Some problems with your comment:

1. You assume killing people is always a bad thing, that is not true, the violent death of a man who threatens the interests of the white race benefits the world. Not all lives have the same value, indeed, many of the problems dooming the world today could be solved by killing the right people.

2. You mentioned the "last 80 years", as if it had no significance, but the fact is that the development in technology over a mere century has given us an exponentially greater ability to kill massive amounts of people that did not exist in the time where most of the religious wars occurred, another issue is the difference in the populations that were around to be able to be involved in any massacre that occurs.

3. Marxists are not atheists in the same way a Buddhist or Taoist or scientologist is not an atheist, they beleive in all manner of supernatural claims without justification, they also have a religious dogma, and a religious hierarchy, and have everything else that you'd expect in a religion. These guys may call themselves atheists, but fundamentalist Christians say they aren't religious, in both cases it's the delusional zealot trying to distance themselves from accurate descriptions of their beliefs as being religious because the connotation of the word is one that they feel undermines the ability of their faith to propagate itself. Do not fall for the neurolinguistic programming.

Both american abolition and civil rights movements were republican, second, they were the ones with the strongest religious rhetoric and religious ties.

It was the opposing sides of each conflict that took a more darwinian approach to considering the consequences of the two races to live with each other.

So neither liberal nor atheist was a correct description.