A further complication is one's religion often reflects one's place in society. For example, when King Henry VIII of England made himself the head of the Church of England, it was more to steal lands held by the Catholic Church than any issue of dogma. One historian has made the comment that Henry's take over of the Catholic Lands of England was the largest land takeover in English history and may even represent the greatest government take over ever, outdoing in constant dollar terms, what England did after WWII when England nationalized whole industries.
100 years later, when the English Civil War broke out, the most "radical" supporters of Parliament against King Charles I were those landowners who could trace the ownership of their land to the take over of Catholic Lands by Henry VIII 100 years before (When Queen Mary, daughter of Henry VIII succeeded her Brother Edward VII, there was fears that as a Catholic she would return those lands to the Catholic Church, she said she would not and did not, but that fear lead to unrest under her rule and thus her need to handle such unrest harshly, thus her nick name "Bloody Mary", on a year to year basis she exceeded her father and her sister and successor Elizabeth, but in total both killed more for it is spread over decades not the four years Mary had to rule).
Oliver Cromwell was one of those land owners whose land had been part of the land belonging to a Catholic Monastery 100 years before. Thus he opposed Catholics getting back in control of England. On the other hand, Cromwell thought nothing of allying himself with Cardinal Mazarin of France in the fight between Spain in what is now Belgium and France. Cardinal Mazarin offered Cromwell Calais and Cromwell took up the offer and fought as Cardinal Mazarin's ally against a Spanish intervention in Calais (Mary had lost Calais just before her death and it had always been the main port between London and France, a few years after taking Calais, James II was back as king of England after the death of Oliver Cromwell and sold Calais to France, who has held it ever since). Thus Religion did not prevent Cromwell from being an ally of a Catholic Cardinal if it was to his country's benefit to be so allied.
I bring up Cromwell, for he opposed Catholicism in England more do to fear of losing his land then anything else. Thus Cromwell was a radical Puritan more out of self interest then religious belief. Like England, Scandinavia countries embraced Lutheranism (which was opposed by Henry VIII of England) mostly on the ground that it provided the ruling elite access to more land. Reform of the Church was a factor, but appears to be used as an excuse to steal those lands. When the reforms were mostly adopted under the Council of Trend in the 1560s, Sweden and the rest of Northern Europe refused to even acknowledge those reforms, for they fear was if they did, they may have to return the lands stolen from the Catholic Church back to the Catholic Church. The 30 years war of the early 1600s had more to do with the Catholic Church actually advancing into Lutheran territory and thus undermining those land claims (in the eyes of the owners of that land) then in an advance of Lutheranism into Catholic Territory (The Counter Reformation had started in the 1560s and was making good inroads into protestant lands by 1600).
Notice the actual "Religious War" that is now known as the 30 years war, had more to do with a feeling of insecurity of land ownership then anything to do with actual religious dogma. You threaten to take someone's home from them (even indirectly makes such a threat even if you do NOT ever intend to do so), you will find those home owners embracing anyone who says they have the absolute right to own they home. This appears to explain the Lutheran's movement against the Counter Reformation and the later, Danish and Swedish interventions (and that the fight was secular not religious is confirmed by the later Catholic French Intervention on the side of the Protestants).
Religion defined each side in the 30 years war (till the French Intervention) but the reason both sides were fighting was rarely religious. Issue of permanency of land titles seems to have been the start, but then who was to be Emperor of Germany was also a factor (and what power the Emperor was to have).
You see the same in the fight between the Shiite and the Sunni Moslems. The Shiites are mostly Shiite for they have had trade and other dealings with Iran for centuries and as Iran embraced Shiitism, they embraced Shiitism. The Alawites of Syria retain elements of Zoroastrianism (the older religion of Iran), Christianity and Shiite Islam do to the fact they were the middle man between Iran and the Christian West. i.e. Alwaitism reflects the trading partners of Assad and his tribe more then their religious dogma.
Given this situation, it is like Denmark intervening in Germany to help their fellow Lutherans int he 30 year war of the 1600. Denmark did NOT intervene because they were Lutherans but that they were trading partners of Denmark (and this explained the later intervention by Sweden and even France into the 30 year war). One of the reason Northern Germany, Denmark and Sweden embraced Lutheranism is that they were all trading partners of each other, thus as one went the others followed. Religion thus followed trade, not trade religion.
We see this again in the Shiites of the Middle East, the traditional trading partners of Shiites tend to be other Shiites but if you trace the trade back it goes back to trade with Iran.
Thus, like the fight between Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland starting in the late 1960s. Religion defined both sides, but the religion was NOT the cause of the dispute, but each religion reflected the business connections of both groups. The Protestant (mostly Presbyterians i.e the Reform Church NOT Lutherans OR Church of England) tended to be upper middle class people AND working class people who have long worked in northern Ireland for such Middle Class business men. The Catholics tended to be recently (last 100 years) ex peasants who moved to the poorer parts of Northern Ireland to find work. The Protestants tended to pick people most like themselves for they had been dealing with such people for centuries. The ex-peasants were people who were hired under the old rule "last hired, first fired" i.e. hired if no one else was available. Thus the Catholics ended up with the poorest paying jobs with the least job security, while Protestants tended to use their network of friends to get better paying jobs with higher job security.
This resulted in massive discrimination against Catholics in Northern Ireland, NOT because of Religion, but because they were NOT viewed as a separate people. Religion ended up being an excuse and a way to identify the "Enemy" not as the actual grounds for discrimination.
Now, Religion was brought up in Northern Ireland, as it is being done in the Middle East, but no one wanted people to be converted, the Protestant Irish hated the Catholic Irish, not because the later was Catholic, but they had been peasants. The same with the Sunni and Shiites, the Sunnis hate the Shiite NOT because they later is Shiite but because they are allied with Iran.
Given that for the last 20 or so years, Iran and Saudi Arabia have been fighting each other, the Sunni - Shiite divide has become another part of the battle field between those two nations. As a religious dispute it is a minor problem, as part of the fight over who should control the Middle East it is an important part of the battle field.
In times of crisis people fall back on their clansmen, for in a pinch blood is stronger then dogma. In the Shiite-Sunni divide (like the Irish Catholic-Protestant divide) religion reflect blood lines in addition to dogma and as things go bad, families pull together and act as one. One way that is seen is difference in religions disappear as the family embrace one religion (or other world viewed). In Ireland, you remained Protestant or Catholic for that is who you had to fall back on when things went bad for you. The same with the Sunni-Shiite divide, clans tend to demand conformity, and thus in the Middle East your tribe (and this your support group) determines your religion. That support group also expects its members to support each other i.e. if the group decides it time to fight, you fight with them even if you oppose the fight.
My point is the Middle East crisis has more to do with family supporting fellow family members AND people they deal with then religion. On the other hand Religion often defines one's support group and thus sides tend to be named after the religion of that side NOT what the side is fighting for. Thus Catholics and Protestants have lived next to each other for centuries in Europe for Religion is NOT something divisive in and by itself but reflects some other division in society. Once those other divisions were resolved (i.e. no one was taking any one's else's property do to their religion) then religion no longer divides people. On the other hand if the cause of those divisions continues to exist, then religion will be used as a label for each side of the dispute. In the middle east, we are seeing a fight between the House of Saud and Iran and people are being forced to take sides. One way to show your side is to embrace being a Shiite or a Sunni. Thus religion is being used as a label in the present dispute in the Middle East, but the actual dispute is the Secular dispute between the House of Saud and Iran over who controls the Middle East.
= new reply since forum marked as read
