People love to hate. It gives a sense of purpose to purposeless lives, a sense of community to the strife-riven, power to the powerless, and a false sense of superiority to the inferior. It's all too easy to hate, sadly.

It is sad. Except for plain bellied Sneetches. Those guys are tools.

Hey look, that guy over there is the same as us in every way except that he has blue eyes. We hate people with blue eyes. Let's get them.

Its red hair , and gingers are evil.

Yep, they all have volatile tempers.

There is nothing wrong with feeling hate or anger, granted one does not let it unreasonably influence or bias decision making, angry/hateful behavior is almost always not good. But because most people cannot and do not handle feeling hate or anger well, either because they cannot manage it or because it burdens them, it is better to 'let it go' the best one can.

There are productive outlets for hate and anger... My German Grandfather from Germany who made a career in the US Navy let anger help inspire him to ask to be assigned to the European theater. He hated almost everything about the 'nazis' and about what they did to his home despite comfortably considering himself an American.

it was NOT a religious conflict between Catholics and Protestants. It was between pro-Irish unity and pro-UK forces. It just so happened the pro-Irish were Catholic, and the pro-UK were protestants.

The roots go back centuries, and identity is at the heart of the conflict - both religious and cultural. You're right in the sense that the conflict isn't centered around religious doctrine, but you're wrong in that for centuries people have identified as either Protestant or Catholic and that has been the main determinant on which side of the conflict people fell. If it were simply a union vs republic argument, the argument would have centered more on the relative economic and administrative benefits of belonging with one country or the other.

James VI of Scotland (James I of England) granted land to presbyterians for plantation use by protestants, mainly in the six counties in the northeast. During the industrial age, protestants became factory owners and managers - Catholics in the south, kept ignorant by the church, migrated to the steelworks, mines, rope factories, and ship building (Harland and Wolf). In 1922, the six counties remained British and the rest went to de Valera in the Irish Free State.
Economically, Ireland suffered but the six counties in the north prospered and more jobs were filled by low-skilled, low education Catholics migrating northward. These people were, in the main, treated badly by the ruling Protestant class, including disenfranchisement.
In 1969, Protestants organized to strike terror in the hearts of Catholics, including removing all the police from the streets before the violence started. The British were initially welcomed by the Catholics until Bloody Sunday and then the British Army became a target of the IRA.
It was all about Irish unification vs remaining with Crown. If nothing else, NI unemployment benefits were superior to Irish unemployment benefits.

The word "protestant" is a proper noun. Is your failure to capitalize the word an intentional insult?

King James is one of the reasons so many of America's early settlers were Scottish and Irish.

Ahh now you are showing your religious bias.

Scottish, Irish, and Scotch Irish.

Read the entire comment before jumping to conclusions.

Lets also not forget the gerrymandering and the way elections in general where run that were used by the ruling Protestants to suppress the Catholics that highly out numbered them.

Thank you so much for your assertion about relevant history, sir.

I've never been to Ireland, but every time I've heard someone from Ulster talking about the troubles, the terms used are 'Catholic' and 'Protestant'.

just looking at the conflict in the simplest of terms

You aren't using the simplest of terms. You're using inaccurate terms.

how so? Was the conflict about what country N. Ireland would belong to or was it about what religion N. Ireland would be?

Ask any ordinary bloke from either side, they will tell you it was Protestant v. Catholic.

The same hate was spoken here in the U.S. when President Kennedy was running for office. One of the primary opposition lies was that if Kennedy was elected, the Pope would run America.

We've seen a Catholic and a Black hold the high office, will someone of the Jewish faith ever be elected?

Least we forget, the Catholics were assinated-- both John and Robert.

It was about nothing but blind hatred and stupidity, with religion as the excuse. There was no organized armed struggle advocating separation from the UK than there is advocating separation from Israel. The goal was terror and annihilation. That, my friend, is something quite different from America's, Kenya's or India's struggle to separate.

You are just looking at the conflict from a position of complete ignorance, as you demonstrate in a later comment when you use the term "provo" to refer to pro-union terrorists. "Provos" was a nickname for the IRA, not the other side.

Saying that religion had nothing to do with the conflict in northern Ireland is absurd, and shames the memory of the thousands who suffered and died through it.

It is only by being honest about the root causes of violent conflict can we learn from it. Your assertions are whitewashing the role religious identity played: it was not the sole element of the conflict (I will grant you that)., but it was fundamental in creating and fueling it.

To those who have agreed with Mark P: you are not being well served by the simplistic assertions he is making.

Exactly, and make no mistake, that learned hate goes back centuries.

Most religion involves hate. I know of only one which does not: The Society of Friends.

where did I say terrorism was not involved? Please cut and paste

For some reason, he enjoys proving himself to be mendacious and duplicitous.

He likes starting argument -- it is one of his favorite time wasters.

No, you are just making stuff up.

I don't agree with Mark P either, but you manage in two short sentences to misrepresent his argument and drag the conversation off topic. Well done, in a way.

As an Irishman, your claim is simply denying the reality of the Ireland I grew up in. I've no idea on what basis you are making this claim, or could make it.

Yes, it is true that both sides had differing political aims: but to claim that the religion was not integral to the conflict is nonsense. In the Ireland I grew up in, Northern Protestant and Catholic children were segregated into different schools which fueled the divide.The daily violence that was part of the Ireland I grew up in (and had occasional close calls with when I visited Belfast) was explicitly sectarian: people were shot because they came from a Catholic or Protestant area. They weren't asked about their political views first.

Are you joking?

no. What were they fighting over? The pro-Irish wanted to be part of the Republic of Ireland, and the pro-british wanted to stay part of the UK. THAT is what they were fighting over

Funny thing about that is the Republic of Ireland is almost as much of a religious State as is Israel.

But religious identity became the badge by which sides were identified and people identified as the other. Religious schools fueled the tribalism and hatred, and political leaders (such as Ian Paisley) fanned the flames of hatred by appealing to religious identity.

You keep saying that it wasn't a religious conflict over and over again, but you offer no evidence at all. Did you live there? I did.

Well, I guess if one goes by that logic, we can argue that the war on terrorism is not a religious conflict, and it just so happens the warring parties have their religious affiliations.

No it is not a religious conflict. The US could care a hill of beans about another country's religion. It is a war on terror because certain people who happen to be Muslim flew planes into the World Trade Center killing almost 3k Americans.

I heard it was all over guinness vs pale ale

Just so happened ... if you say so. That particular fact could not possible had to do with the unity question. No, religious fueled hate had nothing to do with it -- Right, and the Pope is a Hassidic Rabbi.

What sense does that make? I don't agree with him but I also don't have reading comprehension problems.

what allusion?

The say ignorance is bliss.

The usual suspects all agree.

Yes christians of all stripes must unite to defeat this great evil.

I doubt you've ever met a real Christian. Then again, I know I'm not one - I just try and on my good days come slightly closer than on my bad days.

I have know one, and only one, true Christian. He was Hindu.

Christianity is a way of life, not a religion. If you believe otherwise, you have been duped.

It is not about believing a man is a god. It is about following his teachings.

A chirstian is simply one that believes in christ. They can be good or bad or hypocritical.

Prime example of the evil called religion. It teaches hate.