Denial? We're all very aware of our rich history. At least my arguments aren't boring and cliched. You can surely do better. I mean as soon as the Simpsons pull an example (the Crusades) to support an argument, you've got to reconsider the ammunition you're using.

Geez, the Crusades. If your holiest places were taken over by others, wouldn't you want to liberate them too? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crusades

The Catholic Church is guided by the Holy Spirit but it's composed of humans - and humans make mistakes - we're not perfect. This paragraph epitomizes the effect of this:
"Another factor that contributed to the change in Western attitudes towards the East came in the year 1009, when the Fatimid Caliph al-Hakim bi-Amr Allah ordered the Church of the Holy Sepulchre destroyed. In 1039 his successor permitted the Byzantine Empire to rebuild it.[6] Pilgrimages were allowed to the Holy Lands before and after the Sepulchre was rebuilt, but for a time pilgrims were captured and some of the clergy were killed. The Muslim conquerors eventually realized that the wealth of Jerusalem came from the pilgrims; with this realization the persecution of pilgrims stopped.[7] However, the damage was already done, and the violence of the Seljuk Turks became part of the concern that spread the passion for the Crusades.[8]"

Salem witch trials - example of what happens when a bunch of religious wackies get out of control - they were rather opposed to the Pope - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salem_witch_trials

Or witch hunts in general - yes, again, people made horrible evil mistakes, but attributing it all to the Church is again another outlandish and ignorant statement. Here's some light reading:
http://departments.kings.edu/womens_history/witch/werror.html

Okay, and the Inquisition - closely linked to the witch hunts/trials.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inquisition
"Although many states allowed the Church to use the death penalty, initially it was not frequently imposed, as this form of punishment had many ecclesiastical opponents.[2][3]"

From a pro-life perspective, if you have the capability to imprison criminals you shouldn't kill them either. And of course have differing opinions isn't a reason to criminalize people, but it should give you pause when people make it sound like the fear of 'thought police' is a new development.

As usual, something which may have had some higher purpose was corrupted by people with a baser intention - "studies showed there was an initial burst of activity against conversos suspected of relapsing into Judaism, and a mid-16th-century pursuit of Protestants - but the Inquisition served principally as a forum Spaniards occasionally used to humiliate and punish people they did not like: blasphemers, bigamists, foreigners and, in Aragon, homosexuals and horse smugglers"

You know what we hate worse than hateful comedians, eh? Those damn horse smugglers.

Two other fun thoughts before getting some rest
- remember that Pope Benedict was, in his previous post, the head of the Inquisition? It's still around, only it's called the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Lovely group. It's so good to have a Panzer Pope.
- nutty things were of course done through the ages - the "Index of Forbidden Books" is one of my favourites. Even in the late 19th century you'd hear Popes speaking of the dangers of "liberalism", whatever that means.

Yeah, people make mistakes, but Maher's blowing things out of proportion and being nutty about it himself. It's like he's creating his own "Index of Forbidden Groups" or something.