vlad321 said:
They did go for the Byzantine emipre, the Fourth Crusade. We than had to go and save constantinople, becoming the first army to ever defeat an army of knights on (techinically) an open field, but I digress. Sorry I editted my comment to further expand on it, hopefully before you saw it. I said that anything that is based on blind faith can and will be used for controlling the masses, religion just happens to be the thing whose basis solely relies on blind faith alone, therefore it's a favorite. Basically, if blind faith didn't exist, religion would not have existed, among other things, and people would not have been as manipulated as they were and (in my opinion) many atrocities, or other effects of manipulation and conditioning. Im retrospect I should have played the blind faith card in the very beginning and saved us several pages worth of words. |
Yes, the fourth crusade. However the fourth crusade isn't even seen as a nonsecular one.
The only crusade that some people tend to see as nonsecular is the first one.
None of them were... and they would of happened anyway. It's obvious to see if you study the lay of the land and why the church "had control".
People weren't largely spirtually motivated... and you didn't need the will of the people to start a crusade. Just the will of the nobles.
I would agree that blind faith is bad. However i would disagree that religion is based on blind faith.
It's a hard thing to explain to someone who finds themself an atheist...
because afterall....
"how would you explain color to someone who is blind."
for a lot of people it isn't blind faith.








