For me, Cal doesn't seem like a very religious person. So my question is: If there was no religious influence on the northern-irish conflict, would Cal or especially his friends act the way they do? Or the other way round: If they were really religious, were they still able to kill or to commit all the other crimes?

Thats a very nice question: I especial would like to answer your second question: Yes, they would kill even more for there point of view, then they did at the moment, because they would belive, that there task is given by god, like the crusades or the martyr belived (or still belive). If it would be more than a fight against the brits, a fight against a religion, there would be a adult (?) civil war. A killer would think, because he/she act's on behalf of god, no penalty will get from god but rather he/she will find reward in paradise.

I think we can't really compare the crusades to the members of the IRA, because the crusades fought against an other religion, the IRA-members fight against an other confession. I would agree that the religion wouldn't stop them, but I can not imagine that they would kill more people. The Protestants basically believe in the same God as the catholics, so that wouldn't work as a base for a religious war. It's all about politics ;)

Well, lets get back to the topic of Cal. In the novel he seems to be religious in terms of "going to church", oftentimes religion is referenced in his thought process. His actions on the other hand do not seem to be influenced majorly by his belief in one special kind of god in some special kind of way. I'd definitely agree with Jonas and say that the motives have a rather political than religious basis.
In the Northern Ireland conflict the two confessions, Catholics and Protestants have developed into political parties, the Nationalists and Loyalists.
Didn't that happen because the Irish were mainly Catholic and the British "invaders" mainly protestant? I believe so. That would at least explain the "policizied" confessions of Christianity.

Small differences between religious confessions always sufficed for violent conflicts. (Between protestants and catholics the base of differences worked very often as explanation for wars.) You can't make this clear cut between religion und politics.
Northern Ireland is a modern society, therefore the religious differences are not the key reasons, but the religion has a big influence as dividing factor, which enhances the gap between the two groups and exacerbates a rapprochement.
The conflict in its core is not really a confession war, but it follows a ideological logic, which seems kind of religious.

The attitude of the IRA is affected by the religious feeling of beeing justified for violence. This holy war of the IRA for a united Ireland shares some motives of the crusades, who also chased the "infidel oppressor".
In Cal this attitude is shown in the lesson by the priest, when he say: "There is such a thing as righteous anger", while the punishment of the "sinner".

Cal is not religious in the core meaning, but he internalized the Christian believing of moral supremacy. This helps Cal/ IRA to legitimize his deeds as unavoidably.

The conflict in Northern Ireland itself isn't a conflict between the different confessions. It's a conflict between two social groups with a different social status. I totally understand the wish for independence from the United Kingdom. But of course the methods are not the right ones.
I agree with J.J.J. that you can compare the behavior of the IRA to the crusades. I also think that people are willing to do anything if they believe it's the right thing (or in this case a task given by God). And I think the history is a good of example for the brutality Catholics are using to reach their aims. So I guess that being more religious would be a reason to commit even more crimes because they would be convinced their God gave them this task.
But in Cal it's not the religion that influences Cal and his friends. The different religions are only the nicknames of the two groups, the Republicans and the Loyalists. It's a consequence of the history of Ireland that this two groups are accidentally divided in Catholics and Protestants. But of course the fact that it is like that, gives the IRA an apparent reason for their actions. But in my opinion this influence of the religion is quite small. In reality it is all about the social conflict.

Zitat

---

Small differences between religious confessions always sufficed for violent conflicts. (Between protestants and catholics the base of differences worked very often as explanation for wars.) You can't make this clear cut between religion und politics.
Northern Ireland is a modern society, therefore the religious differences are not the key reasons, but the religion has a big influence as dividing factor, which enhances the gap between the two groups and exacerbates a rapprochement.
The conflict in its core is not really a confession war, but it follows a ideological logic, which seems kind of religious.

The attitude of the IRA is affected by the religious feeling of beeing justified for violence. This holy war of the IRA for a united Ireland shares some motives of the crusades, who also chased the "infidel oppressor".
In Cal this attitude is shown in the lesson by the priest, when he say: "There is such a thing as righteous anger", while the punishment of the "sinner".

Cal is not religious in the core meaning, but he internalized the Christian believing of moral supremacy. This helps Cal/ IRA to legitimize his deeds as unavoidably.

---

I did not at all mean to make a clear cut between politics and religion. Your statement sounds absolutely reasonable and I actually agree with you on most of your point. In the novel and in the whole Northern Ireland Conflict religion is a dividing factor, I was looking for a term like that. Their confession influences the idiologies of the loyalists and nationalists and helps with the justification of violent actions against the other party.

I think I agree with most of you when I say religion is not the main point in this conflict. But it also isn't a matter of political parties or social differences. In my opinion, mainly the ethnical differences are the crucial reason for this conflict. There are living two nationalities in Northern Ireland (well, at this point we could discuss if the “british” nationality really is a nationality), which don't have a good history concerning the relations between them. Especially the british don't really have a clean record. That they have different religions is just a fact, which the leaders of the conflict parties can use for their propaganda to influence their followers. Also that the two groups have an different political view (republicans <->royalists), is not important. To say it the other way around: Even if both parties would be for example catholics, and also Ireland would be a kingdom like Great Britain, the conflict would still exist.
To come back to Jonas' question: Cal and his "friends" aren't very religious, even if they say it. With the identity “catholic”, they just can define themselves more from the “brits”. But, like others before mentioned, to be religious doesn't prevent from using violence, often the violence is even legitimated by religion.

Even if the social differences or the political parties aren't the crucial point, I would say that they still are an (important) factor. But I would agree with you that the ethnical differences are the main problem. And I would totally agree to what you wrote about the "catholic identity"! I think that's the best explanation for the role of the religion in the whole conflict .

I also agree with the fact, that religion isn't the main problem here.
But to go back to the first question: Yes, they would kill, even if they weren't religious. The religion doesn't effect their deeds in my opionion but the justification of their deeds - as Jonathan already mentioned - their trying to legetimatize their deeds.
And that's also the basis for the other way around - if they weren't religious at all they'd still kill for their (not religious, but political) believes. Maybe some of them would hesitate a bit longer because they had no religious wall to hide their real intentions behind, but they'd still have their believes, which they would fight for either way.

One thing to Julz: you said it wouldn't be a matter of "political parties or social differences", but of "ethnical differences" - political and social differences are simply a consequence of the ethnical differences, aren't they? I don't really think you can seperate this clearly.
There were already ethnical differences leading to social differences back when the British "conquered" Northern Ireland. And out of these ethnical and social differences the political differences evolved. And now all of this together with the fact, that there are two confessions precisely defining both sides, is quite an awkward mixture - don't you think?

To answer to Nena's statement: I also think that political and social differences are a consequence of the ethical differences. Because of the Brits being Protestants, the original Irish people have been discriminated for being Catholics. The British people took this advantage and domineered over the Irish. Then the British made sure they got the best land and the best jobs, so they had a higher social level than the Catholics. This is the reason for the still lasting social conflict which of course effects also a political conflict.
Therefore the Northern Ireland conflict is a ethical, social and political problem.