I think Russ and Joe are both right on the money in this discussion (I hear more agreement than disagreement in their postings). All of the major world religions are expounded in texts that are very open to interpretation, so almost any interpretation -- even the most extreme -- can claim some sort of legitimacy. The extreme interpretations can be the predominant ones in specific cultures from time to time, often with pretty unpleasant results. It's the risk you take when you use poetic, interpretive language as a basis for governments as well as belief systems. A great argument for the separation of church and state.

I don't see a lot of value in apologizing for wrongs that were committed hundreds of years ago. More often than not, it's just a superficial, public relations tactic. If we are truly accountable for the sins of our ancestors, we all have plenty of apologizing to do.