first glance, and yet neither of them can be seen as purely religious.

For the sake of this paper I will define a religious war as one caused by religious differences (e.g., war is waged because the other is not of the same religious denomination as the other side). This would include reasoning such as war because the enemy is evil or unholy and so it is believed that they should be dealt with in some way, generally through punishment (death, slavery). Also ideas such as the enemy is misled and needs to be rescued and converted in order to be saved, even at the cost of human life. Religion is defined as anthropologists define it, ideas and practices that postulate reality beyond that which is immediately available to the senses[1]. Religion is so intertwined with race, ethnicity, politics and culture that it is sometimes impossible to tease these issues apart and see them separately. A person’s religion influences their politics which may also be affected by their culture. Race and ethnicity determine your religion from the start of your life, without your choice or consent. For example, in the case of Northern Ireland often a person’s religion is so intertwined with their culture and nationality that the words which describe them are used interchangeably between their religion and nationality. All of these factors go on to define their politics.

The Crusades

Let’s start off with what I consider to be the most religious of the two wars, the Crusades. The Crusades are arguably the most well known “religious wars” in the world. With a generally accepted count of eight crusades, all together they lasted for a period of 174 years, from 1096-1270. The First Crusade was a jumble of different purposes, ideas, and leaders. In fact all of the Crusades are quite unlike what we now think of as war; they were not as highly organized as we see today or even as we saw with the World Wars I and II. This can, in part, be contributed to a lack of communication, technology and a common purpose. The First Crusade was called to order by Pope Urban II on November 27^th, 1095 in France[2]. He gave a speech which called the people to action, in order to protect the Christians in the East and in Jerusalem from the “savage” Moslems[3]. He also stated the embassy from the Emperor of Byzantium, in which the Emperor asks for help from the Pope in driving back the Turks[4]. In this speech the Pope called for those able (mostly knights) to make the journey to help the people of Byzantium and to then continue on to help those being persecuted by the Moslems. He called all Christian warriors to arms in the name of the church. He called them to action, to go and “rescue” their Christian brothers in the East and free Jerusalem[5].

During this speech Urban exaggerated any wrongs done to the Christian people by the Moslems and Turks. By doing this he successfully lit a flame in the people’s hearts of injustice and revenge. However he did not realize the effect that his speech would have on the world. Not only did it mobilize nobility and knights, but farmers, tradesmen, and other poor people who were living in destitute circumstances as well[6]. These people dropped what they were doing, many times leaving crops in their fields or leaving their land fallow for years, and made the long journey. Urban II may not have known it but he started something which would last for 174 years, 7 more crusades, and many more deaths. Although Jerusalem had originally been taken from the Christians by the Moslems people of many different religious denominations had lived in peace in Jerusalem for many years[7]. Right before the Crusaders captured Jerusalem (which took 4 years) the Egyptians had actually seized it from the Moslems in another bloody war and had opened the roads to pilgrims[8]. By the time the Crusaders actually reached Jerusalem it was open to them, and yet they needed more. They had to be in power of Jerusalem not just able to visit and live there, and so they ousted the Egyptians.

As far as the cause and purpose of this Crusade, every single Crusader did not have the same reasons as the next person. The poor people may have taken part in the crusade for a number of reasons. With the promise from Pope Urban II that people would be absolved of their sins[9] many people saw this as an opportunity to be totally cleansed of their sins and so be free to go to heaven when they died. For others it was an adventure like no other. The poor people never had the chance to travel anywhere; they lived in an extremely small world compared to our globalized world. For them this was an once-in-a-lifetime opportunity. Yet for others it seemed like a just cause. Pilgrimages were very popular at this time and Jerusalem was the Holy city, for Christians as well as Moslems[10]. The people may have felt that if they could clear the path to Jerusalem and take it over it would be safer for pilgrims.

For knights the Crusades were also an adventure. A chance to fight and not be condemned by the lives they took, instead they were actually absolved of their sins by killing other people. This must have seemed like an amazing thing for them; a weight off the shoulders of any knight concerned about his soul and the afterlife. Of course for many of them it was also a wonderful opportunity to plunder many riches which the journey, and certainly the East, would yield to them. According to the conventions at this time when a city was overthrown those who captured it had the right to plunder and loot as they wished[11]. Also, any city which was overthrown by the Crusaders would then be assigned rule to a high ranking Crusader, sometimes this was self-assignment and sometimes it was on the orders of someone of superior ranking[12]. For poor, landless knights this was a wonderful opportunity to gain power and riches. In fact, the looting and pillaging which plagued the towns and cities which the Crusaders passed through has become almost legendary. In their general disregard for people the Crusaders stole from anyone they wished and took the lives of many who would dare to resist them.

The Pope’s reasons for calling the crusade are not totally certain. Although the embassy from the Emperor of Byzantium probably contributed to this announcement, the Pope was also an ambitious man[13]. At this time the church had a great amount of power; it was not simply a religious institution but was more of a government for all of Christendom[14]. Urban II saw a chance to expand his power even more and so leapt at the chance. For the Pope, the capture of the Holy City was a grand prize. Also, to be seen as a saviour to the east would grant immense power to the Pope and to the Church. It was clear that this was not for the glory of God, or to fulfill his “will”; any person who had read the Bible, or had rudimentary knowledge of it, would know that Jesus preached peace and turning the other cheek. The Church at this time was essentially a monarchy government which lusted over what every other government does, power[15]. This is evident by the many popes, bishops, and priests who had wives, mistresses, and even children, something that is not sanctioned by the Catholic Church. Many of them had not picked priesthood but had been forced into it because they were the youngest son of a minor lord and so would not be able to inherit land and/or there was nothing else for them to do. Since many priests had mistresses, celibacy was not a great deterrent to anyone considering priesthood because they knew they could break this rule with little consequence.

The seven crusades which followed the first were very similar in purpose to the First Crusade[16]. It became fashionable to do a crusade and with the promise of absolution from whichever pope was in power at that time (Urban II died just days after the first crusaders captured Jerusalem and before the letter saying so could reach him[17]) it seemed that a majority of people looked favourably upon the Crusades. When the first crusade was over, although Jerusalem was in the hand of Christians, the journey to Jerusalem was fraught with danger. The Turks were in control of many of the areas which people needed to cross in order to make the pilgrimage to Jerusalem. Crusades continued to many different parts of Asia, mostly focused on the Holy Land[18].

The Crusades were about land, power, and riches. Although the sincerity of many of the Crusaders can be questioned, there were almost certainly many of them who believed that they were truly doing God’s will. Very few people could read at this time and even fewer could read Latin, which was the language the Bible was in until 1382. They had no choice but to listen to what their social superiors told them. They were largely an uneducated populace who had been taught from birth to obey the nobles who had more knowledge about politics and religion. With more advanced technology and sufficient education who can know how many would have been able to see that the Crusades were nothing more than a desperate grab by the Church and Urban II to increase their influence and power.

The lack of technology contributed in a big way to the Crusades. The people could not research the issue by searching google or going to a library. They could not call their buddy in Jerusalem and ask him what was really happening there. Without technology propaganda released and spread by the government, or in this case the Church, was almost impossible for the average person to dispute with the formation of any real contra argument. The system of a monarch government also did not welcome critical thought by the masses or the investigation of their leaders. In traditional monarchies one was expected to listen to their superiors and do as they were instructed.

The lack for many Crusaders of any true Christian belief, is obvious in the continuous breaking of all things which Christians believe (do not murder, steal, rape, lie, etc, etc). This is evident in the multiple sacking of cities, many of which were Christian, which were then plundered for any riches and taken over by a high-ranking Crusader[19]. Consequently many Christians stayed on in these cities instead of continuing on in their crusade to free Jerusalem from the “savage” Moslems. The lack of true religion is also evident in the many bribes accepted by leaders of the Crusaders who would then proceed to flee back to their homes or find a new home where they could live in comfort. If these people were truly concerned about “God’s will” then they would not have fled until they completed their mission. Instead the true reason(s) for their involvement came to light when they deserted as soon as they had their riches. Along the path to Jerusalem, not only were Moslems, Turks, and Jews killed, but Christians as well. Clearly if this was purely a religious war you would not kill the people in your own religion.

If we look at the definition of a religious war as a war cause by religious differences we can see that this is only partially true for the Crusades. Multiple factors contributed to the Crusades, foremost being the most common cause of war, power. Religion was partly used as a facade to cover up the selfish actions of the leaders of the Crusades and yet it became a cause in that many of the Crusaders believed the religious facade. However, any religion which is based upon peace cannot be the real root of a war. Of course, religious texts can be interpreted in many different ways and our religion, as I have said before, influences our politics. Still we find that war is too multi-dimensional to be defined by any one cause, such as religion.

Northern Ireland

Compared to the Crusades, Northern Ireland seems like a rather tame example. The conflict in Northern Ireland is a more modern case of what is generally called a religious war (or conflict). If we just take it at face value and believe all of the western coverage of the conflict[20], it certainly seems to be that way. The two opposing sides are Protestants and Catholics. They live in different neighbourhoods, work different jobs, and worship in different churches. There seems to be a clean split between the Protestants and Catholics. However the problem is that religion is often so intertwined with ethnicity, race, nationality, culture, and most importantly, politics that it can sometimes cover up all of the rest of these issues. Yet, if we look deeper than first glance at Northern Ireland we see problems that go far beyond those of religion.

Ireland is Catholic and therefore Irish people are Catholic. Through trade with Britain the once rather isolated island was introduced to Christian thought. Through priests and bishops, most notably of course being St. Patrick, a large amount of people were converted to Catholicism. Why the Irish accepted Catholicism so wholeheartedly and still continue to embrace the Catholic faith is uncertain, but until this day the Republic of Ireland is almost totally Catholic and less than half of Northern Ireland is[21]. The whole of Ireland was once under control of the British but in 1921 the island was partitioned by the British and the Republic of Ireland, with the Republic of Ireland going under the rule of the Irish and Northern Ireland going to the British. The population of Northern Ireland fluctuates each year but the majority generally goes to the Protestants while Catholics make up a smaller portion of the population[22]. The Protestants, who are English, were happy with the partition because they could continue to be a part of the United Kingdom, a government under whom they lived as the upper class of Northern Ireland. The Irish in Northern Ireland, however, were the working class people who have suffered years of discrimination and oppression under the rule of the British[23]. Of course the partition was not of their choosing.

In the case of Northern Ireland, nationality, religion, and politics are so highly correlated that almost every person not born into a Catholic family is thus Protestant and therefore grows up to be a unionist. Every Irish child is born Catholic and will therefore grow up to be a nationalist. Because of this all of these words can be used interchangeably on either side; Protestant/British/unionist and Catholic/Irish/nationalist.

The real issue with Northern Ireland was the partition, which caused a lot of conflict and a period of time which is commonly referred to as “The Troubles”. During the Troubles there was a myriad of violence between the two opposing sides. Terrorism was rampant and there were many  riots and marches which ended in bloodshed. Northern Irish Catholics wanted to be a part of the Republic of Ireland or to be their own sovereign state; they did not, and still don’t, believe that the English had any genus of claim over Northern Ireland. The Protestants, on the other hand, wished to remain under British rule as it was beneficial to them. Under British rule, Protestants occupy the best jobs and get the best pay. Religion is really not even close to the issue in Northern Ireland, the root of the problem is land rights; who has the right to rule Northern Ireland? Both sides think that they are the best choice.

In conclusion, Northern Ireland is an extremely interesting example of what happens when two major groups with different nationalities, separated not only by race and culture but also by religion, inhabit one single country. Religion is not the reason for the violence in Northern Ireland but it certainly was a factor which helped to fan the flames of discontent and tension there. When two sides are so seemingly different and feel that they do not have anything in common, a discourse between their own respective religions cannot help to bring peace. Maybe if there had not been the history which exists between Catholics and Protestants the conflict in Northern Ireland would not have been as intense and could have ended sooner. I think that if it had been two religions which were more different it could have been better, but having two religions which are essentially brothers/sisters can cause people to find more fault in the other’s teachings and practices. Instead of finding common ground, which is rather large for Protestants and Catholics, they looked only at the differences.

Conclusion

On the continuum of war to religious war you can find every war in history. I started this paper thinking that there was no such thing as a religious war and that religion was only ever used as a cover for the real reasons. However, the more I did research and reflected on it the more I realized that our religion defines us, just as our culture does. Just like the influence of our culture we cannot take away the influence our religion has had on us, once we have been exposed to it. Since religion is a part of us it influences every aspect of our life, including politics. We may like to think that we are a secular society and so naturally our religious life is kept separate from our political life. On the contrary, as humans it is not possible to simply ignore what influences us, it is always with us.

Religion influences politics and since war is full of politics this means that religion also affects war[24]. This does not mean that a religious war is one that is fought because of the will of a higher power or some sort of higher purpose, religion simply teaches us and instils in us a moral compass unique to ourselves. Sometimes it is only certain aspects of a religious teaching which we may believe and which will affect us. In other instances it is our rejection of, or objection against, religion which affects us. For example, although you may not be practicing any religion, you still believe in protecting your family and so feel the need to go to war. Or perhaps a soldier knows that he is the provider of his family and finds that in the army he can make enough money to support his family.

The Crusades were on the higher end of this religious war continuum, closer to religious war than not. Firstly, the fact that it was called by a religious leader, whether or not his religious call was sincere makes it at least partly a religious war. Even if it was not the intention of every person, it was fought in order to fulfill “God’s will” and to free his people. Since people were relatively uneducated about their own religion (because of illiteracy and the scarcity of books, including the Bible) they simply assumed that, as the Pope called for the war, it must truly be God’s will. What reason did the people have to doubt someone appointed by God? Those who did not care about God’s will or even about having their sins absolved, whether or not they practiced any Christianity, were still affected by religion; even if they are affected by their rejection and/or objection to it. At this time the idea of secularism did not even exist[25] and so religion was so intertwined with politics that it was hard to distinguish between the two. Unlike then, in our time a religious leader could not call so many people to actual war (to distinguish from “spiritual war”) as they have relatively little power when it comes to political issues.

Northern Ireland, in contrast to the crusades, ranks lower on the religious war continuum.  The conflict in Northern Ireland was not called for by any religious leader. The purpose of the conflict in Northern Ireland was not to convert anyone nor was it officially seen as “God’s will”, although that may have been the thought of many people on either side of the conflict. It was the people’s will to either be a part of the United Kingdom or to become a sovereign state. In a time when secularism was the norm for industrialized nations it would have been almost impossible for either side of the conflict to declare war on the other because of religious differences (without any sort of intervention by outraged parties, e.g., UN, USA, republic of Ireland). As it was, war was not officially announced as it was by Pope Urban II in the case of the Crusades. The troubles were so commonplace to the population of Northern Ireland that the conflict was simply accepted as the way things were. The Irish/Catholics and Northern Irish/Protestants had never gotten along with each other; many people did not know that there was any other way to live.

However, because of the huge influence that religion had on both the Irish and the English in their everyday lives, it would be impossible to say that religion played no part in the conflict. Claiming it to be a purely religious quarrel, on the other hand, would be unrealistic and simplistic. War is cause by a myriad of factors and so it is impossible to pinpoint just one. In comparison to say, World War I and II, Northern Ireland and the Crusades are certainly more religious, in both origin and manifestation. Although the origin of the Crusades was religious the manifestation was less than. With Northern Ireland the origin was not necessarily religious and yet it was, by and large, manifested in such a way that it seemed to be a religious conflict.

I want to be clear that just because religion is present in any war does not make it a bad thing, nor does it make it something which we should do without. Religion helps many people bring meaning to their lives and, although it can sometimes provoke violence, it can also bring peace. Like our culture, religion is so human that we cannot take it away[26]. The problems generally come from either misunderstanding of what a religion teaches or intolerance, which is taught in some more strict and zealous religions. Maybe the answer to lowering the occurrence of religious conflict is not by taking religion away but by teaching tolerance to all people, no matter their religion.

In the examples of both the Crusades and Northern Ireland we see examples of wars in which religion was, in some way, part of the basis for violence and war. For the Crusades it was the religious institution itself which was to blame for starting the conflict while in Northern Ireland the religious institutions did not look favourably upon the conflict but the people were so religious that it aggravated the root causes of the conflict. Religion may have been used as a facade for the crusades and may have been assumed to be the problem with Northern Ireland because it was something that people could easily blame, but both have other issues at the root of their own particular conflict.

———-
Article photo: stgeorgegreenville.org
———-

---

[1] Emily A. Schultz et al., Cultural Anthropology: A Perspective on the Human Condition (Ontario: Oxford University Press, 2009), 161
[2] Jonathan Riley-Smith, The First Crusade and the Idea of Crusading (Philedelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1986), 13
[3] Terry Jones and Alan Ereira, Crusades (New York: Penguin Books, 1996), 9
[4] Ibid
[5] Terry Jones and Alan Ereira, Crusades (New York: Penguin Books, 1996), 9
[6] Ibid, 15
[7] American University, “The Muslim Period,” http://www1.american.edu/TED/hpages/jeruselum/muslim.htm
[8] Terry Jones and Alan Ereira, Crusades (New York: Penguin Books, 1996), 49
[9] Terry Jones and Alan Ereira, Crusades (New York: Penguin Books, 1996), 13
[10] Ibid, 16
[11] Terry Jones and Alan Ereira, Crusades (New York: Penguin Books, 1996), 32
[12] Ibid, 32
[13] Jonathan Riley-Smith, The Crusades (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2005), 4
[14] Christendom- the whole of the Christian people which made up a large majority of Europe during this time.
[15] Power in the sense that they could make people do what they wanted them to do.
[16] Norman Housley, Contesting the Crusades (Malden: Blackwell Publishing, 2006), 122
[17] Terry Jones and Alan Ereira, Crusades (New York: Penguin Books, 1996), 53
[18] Norman Housley, Contesting the Crusades (Malden: Blackwell Publishing, 2006), 122
[19] Terry Jones and Alan Ereira, Crusades (New York: Penguin Books, 1996), 32
[20] Lee Marsden and Heather Savigny, “Media, Religion and Conflict,” http://www.ashgate.com/pdf/SamplePages/Media_Religion_and_Conflict_Intro.pdf
[21] CAIN Web Service, “Background Information on Northern Ireland Society- Population and Vital Statistics,”  http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/ni/popul.htm
[22] Ibid
[23] Amanda Roraback’s World in a Nutshell, “Ireland,” http://www.worldinanutshell.com/Ireland.htm
[24] Free Essays, “The Influence of Religion on Society,” http://www.freeessays.cc/db/26/hte116.shtml
[25] New Advent, “Secularism- History,” http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13676a.htm
[26] Emily A. Schultz et al., Cultural Anthropology: A Perspective on the Human Condition (Ontario: Oxford University Press, 2009), 161

Popularity: 70%