Then why mention the fact that they are "Muslim-majority" in the first place if not to make a point about the religion? — Benkei

My point was that I never said that all violence or human rights atrocities committed in, for instance, Saudi Arabia was a result of Islamic doctrine or theology (of any stripe). People commit horrific acts for any number of reasons, not all of which stem from their religious beliefs or practice.

I said that certain of the human rights abuses which occur in that country (and in certain other Muslim-majority countries) are the result of Muslim theocracy, e.g. forcing women to veil themselves, the stoning of adulterers, and the violent persecution of homosexuals. (And Islamist-driven violence is of course not limited to Muslim-majority countries.)

In response to this claim, you made the non-sequitur inference that that would imply that any untoward act occurring in the United States must therefore be a result of some Christian doctrinal imperative, as the U.S. is a Christian-majority country. But this simply doesn't follow: while there have indeed been some religiously-motivated acts of violence committed by Christians in the U.S., the vast bulk of violence committed in the U.S. has little, if anything, to do with religion. And the same may hold true in most Muslim-majority countries; that is, the routine, day-to-day violence which afflicts nearly every society may not have much to do with any Islamic doctrine or religious practice, and may not be in any way committed in the name of that religion.

However, when one makes comparisons between religions, in the modern world, there is one religion which stands out in its production of violent radicals, and in acts of violence carried out in the name of that religion (whether or not we wish to brand such interpretations as "extremist"), and that religion is Islam. Ceteris paribus, people have greater reason to fear Muslims than they do nearly any other denomination of any other religion, and that is because Muslims have given them such reasons.

More broadsides from the "religion of peace." How much of this "peace" can the world handle, I wonder?

http://www.cnn.com/2016/12/29/europe/berlin-truck-attack-automatic-braking-system/

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/11/world/middleeast/cairo-coptic-cathedral-attack.html?_r=0

You could have a hundred times as many attacks and they still wouldn't be representative of the beliefs of the 1.7 billion Muslims in the world. It's not the religion that's carrying out the attacks, it's a tiny minority of the religious.

You could have a hundred times as many attacks and they still wouldn't be representative of the beliefs of the 1.7 billion Muslims in the world. It's not the religion that's carrying out the attacks, it's a tiny minority of the religious. — Baden

Nothing about any of my posts suggests otherwise. If all of the 1.7 billion or so Muslims in the world were engaged in violent jihad, the world would certainly look much different. However, the fact that most Muslims worldwide are not committing acts of violence in the name of their religion doesn't negate the fact that, in the modern world Islam has a unique problem among the world's major religions in producing violent radicals, and in harboring illiberal beliefs (which are often foisted upon people under theocratic rule).

And, as I've said, this is not just reflected in the spasms of Islamist violence which erupt with depressing frequency in places like Fort Hood, Texas; Berlin; or Cairo, but in the day-to-day theocratic humiliations and persecutions undertaken by regimes such as Saudi Arabia (an ideology which is not confined to its borders; the Saudis have made exporting Wahhabism a priority second only to oil exports, it seems).

If Vatican City, say, were stoning adulterers, hanging homosexual in public squares, or threatening apostasy with violent reprisal, I doubt that so many people would be rushing to defend the world's 1+ billion Catholics with protestations that such acts don't represent "true" Catholicism.