[quote]My point is that the idea of the divine right to rule of kings is as old as civilization, and not at all a characteristic of medieval society. In fact, the monarchies we typically associate with that kind of posturing came after the Renaissance. [/quote]
Alright.

[quote][url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_technology]Wiki[/url]
Quite a long list.[/quote]
As can be seen from the list, the biggest achievements of the era came from outside of Europe. The ones from Europe are involving military and some "new" technology in agriculture. Quite an accomplishment. Only noteworthy advances are those concerning architecture.

[quote]Yup, the medieval period was characterized by these things. But how is that any different from any other pre-industrial period? From Rome to 18th century Germany, population growth was glacial, pandemics were epidemic, famine was the family friend of every peasant. The medieval period (and again, lumping together 1000 years of history under one period is a gross oversimplification) wasn't any more bleak or bright than previous or following eras.[/quote]
Ancient European civilizations had sewers, public toilets and baths. They had running water, cold and warm, and sophisticated heating systems. Soap was brought to Europe from the East by the Crusaders. Clearly when it comes to hygiene Ancient world was lightyears ahead. They had less plagues and less famines. When it comes to culture I have to say that medieval Europe was lacking in a lot of things that were lost in time from the ancient era. Every progress of those that lived before them was lost. 
As for the rest, I'll concede. It's true, famine and sickness remained a problem even after that. Some things don't change, I suppose. We had one of the most powerful royal families in the world believe a person should only bathe once a year. And this was in the Renaissance. However, the period after the Medieval ages has seen advancement in a variety of topics which were paused since the ancient times.

[quote]I'm not talking about religious dissidence, I'm talking about conflict for religious authority. Both King Henry and Emperor Henry engaged in ugly squabbles with the papacy over this.[/quote]
Why is this even relevant? Pope remained a powerful figure throughout the Medieval Ages. This is a fact. His authority began to decline after Europe began to emerge from the Dark Ages. I don't think this is helping your cause.

[quote]It's an anachronism in that the church had nowhere near the authority to hunt down dissenters in the time period known for the divine right to rule of kings.
[/quote]
Yet, it did. We're talking about Medieval Europe when Church was one of the most influential states on the continent. It had the power to call other Christian states to join their Crusades and they had the power to establish the Inquisition against anyone that was in any way preaching against common Christian dogma. Popes gave crowns to monarchs and chose electors of the HRE. Is that not authority? They practically controlled the entire political scene in Europe of that time. Those rulers that were against the pope would get excommunicated. This actually meant something back then and the excommunicated ruler would risk losing stability in his country, among other things. It had far-reaching political consequences as well.