I was writing more generally, rather than about Ireland on that issue. There's an awful lot of talk about Christian fudamentalism in the US and England, and of course Islamic fundamentalism in Europe and elsewhere. Both seem, to me anyway, to be fueled by something other than devout belief (and I would guess that they're both overstated in the press, à la the BNP scare stories).
[WS:] Very much so - that "something other" being a few cubic inches of the grey matter between our ears - or rather deficiencies thereof. Fundamentalism seems to be a frantic search for certitude*) by a mind troubled by ambiguity and uncertainty of the world - as suggested by research: http://www.wam.umd.edu/~hannahk/bulletin.pdf
Theology per se is basically a literary form - not fundamentally different from other literary genres. It is difficult to seriously argue that a literary genre per se causes anything in the real world - ditto for religious doctrine or theology
The trouble begins when people with mental or affective disorders insist on implementing certain literary genres in real life and coercing other people to do likewise, and when political and social institutions condone or facilitate such efforts. The problem with Catholicism is not catholic theology (which is philosophically interesting in many respects) but close ties between catholic church and the state in certain countries. The same goes for Islamism, Buddhism, Zionism, or for that matter, secular religions like nationalism, populism, communism etc.
*) It seems that fundamentalism also needs a democracy to thrive. As Goedel's theorem teaches us, any system of thought is necessarily indeterminate, that is, it is impossible to determine by logic alone whether certain propositions are consistent or inconsistent with the propositions of that system. Furthermore, indeterminacy is unacceptable in religious systems - since the main selling point of religion is that it supposedly provided certitude. It follows, therefore, that any indeterminacy in religion must be resolved, but it cannot be always resolved by logical discourse.
In Catholicism, this indeterminacy is resolved by institutional authority of the clergy, especially the pope. Hence the justification of the doctrine of "papal infallibility." The Church of England merely replaced the institutional authority of the pope with that of the king, but the principle remains the same. However, that solution is not acceptable in religions that are populist demeanor, e.g. evangelical religions in the US or Islamism, or those that cherish democratic principles, like Unitarian Universalists.
The populist solution to religious uncertainty problem is fundamentalism - or conventional and literal interpretation of the sacred scripture. It is basically replacing the authority of the pope or the king with the tyranny of the majority. That may explain why fundamentalism thrives in places like the US or Middle East, that are high on populism, but is not much in evidence in places heavy on centralized institutional authority, e.g. the UK, or traditionally Catholic countries of Europe.
It is also interesting to note that religions that renounce dogma and the tyranny of majority (fundamentalism) opt out of any means of instilling certitude to their religion - and consequently embrace ambiguity and uncertainty. Unitarian Universalists with their eclectic belief system are a case in point, and I suspect that certain brands of Hinduism may also follow the suit. This is why UU is only for those who are intellectually strong and confident, which is a minority. Most people need a mental crutch and thus prefer religion or ideology that gives them certitude.
Wojtek