Garvaghy Road: Two Natures, One Choice – What Are We Feeding?
There is a short but powerful poem, attributed to an unknown author, which seems particularly relevant to the recent events surrounding Garvaghy Road and Drumcree.
“TWO NATURES” — Anonymous
“Two natures beat within my breast,
The one is foul, the one is blessed,
The one I love, the one I hate,
The one I feed will dominate.”
The above four simple lines contain a profound truth about human nature, personal responsibility and the choices we make. Perhaps they also offer a timely lesson for everyone involved in the continuing Garvaghy Road dispute.
For nearly thirty years, Drumcree has represented far more than a disagreement over a parade route. It has become entangled with identity, religious tradition, community rights, historical grievances and painful memories.
The recent decision by the Parades Commission to permit a restricted Orange Order parade, the opposition of local residents supported by Sinn Féin, and the subsequent intervention by the Secretary of State have demonstrated how easily old wounds can be reopened.
But beyond the legal decisions, political statements and protests lies a deeper moral question. What kind of society are we choosing to feed? Are we feeding resentment, suspicion, bitterness and the determination to defeat the other? Or are we feeding understanding, restraint, compassion, mutual respect and the courage to seek reconciliation?
The Orange tradition carries deep historical, cultural and religious significance for those who belong to it. That deserves recognition.
Equally, the people of Garvaghy Road have their own history, identity, dignity and deeply held concerns about what happens within their community. That deserves recognition too.
Recognising one does not require dismissing the other. Sinn Féin, like every political party, has a legitimate responsibility to represent its supporters. But political leadership also requires ensuring that strong convictions do not become obstacles to understanding or deepen the fears of others.
The same responsibility applies to unionist representatives and the leadership of the Orange Order. The Parades Commission faces the difficult task of balancing competing rights, responsibilities and public concerns. Its decisions may properly be supported, criticised or legally challenged.
Yet an important distinction remains: The law may determine what is permitted, but conscience must also ask what is wise, compassionate and conducive to peace.
That question applies to everyone. Surely Christian faith calls us to something better than continuing confrontation.
The Apostle Paul reminds us (in Galatians Chapter 5) of the struggle between the flesh and the Spirit. Among the fruits of the Spirit are love, peace, patience, kindness, gentleness and self-control.
These are not simply admirable words to proclaim on a given Sunday. They must be demonstrated in our relationships with neighbours, especially those with whom we disagree. After all, if we claim to uphold Christian principles, they should be visible in how we treat others.
A Christian witness is not strengthened by provoking fear, humiliating neighbours or insisting that one community’s dignity must come at another’s expense.
Nor is lasting peace built through threats, intimidation or inflammatory language from any quarter. Peace requires more than the absence of violence. It requires the presence of mutual respect.
There is a particular responsibility upon Sinn Féin, Unionist Political Leaders, the Orange Order, the Parades Commission, Churches and Community Representatives to contribute constructively to a more peaceful society.
Words matter. Attitudes matter. The examples we set matter. Every inflammatory statement feeds something. Every gesture of understanding feeds something else and over time, what we repeatedly feed becomes stronger.
The lesson of Garvaghy Road should not be that one community must triumph over another. Neither can build a better future while remaining imprisoned within the divisions of the past. That does not mean abandoning convictions, ignoring historical wrongs or dismissing genuine fears. It means recognising that conviction without compassion can become stubbornness, tradition without sensitivity can become provocation, and rights without corresponding responsibilities can damage relationships.
There is no dishonour in listening, no disgrace in compromise and no weakness in choosing reconciliation over confrontation.
Sometimes the greatest demonstration of strength is the willingness to refrain from something because we recognise the hurt it may cause another.
Garvaghy Road presents a choice reaching far beyond Portadown. Do we genuinely want a shared future, or merely a continuation of old divisions?
The poet leaves us with a warning: “The one I feed will dominate.” That is true of individuals, political parties, institutions, churches and communities. It is true of Northern Ireland. If we continue feeding division, division will flourish. But if we nurture understanding, humility, mutual respect and reconciliation, something better may finally take root. And for those professing Christian faith, loving our neighbour was never intended to mean loving only those who share our traditions, politics or interpretation of history. It means loving our neighbour even when we disagree.
So perhaps the most important question concerning Garvaghy Road is not who will prevail. It is simply this; Which nature are we feeding? Are we feeding the divisions of yesterday, or the reconciliation that tomorrow so desperately needs?
Beautifully caught, beautifully expressed and laid bare, the true challenge to all.
Christ states very clearly in Mat 5: 43-48 that loving your neighbour is not enough, loving your enemy is the essence of His command to us Christians.
How are we deluding ourselves?
What are we doing to grow to being loving neighbours, brothers and sisters?
When appointed leaders won’t lead, those who can see must.
Gerry
It’s nothing to do with Christianity, it’s about a sectarian order filled with historical hatred of Catholics and the Gaels being prevented from marching down a non sectarian and non racist residential street in occupied Ireland. For almost 30 years there was no tension, but then the Order of Hate decided to reignite the old days of orange dominance by attempting to march down a road they knew would create tensions.
Protestants and Catholics get on well in the North of Ireland and the rest of Ireland these days. There was no need to drag Ireland back to the days of sectarianism. That’s all this was. The Orange Order is sectarian. Its the equivalent of the Ku Klux Klan and has ties with racist groups. The Order was created on division. The Republic is a symbol of unity, this is the difference. Its nothing to do with Christianity, its to do with one section of community reaching out to reclaim its old bitter dominance over an indigenous peoples. But this indigenous peoples welcomes all people as equal, whether they be Christian, Muslim, Jew, Hindu, Pagan, Buddhist, or no religious. The Garvaghy Road is a symbol of unity, the Orange order is a symbol of division. We do not want to return to ways of the Orange order. The only way is forward equality and unity for all the people of Ireland.
Sir.
You argue that this dispute has nothing to do with Christianity. In terms of its immediate political and historical origins, I accept much of your point. However, my article was not suggesting that Christianity caused this dispute or that religious belief should determine who may march along Garvaghy Road.
Rather, I was asking a different question: How should those who profess Christian values behave when confronted with disagreement, resentment and historical injustice?
Surely, Christianity cannot simply be something we invoke when defending our own traditions, while forgetting its fundamental teachings concerning compassion, humility, forgiveness and love of neighbour.
You describe the Orange Order as an organisation founded upon division. Its history, including its association with Protestant ascendancy and the exclusion of Catholics from membership, is certainly relevant to understanding why its presence can provoke such deeply held objections.
However, I would respectfully question whether comparing every member of the Orange Order to the Ku Klux Klan contributes anything constructive to a discussion about building a genuinely shared society. We can examine and condemn historical discrimination without assuming that every individual associated with an organisation necessarily shares every prejudice attributed to its past.
You also make an important observation when you say that Protestants and Catholics generally enjoy much better relationships today than in previous generations. Surely that progress is something all reasonable people should wish to preserve.
But reconciliation cannot simply mean that one community’s interpretation of history must prevail and another community’s traditions must disappear. Equally, respect for tradition cannot justify disregarding the legitimate concerns and dignity of people living along a particular parade route.
The right to express cultural identity and the right of residents to live without intimidation both deserve serious consideration. Neither right exists without responsibilities.
Indeed, it is worth remembering that the recent Parades Commission decision permitted only a highly restricted procession, involving no more than 35 participants and no accompanying bands or supporters. That decision was subsequently overturned by the Secretary of State following serious concerns about public safety.
These facts illustrate the difficult balance between competing rights, public safety and historical sensitivities. They do not, by themselves, settle the deeper question of how neighbouring communities might eventually reach an accommodation.
You state that the Republic represents unity and that the people of Garvaghy Road welcome individuals of every faith and none. Those are admirable aspirations. But surely genuine equality and inclusion must extend to people whose political allegiances, cultural identities and religious traditions differ from our own, even when we profoundly disagree with them.
That does not require anyone to surrender their rights, forget historical injustices or accept a procession they consider provocative. It simply means recognising that lasting reconciliation requires listening as well as speaking, and understanding as well as remembering.
One particular statement in your reply struck me: “The only way is forward equality and unity for all the people of Ireland.”
On that principle, I believe we are in complete agreement.
But equality and unity cannot be achieved merely by identifying those whom we believe have been responsible for division. They must also be demonstrated in the language we use, the attitudes we encourage and the willingness we show to recognise the humanity of those with whom we disagree.
That, fundamentally, was the purpose of my original article.
I was not seeking to decide who should win the argument over Garvaghy Road. I was asking whether, after generations of bitterness and suffering, we might finally begin measuring progress not by who prevails over whom, but by how successfully we learn to live together.
I return, therefore, to the little poem which inspired my article:
“Two natures beat within my breast,
The one is foul, the one is blessed,
The one I love, the one I hate,
The one I feed will dominate.”
The challenge applies to the Orange Order, to political representatives, to residents, to commentators and, indeed, to myself.
We cannot change yesterday, but we can choose what attitudes we carry into tomorrow.
If we genuinely believe in equality, dignity and unity for all the people of Ireland, surely those principles must guide not only the future we seek, but also the manner in which we speak about one another today.
That is not an argument for forgetting the past. It is an argument for refusing to allow the past to dictate our future.
Thank you again for your contribution.