Does he have a valid point?

[Zzyzx]

.

Bill Maher:
"When I hear from people that religion doesn't hurt anything, I say really? Well besides wars, the crusades, the inquisitions, 9-11, ethnic cleansing, the suppression of women, the suppression of homosexuals, fatwas, honor killings, suicide bombings, arranged marriages to minors, human sacrifice, burning witches, and systematic sex with children, I have a few little quibbles. And I forgot blowing up girl schools in Afghanistan."

Some say "The good outweighs the bad." If so what is that weighty good?

Many say "That is just the other religions." Is that true?

[Zzyzx]

.

The crusades were fought to gain to political control over Jerusalem and the surrounding territory.

Before attempting to intelligently discuss the Crusades (if that is the intent) it would be prudent to learn their history. Scholars identify nine crusades conducted between the years 1091 and 1291. Several of them were focused upon regaining control of the Holy Land – some were not but were instead "fighting heresy", particularly those known as the Northern Crusades. Examples of the latter are:

Pope Celestine III called for a crusade against pagans in Northern Europe in 1193. Bishop Berthold of Hanover arrived with a large contingent of crusaders in 1198, but he was killed in battle and his forces were defeated. To avenge Berthold, Pope Innocent III issued a bull declaring a crusade against the Livonians, who were mostly still pagan.[124] Albrecht von Buxthoeven, consecrated as bishop in 1199, arrived the following year with a large force and established Riga as the seat of his bishopric in 1201. In 1202 he formed the Livonian Brothers of the Sword to aid in the conversion of the pagans to Christianity and, more importantly, to protect German trade and secure German control over commerce. The Livonians were conquered and converted between 1202 and 1209.[125]

Pope Honorius III called a crusade against the Prussians in 1217.[126] Konrad of Masovia gave Chelmno to the Teutonic Knights in 1226 to serve as a base for the Prussian crusade.[127] In 1236 the Livonian Sword Brothers were defeated by the Lithuanians at Saule, and in 1237 Pope Gregory IX merged the remaining Sword Brothers into the Teutonic Knights.[128] By 1249, the Teutonic Knights had completed their conquest of the Old Prussians, which they ruled as a fief of the German emperor. The Knights then moved on to conquer and convert the pagan Lithuanians, a process that lasted into the 1380s.[129]

The Teutonic Order attempted but failed to conquer Orthodox Russia (particularly the Republics of Pskov and Novgorod), an enterprise endorsed by Pope Gregory IX, as part of the Northern Crusades. In 1240 the Novgorod army defeated the Swedes in the Battle of the Neva.[130] and in 1242 they defeated the Livonian knights in the Battle on the Ice.[131]
German Crusade (1195–1198)
Main article: German Crusade

Emperor Henry VI of the Holy Roman empire and king of Germany[132][133] began preparations to launch a German Crusade in 1195. The crusade began as a result of Henry VI's father, Emperor Frederick Barbarossa, nullifying his own attempt at a Crusade. Henry VI influenced by this, called for a Crusade years after his fathers called off attempt.[134][135] His health did not allow him to lead the forces in person, so leadership devolved to Conrad of Wittelsbach, the Archbishop of Mainz. The forces landed at Acre in September 1197 and captured the cities of Sidon and Beirut. Henry died soon thereafter, and most of the crusaders returned to Germany in 1198.[136]
Fourth Crusade (1202–1204)
Main articles: Fourth Crusade, Latin Empire, Frankokratia, Siege of Constantinople (1203), Siege of Constantinople (1204), Battle of Adrianople (1205) and Siege of Zara

The Fourth Crusade never reached the Holy Land. Instead, it became a vehicle for the political ambitions of Doge Enrico Dandolo and the German King Philip of Swabia who was married to Irene of Byzantium. Dandolo saw an opportunity to expand Venice's possessions in the near east, while Philip saw the crusade as a chance to restore his exiled nephew, Alexios IV Angelos, to the throne of Byzantium.[137] Pope Innocent III initiated recruitment for the crusade in 1200 with preaching taking place in France, England, and Germany, although the bulk of the efforts were in France.[138]

The crusaders contracted with the Venetians for a fleet and provisions to transport them to the Holy Land, but they lacked the funds to pay when too few knights arrived in Venice. They agreed to divert the crusade to Constantinople and share what could be looted as payment. As collateral the crusaders seized the Christian city of Zara on 24 November 1202. Innocent was appalled and excommunicated the crusaders.[139] The crusaders met with limited resistance in their initial siege of Constantinople, sailing down the Dardanelles and breaching the sea walls. However, Alexios was strangled after a palace coup, robbing them of their success, and they had to repeat the siege in April 1204. This time the city was sacked, churches pillaged, and large numbers of the citizens butchered. The crusaders took their rewards, dividing the Empire into Latin fiefs and Venetian colonies. In the Venetian period, there was particular attention to improving defences of La Cava and Nicosia.[140]

In April 1205, the crusaders were largely annihilated by Bulgars and remaining Greeks at Adrianople, where Kaloyan of Bulgaria captured and imprisoned the new Latin emperor Baldwin of Flanders.[141][142][143] While deploring the means, the papacy initially supported this apparent forced reunion between the Eastern and Western churches.[144] The Fourth Crusade effectively left two Roman Empires in the East: a Latin "Empire of the Straits", existing until 1261, and a Byzantine enclave ruled from Nicea, which later regained control in the absence of the Venetian fleet. Venice was the sole beneficiary in the long run.[145]

Albigensian Crusade (1208–1241)

The Albigensian Crusade was launched in 1208 to eliminate the heretical Cathars of Occitania (modern-day southern France). It was a decades-long struggle that had as much to do with the desire of northern France to extend its control southwards as it did with battling heresy. In the end, the Cathars were driven underground, and the independence of southern France was eliminated.[146]

There were rumors that there was an anti-pope of the Cathars named Nicetas living in Bosnia, although whether such a figure ever existed is unclear. In 1221, Pope Honorius III called on King Andrew II to crusade against Bogomil heretics in Bosnia.[147] Later Hungarian forces responded to the papal calls in two efforts in 1234 and 1241, with the second one ending because of the Mongol invasion of Hungary in 1241. The Bosnian church was Catholic in theology, but continued to be in schism with the Roman Catholic Church well past the end of the Middle Ages.[148]

Aragonese Crusade

The Crusade of Aragón was declared by Pope Martin IV against King Peter III of Aragon in 1284 and 1285. Peter was supporting the anti-Angevin forces in Sicily following the Sicilian Vespers, and the papacy supported Charles of Anjou. Pope Boniface VIII proclaimed a crusade against Frederick III of Sicily, the younger brother of Peter, in 1298, but was unable to prevent Frederick's crowning and recognition as King of Sicily.[164]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crusades#History

Much more information is available through numerous sources.

Simplistic and romantic (religionized) views of the Crusades do not contribute to reasoned discourse. However, they are typical of many Christians I encounter here as well as elsewhere.

WHY do so many Christians know so little about the history of their own religion? Is it willful ignorance, denial, blinders, what?

[bjs]

The quote from Weinberg makes no sense. What about all the people the USSR who slaughtered people for being religious, as well as for a variety of other reasons? In what sense where they motivated by religion?

This would be an example of bad people doing bad things, wouldn't it?

Well that was evil people being evil. Easy lol...

So yes Weinberg's quote makes PERFECT sense.

Everyone who has done something evil in the name of non-theism was a bad person doing bad things?

Fair enough. Everyone who has done something evil in the name of religion was a bad person doing bad things.

The quote from Weinberg remains empirically false.

[MasterOfOnesOwnMind]

The quote from Weinberg makes no sense. What about all the people the USSR who slaughtered people for being religious, as well as for a variety of other reasons? In what sense where they motivated by religion?

This would be an example of bad people doing bad things, wouldn't it?

Well that was evil people being evil. Easy lol...

So yes Weinberg's quote makes PERFECT sense.

Everyone who has done something evil in the name of non-theism was a bad person doing bad things?

No one has done anything evil in the name of non theism. Bab people do bad things, good people do good things. When I hold the door for someone, it is not in the name of non theism. If I were to (hypothetically speaking) close the door in someones face it wouldn't be in the name of non theism. Those are 2 examples, 1 being good and one being bad; neither example was in the name of non theism.

Fair enough. Everyone who has done something evil in the name of religion was a bad person doing bad things.

Bad things have been done in the name of religion, and even the pope was in on the evil doings. If it weren't for the agenda of said religion, the evil things wouldn't have been done and many of the people who did the evil thing in the name of religion, would not have gone on to do evil things in a religion free world.

The quote from Weinberg remains empirically false.

It never was false to begin with, so remaining false is an impossibility.

[Hamsaka]

The quote from Weinberg makes no sense. What about all the people the USSR who slaughtered people for being religious, as well as for a variety of other reasons? In what sense where they motivated by religion?

This would be an example of bad people doing bad things, wouldn't it?

Well that was evil people being evil. Easy lol...

So yes Weinberg's quote makes PERFECT sense.

Everyone who has done something evil in the name of non-theism was a bad person doing bad things?

Fair enough. Everyone who has done something evil in the name of religion was a bad person doing bad things.

The quote from Weinberg remains empirically false.

Weinberg's quote isn't intended to be 'empirical' that I'm aware of. It is similar to a literary device, to illustrate how people who CALL themselves 'good' (by virtue of adherence to their religion) do the same things 'bad' people do, such as murder and torture.

As a nurse, I do things to people that can be painful or frightening to them but they are 'good' things because it is 'good' to get a shot in your butt for your strep throat infection. The pain of the needle and the lump of penicillin in your butt are rendered 'good' by the end results.

For the Crusaders to forcefully converted the pagans, whatever was necessary to subdue and 'convert' them was 'good' because the end result was [strike]conquered and controlled[/strike] 'converted'. Frequently in history, Christians (and other religionists) used atrocious means to obtain their ends.

The battering husband beats the wife and children 'for their own good', and if you ask him, he genuinely believes beating his family is justified and he is the 'good' party.

The evangelical Hell Houses, designed to portray what Hell will be like, are another example of how means are less important to some Christian groups than the ends:

http://www.christianpost.com/news/texas ... on-107403/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/postever ... g-to-hell/

Aside from the psychological trauma and emotional blackmail, such demonstrations are believed to be 'good' by the Christians who promote them. They are excellent examples of Weinberg's quote. Invoking traumatic stress in adolescents is 'bad' in any other context but religion.

[H.sapiens]

..the very real atrocities done by Christians over the centuries?

What makes you think they're true Christians?

Let me get this straight ... true Christians are different from untrue Christians and only the anointed can tell which is which?

[bjs]

The quote from Weinberg makes no sense. What about all the people the USSR who slaughtered people for being religious, as well as for a variety of other reasons? In what sense where they motivated by religion?

This would be an example of bad people doing bad things, wouldn't it?

Well that was evil people being evil. Easy lol...

So yes Weinberg's quote makes PERFECT sense.

Everyone who has done something evil in the name of non-theism was a bad person doing bad things?

No one has done anything evil in the name of non theism. Bab people do bad things, good people do good things. When I hold the door for someone, it is not in the name of non theism. If I were to (hypothetically speaking) close the door in someones face it wouldn't be in the name of non theism. Those are 2 examples, 1 being good and one being bad; neither example was in the name of non theism.

Fair enough. Everyone who has done something evil in the name of religion was a bad person doing bad things.

Bad things have been done in the name of religion, and even the pope was in on the evil doings. If it weren't for the agenda of said religion, the evil things wouldn't have been done and many of the people who did the evil thing in the name of religion, would not have gone on to do evil things in a religion free world.

The quote from Weinberg remains empirically false.

It never was false to begin with, so remaining false is an impossibility.

I would once again direct you to the purges of Stalin in the USSR. In an effort to increase atheism in the country he had millions of religious people – mostly members of the Russian Orthodox Church – executed. So much evil has been done in the name of non-theism.


Beyond this, if we are going to blame religion for everything done by religious people (including things which directly contradict the teaching of that religion) the way that the quote from Maher in the open post does, then we also must blame non-theism for every action done by non-theists. Or we say that Maher does not have a point, that he has falsely blamed religion for the actions of individuals, and we can take the same approach towards non-theism. But don’t take one standard for the group you agree with and a different standard for those you disagree with.

[MasterOfOnesOwnMind]

The quote from Weinberg makes no sense. What about all the people the USSR who slaughtered people for being religious, as well as for a variety of other reasons? In what sense where they motivated by religion?

This would be an example of bad people doing bad things, wouldn't it?

Well that was evil people being evil. Easy lol...

So yes Weinberg's quote makes PERFECT sense.

Everyone who has done something evil in the name of non-theism was a bad person doing bad things?

No one has done anything evil in the name of non theism. Bab people do bad things, good people do good things. When I hold the door for someone, it is not in the name of non theism. If I were to (hypothetically speaking) close the door in someones face it wouldn't be in the name of non theism. Those are 2 examples, 1 being good and one being bad; neither example was in the name of non theism.

Fair enough. Everyone who has done something evil in the name of religion was a bad person doing bad things.

Bad things have been done in the name of religion, and even the pope was in on the evil doings. If it weren't for the agenda of said religion, the evil things wouldn't have been done and many of the people who did the evil thing in the name of religion, would not have gone on to do evil things in a religion free world.

The quote from Weinberg remains empirically false.

It never was false to begin with, so remaining false is an impossibility.

I would once again direct you to the purges of Stalin in the USSR. In an effort to increase atheism in the country he had millions of religious people – mostly members of the Russian Orthodox Church – executed. So much evil has been done in the name of non-theism.

Stalin was also an Aleprechaunist (as far as I know, anyway). So was Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot, etc. Perhaps we should say that Aleprechaunism leads to mass murder?

Under no circumstance can anybody demonstrate how a lack of belief in god would lead somebody to start killing people. It doesn't make sense.

Beyond this, if we are going to blame religion for everything done by religious people (including things which directly contradict the teaching of that religion) the way that the quote from Maher in the open post does, then we also must blame non-theism for every action done by non-theists. Or we say that Maher does not have a point, that he has falsely blamed religion for the actions of individuals, and we can take the same approach towards non-theism. But don’t take one standard for the group you agree with and a different standard for those you disagree with.

If you don't understand the Aleprechaunist comment, then you won't ever get it.

[Zzyzx]

.

So much evil has been done in the name of non-theism.

Does that somehow justify or excuse evil done in the name of religion?

Does the excuse, "He did it too", absolve guilty parties even in school recess?

Has any ruler been known to say, "Kill them in the name of I don't believe in god?"

[BwhoUR]

.

Bill Maher:
"When I hear from people that religion doesn't hurt anything, I say really? Well besides wars, the crusades, the inquisitions, 9-11, ethnic cleansing, the suppression of women, the suppression of homosexuals, fatwas, honor killings, suicide bombings, arranged marriages to minors, human sacrifice, burning witches, and systematic sex with children, I have a few little quibbles. And I forgot blowing up girl schools in Afghanistan."

Some say "The good outweighs the bad." If so what is that weighty good?

Many say "That is just the other religions." Is that true?

A religious way of thinking is what I believe Bill Maher is really speaking about and is what is shared among all religions and other groups (such as political groups and even some dictatorships.) It is having an uncritical view of what people we admire or aspire to be like, say or do, combined with a relinquishing of personal accountability and responsibility because, after all, you are not making the decisions here. So in my opinion, it is bad and the good does not outweigh the bad. Good works would be and are done without religion, you can't stop good people from doing good things, they will find a way.

[OnceConvinced]

Of Bill Maher's list, these (at least) can be laid at the Christian's door: the crusades, the inquisitions, ethnic cleansing, the suppression of women, the suppression of homosexuals, arranged marriages to minors, burning witches, and systematic sex with children.

What makes you think the people who do that are true Christians?

Why should we think that anyone who claims to be a Christian is a true Christian? How do we know YOU are a true Christian? We can't know.

Nobody is perfect. Everybody has their flaws. Even those who claim to be Christians. Hitler also had his good points.

If someone claims to be a Christian, who gets to judge whether they are true Christians or not? The only way the bible tells us we can know is through the exhibiting of the fruits of the holy spirit. From my experience with the hundreds of Christians I have rubbed shoulders with they normally don't exhibit all the fruits. As we do not know these people personally we can't really make that call. We may be able to surmise, but we can't know for sure.

You and I are in no position to judge whether Hitler was a true Christian or not. Or the pedophile priests or the crusaders or the homosexuals. None of us are perfect. We all struggle with things.

What is it that makes a true Christian? Repentance? Acknowledging Christ's death? Whatever it is, it's no guarantee that you're gonna become sinless or that you're not going to commit atrocities from time to time. But isn't it just faith that matters? If Hitler had faith in God, then wasn't his faith considered righteousness in God's eyes? Just like Abraham? Wasn't God's grace upon him like all other Christians? Don't the faith of the pedophile priests, gays, crusaders account for anything?