We are arguing about the general correctness of the aphorism. I mentioned that it was a quote by Stephen Weinberg because it was.
To give another example, Voltaire allegedly said something like “I disagree with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” First of all, he probably said it in French (although he may have spoken some English having lived in England for a while) if he said it at all. Sometimes the quote is attributed to others.
Nonetheless, that aphorism is often quoted as one of the truest and noblest iterations of the human right to free expression and the obligation of all citizens of democratic societies to defend the right to express even the most unpopular opinions.
Most people who believe in human rights and democratic freedoms would say they agree with the general truth contained in that aphorism. But if you want to nitpick it ad infinitum, you could ask:
-
Would you therefore relinquish your right to sue someone who libels you and causes you to lose your job and family with false accusations?
-
Would you literally defend anyone’s freedom of speech “to the death”? If you saw the leader of the American Nazi Party spewing hatred and someone next to you was about to shoot him, would you really take the bullet for him and die, leaving behind a widowed spouse and motherless or fatherless children?
-
If you intercepted a written communication from one terrorist to another to carry out a terrorist act, would you limit the right of the terrorist to freely communicate by turning the document over to the police?
In my opinion, these are examples of ridiculous nitpicking, because what I personally infer when I use that quotation attributed to Voltaire is that we must defend freedom of speech with great vigour and determination even if (and **especially ** if) the person whose right we are defending is expressing an idea we dislike. Obviously there can be limits and exceptions, At the end of this post, I will tell you how I interpret the Weinberg quote.
But in answer to your question, Sarahfeena, I am not making any assumptions about what Weinberg meant, because it is really the aphorism we are discussing. Now, the first part of the aphorism fully admits that good and evil would exist even if there were no religion. The second part says that this fact notwithstanding, to get large numbers of normally good people to commit great evil and still think they are doing good, there is nothing as effective as a system of irrational, dogmatic belief. Over the centuries, the most pervasive and common forms of irrational, dogmatic beliefs that have allowed huge numbers of otherwise decent people to feel justified in doing great evil have been organized religions.
My inclusion of dogmatic belief systems like Naziism and Communism is very natural and justifiable. Take the following quote by Rudolph Hess from a June 1934 speech (emphasis mine):
“The National Socialism in all of us is anchored in uncritical loyalty, in the surrender to the Fürhrer that does not ask for the why in individual cases, in the silent execution of his orders. We believe that the Führer is obeying a higher call. . . . There can be no criticism of this belief.”
And of course, those who expressed disbelief in the sanctioned dogma under Stalin, Pol Pot or Hitler, were tortured and executed as surely as heretics were by organized religion a few centuries earlier.
Roman Catholics believe that God’s flesh can be eaten in a cracker and have killed untold numbers of people for denying this. Heinrich Himmler believed that Aryans had not evolved from an animal ancestor like other races, but had come to earth from a heavenly domain where they had been preserved in ice. Would you have cared to mock Himmler to his face for believing this? Would you have cared to mock Transubstantiation in front of Tomás de Torquemada ?
As Sam Harris says in “The End of Faith”, an excellent book I would recommend:
“At the heart of every totalitarian enterprise, one sees outlandish dogmas, poorly arranged, but working ineluctably like gears in some ludicrous instrument of death.” (op. cit, pg. 100).
So for what it is worth, Sarahfeena, here is the meaning I personally infer when I use Weinberg’s aphorism:
“Dogmatic irrational beliefs imposed in human communities (of which religion is the most common example) is certainly not responsible for all evil in the world. Perfectly rational persons untouched by dogmatic and irrational belief can and do frequently commit acts of great evil. But dogmatic, irrational beliefs, and especially organized religions, have an unrivaled ability to allow the commission of great evil, often over centuries, by large numbers of otherwise good and decent people, by offering them the illusion that they are doing good. They accomplish this by imposing and indoctrinating people in unprovable and unfalsifiable dogmas which have a remarkable power to endure and continue to justify evil actions because they are outside the realms of reason and logic, and therefore unassailable. And history is filled with countless, gruesome examples of this too numerous to catalogue here.”
But such a quote would be ridiculously long and unusable for most situations. The whole point of an aphorism is that it is short and succinct. In this sense, it leaves itself open to be “called” as Tomndeb likes to put it, because in being concise I suppose it compresses and generalizes the truth, and is ripe for being nitpicked to death by those who are uncomfortable with the essential truth it conveys.
I realize this is a long answer Sarahfeena (my freinds say I was vaccinated with a phonograph needle) 
, but does it answer your question?