What inquisition?

Apparently, the Catholic church downplayed to death count due to inquisition while they asked to be forgiven for it. http://after-words.org/grim/mtarchives/2004/06/Jun161425.shtml
According to skeptics, religious violence has led to many millions of murders, not just through Christians or inquisition, in the past millennium. http://www.theskepticalreview.com/JAHPoliticsDeathToll.html
How then am I to reconcile the church's apology, the fact of the killings, Christians' destruction of sacrificial "pagan" beliefs around the world, skeptics' accusations about religion as a source of violence, and the assertions of other Christians I know personally that none of them would support such actions? How then, also, am I to handle the remains of my pagan heritage, destroyed as it were by evangelism? Should I claim the Catholic supplanters' faith, the older beliefs, both, or neither? Which path would gain me the richness of an established tradition which will live on for generations after me? Sometimes we cannot learn answers, only questions. The rest is up to us. I sure wish I had a narrative to guide me, but the clearest story in the Bible is actually composed of four viewpoints, and the ancient narratives of my culture appear to be lost.
I guess I should love each person, as Jesus would do. Then, I should judge their actions as closely as I can to how God would. It comes down to credibility, after all. We shall know them by their fruit, not what they say or what they believe. A Satanist who harms no one is a good person. A Christian who engineers the destruction of others is evil. My beliefs do not change. Like a skeptic, I say that I have a higher standard of morality than Christians. Knowing skeptics, I believe I am more truthful than they.

Literature vs. politics

Imaginative literature - science fiction and fantasy - is much more than escapism. By creating new cultures and scenarios, we create a rare opportunity for people to step outside their own reality, and freely consider the real issues in their lives. The mythology we are creating in this age is the cure for ethnocentrism. And no, Virginia, we are not going to cram ourselves into the Western Judeo-Christian conception for our stories. I don't think a black and white fantasy world, no matter how many millions we spend on the special effects, is going to get people out of the current black and white thinking which dominates American culture and led us to be the largest negative influence on the world.

Absolute rationalism - the irony

Education is a method whereby one acquires a higher grade of prejudices. - Laurence J. Peter
That certainly applies to Ken. It also reminds me of an inherent fallacy in liberal thinking: the conservation of an attitude that conservatives are wrong. Maybe conservatives fight against the lifting of traditional discrimination in societies. Maybe they got us into a wrong-headed war in Iraq and don't know how to win or quit. If you read that sentence and ignore the maybes, as I think Move-On.org and other super-liberals do, then you do NOT have a liberal open mind. Think about it.
On a personal note, the same goes for Ken. See the quote above. When you have a "higher standard" or rationality, reason, etc. you are in fact close-minded. Maybe you are open-minded about the status of women, or homosexuals or even people of many ethnicities. When you, as an absolutist atheist, demand that people with faith prove it with rational science, you are still closing your mind in that area. You make the quote true. That's the danger of absolutes, even "absolute open-mindedness." We are human, as God said. Need forgiveness? Ask Him.

Separation of church and state and the unavoidable adherence of law to religion

Church-state separation is entirely possible and healthy. State-religion separation is definitively impossible and utterly unthinkable. Your laws are going to have to come from some belief system(s) and or philosophy. The laws in this country came from progressive Christians in the 18th century.
The laws today come from a number of faiths and philosophies that have asserted themselves into our laws over the years. Atheism is a religious philosophy, even if it is is not a religion per se. A number of culturally commonplace principles now shape our laws.
If the law favored no religion, as it definitely favored progressive Christian religions in the beginning, it would have an even smaller domain. the law must say something is wrong and something is right. Religions, if you try to include all of them, will disagree on virtually every topic. (This includes faiths within "world" religions" like Christianity, Islam and Hinduism.)
If you want laws at all, you have to choose. There are some general things, like the violent and sexual crime, where virtually all religions agree in spirit. If you want to include all philosophies, you can at least have those laws. Beyond that, laws addressing worship and prayer will quickly offend someone. That's not including the possibility that someone will simply offend another by practicing a different faith.
Now which religion or philosophy should you favor or choose? That answer is hard to find, because the 11,000 religions of the world each claim to be THE ONE. How many are right? All, most, just one, or none? That belief is a meta-religion itself. And after you answer that question, do the ones you define as wrong or questionable deserve the right to believe anyway? Maybe they do, so long as they don't harm or offend anyone else.
The harm principle and the principle of offending others. That's contemporary social problems in a nutshell. Then you add in the further complications of who is a person who can be harmed, how they can be harmed and how to protect them from harm. Hence, America. The United States of America, since those in South and Central America are also Americans and may be offended that we claim to be the only nationality of the continents.

Sectarian violence - The dumbest interpretation of religion … ever

72 were martyred in the initial Sunni-Shia struggle. How do you elevate them for sacrificing themselves in conflict with the "enemy" and not hold it against the faction who killed them? How can you praise the death of your friends and not dwell upon the murderers? Christianity, in some sects, has found an answer.
Historically, there was enmity between Jews and Christians. The operative word is deicide. At some point, most Christians and eventually the Catholic church grew tired of scapegoating Jewish populations. They accepted that it was Christ's place to die, or else he could not be sacrificed to appease God for the sins of man. One death put an end to the need for killing. Maybe the Shia and Sunni should learn from that, and stop fighting over who killed Hussein way-back-when.
If you look at the geographic distribution of Muslims, Shia is obviously the unpopular opinion. They maintain majority in only a couple countries, Iran and Iraq, as well as numerous scattered communities. Shia Muslims are to Sunnis as Jews are to Christians: "We're related, but God favored us over you. Therefore, you don't deserve your rights."
That's the same story behind all supremacy. The people in control find an explanation for their supremacy, not in history, culture or chance, but in unfounded divine intervention. It must be the color of my skin or the way I vote or the way I pray or the fact that my genitals are on the outside that makes me better than you. I thank God every day for social scientists which disrupt these excuses for violence and hegemony.
Speaking of God, I do believe that when He sent His Son, the message was "care for the least of these." Scapegoating the minority groups is the exact opposite of his teachings. Christians, if you want to be better than the other 10,000 religions in the world, remember that.