Celtic Christianity and also what The U.S. Can Take Away from Conflict Resolution in Northern Ireland

So I lied when I said my next stop would be Dublin. Today we went to Glendalough, an ancient monastic site and pilgrammage destination in Wicklow that showed a lot of characteristics of Celtic Christianity. This site was extremely old, and I'm not sure exactly when it was founded, but on the subject of old age there was one thing our guide showed us that was incredible. There was a gravestone of a man burried there who died at 106. He was young when Cromwell's armies were ravaging Ireland, and lived almost long enough to see America successfully break free from tyrany.

There were 12 different churches in this small area so that there would be one to suite everyone's taste. Our guide was talking about how people today would never build churches right next to each other, I thought in my head, he's right, but we would build a Starbucks right next to a Starbucks. There are also wells that people used to hold sacred because they related to "mother earth". Our lecturer and tour guide, Marcus, showed us all over the area as he has written a book about it with the help of a local priest. He reminded us that there is nothing new about Christianity, but there is everything old. He showed us these old traits like a belief that everything natural is holy and described the way the people of this area regarded the world around them. He also told us that there are fairies and leprachauns all around us we just have to open our third eye to see them (he was quite a character).

One building Marcus showed us was the Church for Women, where women could go to worship and escape abuse and patriarchy. Early Celtic Christianity held women in high regard because of the view of the earth having feminie traits. He said that women were not priests in these days but they were bishops and abbesses which were more important. One can barley believe this when looking at the Catholic Church today. He explained his idea of how modern day Christianity can sometimes "crucify creativity" and turn many followers away. Marcus was a really interesting guy, he also lives next to Daniel Day Lewis!

We also had a talk from Ian White, another one of the big shots at Glencree. He recently returned from Kabul where he had been working on resolving ethnic violence which has been much more of a problem in Afghanistan than the Taliban. He explained the methods they are encouraging in the mid-east based on his experience with conflict resolution in the Northern conflict. Ian was a Unionist, the first one I have ever met. I was a little ashamed of my immediate reflex of distrust towards him when he began talking about how he supported the union with Great Britain especially in his younger years. He described himself as British, not Irish, and loyal to the Queen. I quickly realized that this was a terribly ignorant way to respond to anyone, let a lone a man who has made conflict resolution his life's work.

Ian was born and raised in Belfast to a Protestant family. His father was a police officer (the Royal Ulster Constabulary had and still somewhat has a bad reputation for policing the two sectarian communities in the North differently, favoring Protestants) and his mother was, as he described her, a biggot. He was brought up to distrust Catholics and believed they were trying to ruin his identity. He wanted desperatley to help the older Protestant volunteers in Belfast, but that was where his family drew the line. He described one event of being dragged away from a barricade that was keeping the opposition out of his neighborhood by his Mother. He seemed to think of the event as funny now, being dragged away by his mother in front of hardened paramilitaries, and it was a turning point in his life. If he wasn't going to be aloud to defend his community against the subversive Catholics, he was going to meet as many Catholics as he could and try to figure out what they were all about. Well long story short he ended up marrying one of those Catholics and is still married with four kids, but as he described, "she won the kids, meaning they're all Catholic." I though that line was pretty funny, showing that he can now have a friendly rivalry with his wife along the same lines he would have been disgusted with her years ago. He also described the hate and ditrust he encountered from his own community for crossing sectarian lines, and eventually decided it best to move to the Republic. I can't imagine going through something like that, told by people whom you used to be friends with, admire, worship with, to leave your home because of someone you love. He described the decision to leave the North, ultimatley, as a good thing, because he was then able to get involved with Glencree.

I apologize for going on and on, but bear with me because I think the main point of Ian's talk is applicable to many situations in the world especially ones facing the U.S. He talked of how we can not be surprised when marginalized people act violent. He used examples of his work with deadly gangs in the slums of Haiti. They would kidnap children from school playgrounds and and hold them hostage, demanding the school to pay them money. The schools eventually shut down. They terrorized their community and made even places like public health centers a dangerous area. The reason for this unthinkable behavior was because the gang members themselves had never recieved an education. How were they expected to value a school, and ensure it's status as a safe zone if they never knew the benefits schools could have on their lives and the lives of their children? They also were not allowed care in the public health centers they made into war-zones, therefore what would they care about the well being of the health center. When peace building representatives sat down and talked to the gang leaders and asked them if they would like to be admitted to these health centers, or if they would like to be reintegrated into many other aspects of society they responded yes. Ian told us of how the gangs then basically turned their guns in immediatley.

This approach goes against the popular approach employed by the U.S. and many other governments in conflicts worldwide. We go into violent situations and ask combatants to disarm and then we will reintegrate them. Why would these people want to disarm against a society that is excluding them? Would you want to put down a gun if you were fighting a government that does not allow you to even come to the table when making a peace agreement? Ian and the Glencree organization think it best to first reintegrate and eventually the reason for a gun fades. This is how they did things in Northern Ireland, and it has seemed to work, and again, Glencree goes on experience of their own situation rather than scholarly theory.

U.S. Senator George Mitchell, who was heavily involved in the peace agreement in NI is famous for saying something along the lines of people need to first seek a disarming of the mind, then they will see a disarming of guns, by way of rust. I see this as true, however difficult it may be, and we will never know unless we begin to incorporate more peaceful dialogue into our foreign policy, rather than as Ron Paul describes, "sabre rattling".

A story that Ian shared with us, again involving the U.S. is one he experienced the St. Patrick's Day he was invited to the White House. He considered it a great honor and respects the U.S. a great deal despite his sometimes disagreeing with our foreign policy. He told us of the picture he has hanging on his wall of him shaking the hand of President George W. Bush. He is shaking Bush's hand with his right hand and sternly pointing his index finger at him with his left. He paraphrased what he said to President Bush. He thanked him for his influence and the U.S. influence as a whole on ending sectarian conflict in NI, making it clear that without our help, it may have never ended. But he also spoke sternly to him and asked him what sense it makes to not sit down with other combatants worldwide as the U.S. did in NI, and achieved great succes, creating a somewhat stable power sharing government.

I feel like this same diplomatic sentiment is expressed by many people around the world and they are scorned by many and seen as friendly to terrorists. However this is deeply offensive, and wrong. The peaceful way is never easy, and is not simply about giving out free hugs and giving in to violence and intimidation. Peace activists, such as the ones at Glencree attack their work with the same fervor, aggresivness, and passion for freedom as let's say, the military, and because they favor diplomatic dialogue over physical force does not make them less credible or wimpy in the face of terror. Ian described one time when he brought a former IRA man to Haiti to talk to gang members. When the former combatant told them that he had been imprisoned for bombing, the gang leaders got excited and thought that was pretty cool. They asked him if he could teach them to make bombs too, he replied, "Yeah I will. I'm gonna teach you how to make peace bombs."

-Thanks for reading
Tom