Reasons Why Religion is Not the Cause

First, I examine McGarry's and O'Leary's reasons for rejecting the contention that religion is at the core of the conflict, then I suggest reasons, drawing on Mitchell (2005), for suggesting that religion plays a more significant role than merely marking the boundary between the two communities. McGarry and O'Leary, of course, get religion off the hook, giving Dawson the thumbs down. They suggest that it is because religion is a key marker that people attach more significance to religion than it deserves (McGarry and O'Leary 1995: 212) which in their view detracts attention away from the political actors, absolving ‘political agents of responsibility’ (McGarry and O'Leary 1995: 213). Rather, the two communities are ‘divided by broader cultural differences, national allegiances, histories of antagonistic encounters, and marked differences of economic and political power’ (McGarry and O'Leary 1995: 172). I shall argue that religion is not neutral in any of the above but gives content to and was often the prime mover behind these ‘broader cultural differences’. Criticizing Steve Bruce, a supporter of the view that ‘the Northern Ireland conflict is a religious conflict’, McGarry and O'Leary suggest that sociologists of religion, ‘over-ambitious to apply their insights’, should be more cautious in doing so (1995: 200–201; see Bruce: 1986). In this instance, they are critical of how Bruce interpreted electoral data to overemphasize the popularity of the more hard-line Democratic Unionist Party, whose support in the 1980's ranged from 13 to 20%.