Stick to the point at hand. You didn't talk about "State Governments". You are changing your argument to fit what you think will help you win a point that you either mis-spoke about or don't understand.
You talked about what happened over a thousand years ago not being relevant to what is happening today. THAT is why you indicated that his analogy was wrong. If you want to make another case or point then fine, acknowledge that on the initial point, he was right and you assessment was wrong. Einstein didn't say E=MC4 and then when called on it, said... no no no, it is E=MC2 and THAT is why I am right and you were wrong. The analogy here was about assessment...
That being said, we are talking about religious leaders in the postion of authority. Governments of any kind are fair game. Theocracy, oligarchy, democracy, military dictatorship, etc. If they are lead by the religious, the his analogy is correct regardless.
Christianity may not actively teach violence, but the Inqusition and the Crusades were EXTREMELY violent actions undertaken in the name of their religion. So were the Salem Witch Trials... as far as affecting percentage of population, the trials were a really big deal. How is that any different than radical Islamists hi-jacking Islam today? It is like you are saying, since there are a billion Chinese and they are an extremely oppressive society that invades and rules innocent Tibet, then Budhists are violent too... the crazy budhist saren gas attacks, etc.
See how far off point I am getting in order to make a point... that is you. Deal with it.