Pope orders destruction of all Mosques in Italy

[Quantum Windbag]

OK, I admit to a bit of misdirection to get your attention. What really happened is the Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia ordered that all churches in Saudi Arabia, and the entire Arabian Peninsula, should be destroyed. Can anyone explain why this is not the top story on every newscast in the world like it would be if my headline was true?

On March 12, Sheik Abdul Aziz bin Abdullah, the grand mufti of Saudi Arabia, declared that it is “necessary to destroy all the churches of the region.” The ruling came in response to a query from a Kuwaiti delegation over proposed legislation to prevent construction of churches in the emirate. The mufti based his decision on a story that on his deathbed, Muhammad declared, “There are not to be two religions in the [Arabian] Peninsula.” This passage has long been used to justify intolerance in the kingdom. Churches have always been banned in Saudi Arabia, and until recently Jews were not even allowed in the country. Those wishing to worship in the manner of their choosing must do so hidden away in private, and even then the morality police have been known to show up unexpectedly and halt proceedings.
This is not a small-time radical imam trying to stir up his followers with fiery hate speech. This was a considered, deliberate and specific ruling from one of the most important leaders in the Muslim world. It does not just create a religious obligation for those over whom the mufti has direct authority; it is also a signal to others in the Muslim world that destroying churches is not only permitted but mandatory.
The Obama administration ignores these types of provocations at its peril. The White House has placed international outreach to Muslims at the center of its foreign policy in an effort to promote the image of the United States as an Islam-friendly nation. This cannot come at the expense of standing up for the human rights and religious liberties of minority groups in the Middle East. The region is a crucial crossroads. Islamist radicals are leading the rising political tide against the authoritarian, secularist old order. They are testing the waters in their relationship with the outside world, looking for signals of how far they can go in imposing their radical vision of a Shariah-based theocracy. Ignoring provocative statements like the mufti’s sends a signal to these groups that they can engage in the same sort of bigotry and anti-Christian violence with no consequences.

EDITORIAL: Destroy all churches - Washington Times

 

[PoliticalChic]

OK, I admit to a bit of misdirection to get your attention. What really happened is the Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia ordered that all churches in Saudi Arabia, and the entire Arabian Peninsula, should be destroyed. Can anyone explain why this is not the top story on every newscast in the world like it would be if my headline was true?

On March 12, Sheik Abdul Aziz bin Abdullah, the grand mufti of Saudi Arabia, declared that it is “necessary to destroy all the churches of the region.” The ruling came in response to a query from a Kuwaiti delegation over proposed legislation to prevent construction of churches in the emirate. The mufti based his decision on a story that on his deathbed, Muhammad declared, “There are not to be two religions in the [Arabian] Peninsula.” This passage has long been used to justify intolerance in the kingdom. Churches have always been banned in Saudi Arabia, and until recently Jews were not even allowed in the country. Those wishing to worship in the manner of their choosing must do so hidden away in private, and even then the morality police have been known to show up unexpectedly and halt proceedings.
This is not a small-time radical imam trying to stir up his followers with fiery hate speech. This was a considered, deliberate and specific ruling from one of the most important leaders in the Muslim world. It does not just create a religious obligation for those over whom the mufti has direct authority; it is also a signal to others in the Muslim world that destroying churches is not only permitted but mandatory.
The Obama administration ignores these types of provocations at its peril. The White House has placed international outreach to Muslims at the center of its foreign policy in an effort to promote the image of the United States as an Islam-friendly nation. This cannot come at the expense of standing up for the human rights and religious liberties of minority groups in the Middle East. The region is a crucial crossroads. Islamist radicals are leading the rising political tide against the authoritarian, secularist old order. They are testing the waters in their relationship with the outside world, looking for signals of how far they can go in imposing their radical vision of a Shariah-based theocracy. Ignoring provocative statements like the mufti’s sends a signal to these groups that they can engage in the same sort of bigotry and anti-Christian violence with no consequences.

EDITORIAL: Destroy all churches - Washington Times

You tricked me!

Why.....why....why- this is nothing but a paraprosdokian post!!

 

[syrenn]

OK, I admit to a bit of misdirection to get your attention. What really happened is the Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia ordered that all churches in Saudi Arabia, and the entire Arabian Peninsula, should be destroyed. Can anyone explain why this is not the top story on every newscast in the world like it would be if my headline was true?

On March 12, Sheik Abdul Aziz bin Abdullah, the grand mufti of Saudi Arabia, declared that it is “necessary to destroy all the churches of the region.” The ruling came in response to a query from a Kuwaiti delegation over proposed legislation to prevent construction of churches in the emirate. The mufti based his decision on a story that on his deathbed, Muhammad declared, “There are not to be two religions in the [Arabian] Peninsula.” This passage has long been used to justify intolerance in the kingdom. Churches have always been banned in Saudi Arabia, and until recently Jews were not even allowed in the country. Those wishing to worship in the manner of their choosing must do so hidden away in private, and even then the morality police have been known to show up unexpectedly and halt proceedings.
This is not a small-time radical imam trying to stir up his followers with fiery hate speech. This was a considered, deliberate and specific ruling from one of the most important leaders in the Muslim world. It does not just create a religious obligation for those over whom the mufti has direct authority; it is also a signal to others in the Muslim world that destroying churches is not only permitted but mandatory.
The Obama administration ignores these types of provocations at its peril. The White House has placed international outreach to Muslims at the center of its foreign policy in an effort to promote the image of the United States as an Islam-friendly nation. This cannot come at the expense of standing up for the human rights and religious liberties of minority groups in the Middle East. The region is a crucial crossroads. Islamist radicals are leading the rising political tide against the authoritarian, secularist old order. They are testing the waters in their relationship with the outside world, looking for signals of how far they can go in imposing their radical vision of a Shariah-based theocracy. Ignoring provocative statements like the mufti’s sends a signal to these groups that they can engage in the same sort of bigotry and anti-Christian violence with no consequences.

EDITORIAL: Destroy all churches - Washington Times

It is not news becasue no one wants to offend.


I also must say i am not shocked at the news either.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

The left does NOT CARE what happens to Christian beliefs or churches. If you offend a Christian nothing happens. If you offend a Muslim they may kill you. They are cowards.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

OK, I admit to a bit of misdirection to get your attention. What really happened is the Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia ordered that all churches in Saudi Arabia, and the entire Arabian Peninsula, should be destroyed. Can anyone explain why this is not the top story on every newscast in the world like it would be if my headline was true?

On March 12, Sheik Abdul Aziz bin Abdullah, the grand mufti of Saudi Arabia, declared that it is “necessary to destroy all the churches of the region.” The ruling came in response to a query from a Kuwaiti delegation over proposed legislation to prevent construction of churches in the emirate. The mufti based his decision on a story that on his deathbed, Muhammad declared, “There are not to be two religions in the [Arabian] Peninsula.” This passage has long been used to justify intolerance in the kingdom. Churches have always been banned in Saudi Arabia, and until recently Jews were not even allowed in the country. Those wishing to worship in the manner of their choosing must do so hidden away in private, and even then the morality police have been known to show up unexpectedly and halt proceedings.
This is not a small-time radical imam trying to stir up his followers with fiery hate speech. This was a considered, deliberate and specific ruling from one of the most important leaders in the Muslim world. It does not just create a religious obligation for those over whom the mufti has direct authority; it is also a signal to others in the Muslim world that destroying churches is not only permitted but mandatory.
The Obama administration ignores these types of provocations at its peril. The White House has placed international outreach to Muslims at the center of its foreign policy in an effort to promote the image of the United States as an Islam-friendly nation. This cannot come at the expense of standing up for the human rights and religious liberties of minority groups in the Middle East. The region is a crucial crossroads. Islamist radicals are leading the rising political tide against the authoritarian, secularist old order. They are testing the waters in their relationship with the outside world, looking for signals of how far they can go in imposing their radical vision of a Shariah-based theocracy. Ignoring provocative statements like the mufti’s sends a signal to these groups that they can engage in the same sort of bigotry and anti-Christian violence with no consequences.

EDITORIAL: Destroy all churches - Washington Times

You tricked me!

Why.....why....why- this is nothing but a paraprosdokian post!!

And I learned a new word, so life is good.

 

[laughinReaper]

. Can anyone explain why this is not the top story on every newscast in the world like it would be if my headline was true?

Yeah because Muslims would be bruning the world down if it was all Mosques and the rest of the world's religions know how to act appropriately when confronted. It's not news because it's not part of the left PC lets all join hands and sing Kumbaya agenda.

 

[FA_Q2]

Well, that's actually an excellent point. Where is the outrage.....


Here is another - let me ask those on the left if they still want to proclaim Islam as a peaceful religion and how this fits into that paradigm?

 

[Two Thumbs]

OK, I admit to a bit of misdirection to get your attention. What really happened is the Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia ordered that all churches in Saudi Arabia, and the entire Arabian Peninsula, should be destroyed. Can anyone explain why this is not the top story on every newscast in the world like it would be if my headline was true?

On March 12, Sheik Abdul Aziz bin Abdullah, the grand mufti of Saudi Arabia, declared that it is “necessary to destroy all the churches of the region.” The ruling came in response to a query from a Kuwaiti delegation over proposed legislation to prevent construction of churches in the emirate. The mufti based his decision on a story that on his deathbed, Muhammad declared, “There are not to be two religions in the [Arabian] Peninsula.” This passage has long been used to justify intolerance in the kingdom. Churches have always been banned in Saudi Arabia, and until recently Jews were not even allowed in the country. Those wishing to worship in the manner of their choosing must do so hidden away in private, and even then the morality police have been known to show up unexpectedly and halt proceedings.
This is not a small-time radical imam trying to stir up his followers with fiery hate speech. This was a considered, deliberate and specific ruling from one of the most important leaders in the Muslim world. It does not just create a religious obligation for those over whom the mufti has direct authority; it is also a signal to others in the Muslim world that destroying churches is not only permitted but mandatory.
The Obama administration ignores these types of provocations at its peril. The White House has placed international outreach to Muslims at the center of its foreign policy in an effort to promote the image of the United States as an Islam-friendly nation. This cannot come at the expense of standing up for the human rights and religious liberties of minority groups in the Middle East. The region is a crucial crossroads. Islamist radicals are leading the rising political tide against the authoritarian, secularist old order. They are testing the waters in their relationship with the outside world, looking for signals of how far they can go in imposing their radical vision of a Shariah-based theocracy. Ignoring provocative statements like the mufti’s sends a signal to these groups that they can engage in the same sort of bigotry and anti-Christian violence with no consequences.

EDITORIAL: Destroy all churches - Washington Times

Liberals hate christians and anyone that has a clear moral code.

unless they hate America and want to kill Americans.

then it's all good.



If I was wrong, then the liberals would admit they were wrong about backing muslim activities in the US. since that will NEVER happen, even when muslims are killing them for not being muslims, I must be right.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

OK, I admit to a bit of misdirection to get your attention. What really happened is the Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia ordered that all churches in Saudi Arabia, and the entire Arabian Peninsula, should be destroyed. Can anyone explain why this is not the top story on every newscast in the world like it would be if my headline was true?

On March 12, Sheik Abdul Aziz bin Abdullah, the grand mufti of Saudi Arabia, declared that it is “necessary to destroy all the churches of the region.” The ruling came in response to a query from a Kuwaiti delegation over proposed legislation to prevent construction of churches in the emirate. The mufti based his decision on a story that on his deathbed, Muhammad declared, “There are not to be two religions in the [Arabian] Peninsula.” This passage has long been used to justify intolerance in the kingdom. Churches have always been banned in Saudi Arabia, and until recently Jews were not even allowed in the country. Those wishing to worship in the manner of their choosing must do so hidden away in private, and even then the morality police have been known to show up unexpectedly and halt proceedings.
This is not a small-time radical imam trying to stir up his followers with fiery hate speech. This was a considered, deliberate and specific ruling from one of the most important leaders in the Muslim world. It does not just create a religious obligation for those over whom the mufti has direct authority; it is also a signal to others in the Muslim world that destroying churches is not only permitted but mandatory.
The Obama administration ignores these types of provocations at its peril. The White House has placed international outreach to Muslims at the center of its foreign policy in an effort to promote the image of the United States as an Islam-friendly nation. This cannot come at the expense of standing up for the human rights and religious liberties of minority groups in the Middle East. The region is a crucial crossroads. Islamist radicals are leading the rising political tide against the authoritarian, secularist old order. They are testing the waters in their relationship with the outside world, looking for signals of how far they can go in imposing their radical vision of a Shariah-based theocracy. Ignoring provocative statements like the mufti’s sends a signal to these groups that they can engage in the same sort of bigotry and anti-Christian violence with no consequences.

EDITORIAL: Destroy all churches - Washington Times

It's not news because, well... it's not news.

As your article points out, Churches have been banned in Saudi Arabia for a long time now.

 

[Stash]

OK, I admit to a bit of misdirection to get your attention. What really happened is the Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia ordered that all churches in Saudi Arabia, and the entire Arabian Peninsula, should be destroyed. Can anyone explain why this is not the top story on every newscast in the world like it would be if my headline was true?

On March 12, Sheik Abdul Aziz bin Abdullah, the grand mufti of Saudi Arabia, declared that it is “necessary to destroy all the churches of the region.” The ruling came in response to a query from a Kuwaiti delegation over proposed legislation to prevent construction of churches in the emirate. The mufti based his decision on a story that on his deathbed, Muhammad declared, “There are not to be two religions in the [Arabian] Peninsula.” This passage has long been used to justify intolerance in the kingdom. Churches have always been banned in Saudi Arabia, and until recently Jews were not even allowed in the country. Those wishing to worship in the manner of their choosing must do so hidden away in private, and even then the morality police have been known to show up unexpectedly and halt proceedings.
This is not a small-time radical imam trying to stir up his followers with fiery hate speech. This was a considered, deliberate and specific ruling from one of the most important leaders in the Muslim world. It does not just create a religious obligation for those over whom the mufti has direct authority; it is also a signal to others in the Muslim world that destroying churches is not only permitted but mandatory.
The Obama administration ignores these types of provocations at its peril. The White House has placed international outreach to Muslims at the center of its foreign policy in an effort to promote the image of the United States as an Islam-friendly nation. This cannot come at the expense of standing up for the human rights and religious liberties of minority groups in the Middle East. The region is a crucial crossroads. Islamist radicals are leading the rising political tide against the authoritarian, secularist old order. They are testing the waters in their relationship with the outside world, looking for signals of how far they can go in imposing their radical vision of a Shariah-based theocracy. Ignoring provocative statements like the mufti’s sends a signal to these groups that they can engage in the same sort of bigotry and anti-Christian violence with no consequences.

EDITORIAL: Destroy all churches - Washington Times

It's not news because, well... it's not news.

As your article points out, Churches have been banned in Saudi Arabia for a long time now.

Saudi Arabia and the Arabian Peninsula are not synonymous. This statement will extend the ban beyond Saudi Arabia, and will encourage persecution even beyond the Arabian Peninsula.

But like you say it’s no big deal since they are burning churches and killing people all the time in that part of the world. So what if a major “spiritual leader” gives a rousing “thumbs up” to the killing.

But now if Pat Roberson were to endorse the killing of one person, that would be a major news item.

 

[nitroz]

tbh, destroy the mosques.

less terror to deal with.

 

[Ariux]

tbh, destroy the mosques.

less terror to deal with.

And, destroy the synagogues, too.

Less cause of terror to deal with.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

OK, I admit to a bit of misdirection to get your attention. What really happened is the Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia ordered that all churches in Saudi Arabia, and the entire Arabian Peninsula, should be destroyed. Can anyone explain why this is not the top story on every newscast in the world like it would be if my headline was true?



EDITORIAL: Destroy all churches - Washington Times

It's not news because, well... it's not news.

As your article points out, Churches have been banned in Saudi Arabia for a long time now.

Saudi Arabia and the Arabian Peninsula are not synonymous. This statement will extend the ban beyond Saudi Arabia, and will encourage persecution even beyond the Arabian Peninsula.

But like you say it’s no big deal since they are burning churches and killing people all the time in that part of the world. So what if a major “spiritual leader” gives a rousing “thumbs up” to the killing.

But now if Pat Roberson were to endorse the killing of one person, that would be a major news item.

The Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia doesn't have the power to "extend" the ban to the rest of the Arabian Peninsula, nor will the UAE and other countries there "ban" churches.

And the Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia didn't condone any "killing".

 

[FA_Q2]

It's not news because, well... it's not news.

As your article points out, Churches have been banned in Saudi Arabia for a long time now.

Saudi Arabia and the Arabian Peninsula are not synonymous. This statement will extend the ban beyond Saudi Arabia, and will encourage persecution even beyond the Arabian Peninsula.

But like you say it’s no big deal since they are burning churches and killing people all the time in that part of the world. So what if a major “spiritual leader” gives a rousing “thumbs up” to the killing.

But now if Pat Roberson were to endorse the killing of one person, that would be a major news item.

The Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia doesn't have the power to "extend" the ban to the rest of the Arabian Peninsula, nor will the UAE and other countries there "ban" churches.

And the Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia didn't condone any "killing".

Only in such a reduced capacity that it would be unrecognizable though.
If Pat Robinson called for the destruction of a Mosque anywhere in the world you guys would be shitting your pants also. Do you remember all the vitriol when people were against the Mosque near the 9/11 site? Have you forgotten all the crap that the left gave Christians just for not wanting a Mosque to be built at that particular location. That is not even calling for the destruction of anything, just not building it in the first place. Now, a prominent Muslim leader calls for the actual destruction of churches and, oh well. That's all fine and dandy.


Still waiting on my answer by the way....

Well, that's actually an excellent point. Where is the outrage.....


Here is another - let me ask those on the left if they still want to proclaim Islam as a peaceful religion and how this fits into that paradigm?

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Saudi Arabia and the Arabian Peninsula are not synonymous. This statement will extend the ban beyond Saudi Arabia, and will encourage persecution even beyond the Arabian Peninsula.

But like you say it’s no big deal since they are burning churches and killing people all the time in that part of the world. So what if a major “spiritual leader” gives a rousing “thumbs up” to the killing.

But now if Pat Roberson were to endorse the killing of one person, that would be a major news item.

The Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia doesn't have the power to "extend" the ban to the rest of the Arabian Peninsula, nor will the UAE and other countries there "ban" churches.

And the Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia didn't condone any "killing".

Only in such a reduced capacity that it would be unrecognizable though.

Huh?

There are no churches in Saudi Arabia to be burned down.

If Pat Robinson called for the destruction of a Mosque anywhere in the world you guys would be shitting your pants also. Do you remember all the vitriol when people were against the Mosque near the 9/11 site? Have you forgotten all the crap that the left gave Christians just for not wanting a Mosque to be built at that particular location. That is not even calling for the destruction of anything, just not building it in the first place. Now, a prominent Muslim leader calls for the actual destruction of churches and, oh well. That's all fine and dandy.

You do know that in Saudi Arabia, there's no right to religious freedom, right?

But there is here. That's the point of the 9/11 Mosque controversy - not "Christian hating".

Still waiting on my answer by the way....

Well, that's actually an excellent point. Where is the outrage.....


Here is another - let me ask those on the left if they still want to proclaim Islam as a peaceful religion and how this fits into that paradigm?

Religions aren't "peaceful" or "not peaceful". Individual people are. You know, "personal responsibility".

 

[FA_Q2]

The Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia doesn't have the power to "extend" the ban to the rest of the Arabian Peninsula, nor will the UAE and other countries there "ban" churches.

And the Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia didn't condone any "killing".

Only in such a reduced capacity that it would be unrecognizable though.

Huh?

There are no churches in Saudi Arabia to be burned down.

LOL. Posted this in the wrong thread with the wrong quote. Trying to do more things at once than i should I guess. Probably did not delete the complete statement after I posted it as I write all my responses in MS word before actually posting it to the board. Spell check is my friend.

 

[Political Junky]

This on top of the secret is out that the Saudi's backed 9/11.
I wonder if the Saudi Prince still visits Bush in Texas.

 

[Stash]

It's not news because, well... it's not news.

As your article points out, Churches have been banned in Saudi Arabia for a long time now.

Saudi Arabia and the Arabian Peninsula are not synonymous. This statement will extend the ban beyond Saudi Arabia, and will encourage persecution even beyond the Arabian Peninsula.

But like you say it’s no big deal since they are burning churches and killing people all the time in that part of the world. So what if a major “spiritual leader” gives a rousing “thumbs up” to the killing.

But now if Pat Roberson were to endorse the killing of one person, that would be a major news item.

The Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia doesn't have the power to "extend" the ban to the rest of the Arabian Peninsula, nor will the UAE and other countries there "ban" churches.

And the Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia didn't condone any "killing".

The Grand Mufti has influence, and his words will lead to attacks on churches and Christians. Even if the governments of the region don’t ban churches, that won’t change the fact that a lot of churches will be destroyed. His words endorse violence, they insight violence, and by his very words he is condoning the killing that will result from what he said. How can someone call for destruction and violence and you say that they don’t condone “killing”? Violence and persecution tends to get people killed.

The point of this thread is that the statement by the Grand Mufti is not news because we expect violence, and persecution, and intolerance from Muslims. Pat Roberson’s words were not as bad as what we hear from imams all the time, but his words were coming from a Christian, and we expect more from Christians. By these expectations we acknowledge the violent nature of Islam and the peaceful nature of Christianity. It is the exception to the rule that gets our attention.

We support freedom of religion, but freedom of religion is not absolute. One person’s freedom of religion must be balanced against another person’s rights. How can freedom of religion be so strong that a religious group must be allowed to build their religious structure anywhere they want regardless of any other considerations as long as they own the property, and yet freedom of religion is so weak that a religious group (Catholic Church) can be forced against their will to actually PAY for something that violates a fundamental part of their beliefs (birth control)?

 

[ekrem]

OK, I admit to a bit of misdirection to get your attention. What really happened is the Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia ordered that all churches in Saudi Arabia, and the entire Arabian Peninsula, should be destroyed. Can anyone explain why this is not the top story on every newscast in the world like it would be if my headline was true?

On March 12, Sheik Abdul Aziz bin Abdullah, the grand mufti of Saudi Arabia, declared that it is “necessary to destroy all the churches of the region.” The ruling came in response to a query from a Kuwaiti delegation over proposed legislation to prevent construction of churches in the emirate. The mufti based his decision on a story that on his deathbed, Muhammad declared, “There are not to be two religions in the [Arabian] Peninsula.” This passage has long been used to justify intolerance in the kingdom. Churches have always been banned in Saudi Arabia, and until recently Jews were not even allowed in the country. Those wishing to worship in the manner of their choosing must do so hidden away in private, and even then the morality police have been known to show up unexpectedly and halt proceedings.
This is not a small-time radical imam trying to stir up his followers with fiery hate speech. This was a considered, deliberate and specific ruling from one of the most important leaders in the Muslim world. It does not just create a religious obligation for those over whom the mufti has direct authority; it is also a signal to others in the Muslim world that destroying churches is not only permitted but mandatory.
The Obama administration ignores these types of provocations at its peril. The White House has placed international outreach to Muslims at the center of its foreign policy in an effort to promote the image of the United States as an Islam-friendly nation. This cannot come at the expense of standing up for the human rights and religious liberties of minority groups in the Middle East. The region is a crucial crossroads. Islamist radicals are leading the rising political tide against the authoritarian, secularist old order. They are testing the waters in their relationship with the outside world, looking for signals of how far they can go in imposing their radical vision of a Shariah-based theocracy. Ignoring provocative statements like the mufti’s sends a signal to these groups that they can engage in the same sort of bigotry and anti-Christian violence with no consequences.

EDITORIAL: Destroy all churches - Washington Times

You imply, that the S.Arabian mufti resembles something what the Pope resembles to Christians. It's not this way. Whatever authority he has, it is local.

 

[koshergrl]

Well, that's actually an excellent point. Where is the outrage.....


Here is another - let me ask those on the left if they still want to proclaim Islam as a peaceful religion and how this fits into that paradigm?

Perhaps they think Saudis are poorly educated?

That seems to be the latest excuse.

Second only to the "Christians were much worse for a short period of time in the Dark Ages..." excuse, which they trot out every time a Muslim stones a woman to death or commits an honor killing, or shoot up a christian school...

Neither excuse is valid or true, but they are still very particular to them because that way they feel justified for cheering when Christians are killed and their churches burnt.