That’s a good question. You don’t hear much about Islamic people thinking they are Mohammed. Or hindu’s thinking they are Shiva.
You do, perhaps other religions are not as prevalent where you live. Look at the protestants and catholics in Northern Ireland, killing each other for the past 100 years because of their religiouis beliefs. I would say that is a bit more extreme.
They’re not. There aren’t 15 boys in the IRA and UDL (probably combined) who can intelligently describe the doctrinal differences between Catholicism and the two principal Protestant denominations. (The victors of the Battle of the Boyne that is celebrated with such acrimony each July, actually suppressed the ancestors of the marchers along with the Catholics. The IRA came to be dominated by anti-clerical freethinkers and Marxists throughout much of the 1970’s and 1980’s.)
The feud is based on cultural differences with a touch of class warfare, and the easiest way to identify an enemy is where he happens to go to church. It is not a “religious” battle by any valuable definition of the term.
(In addition, the actual killing is only 32 years old–not 100.)
One word: Taliban. Them guys get in your face, to put it mildly. Can’t forget the late Ayatollah and his followers in Iran; well over a decade later, they still feel they have the moral obligation to kill Salman Rushdie if the opportunity should arise. And so on.
And in addition to what Daniel has already brought up, the orthodox Jews in Israel will inflict serious property damage if you’re not observing the Sabbath as stringently as they feel you should.
So it isn’t just a Christian thing…though we, unfortunately, do our bit. 
IMO, the biggest problem with Christianity is the emphasis on prosetylizing. As a Christian, it is your responsibility to save the souls of those less enlightned and “lead them to Jesus”. This seems freaky to me. Even growing up as a Southern Baptist, I never did like the idea of “visiting,” Which involved traipsing around town from door to door, telling people about Jesus, and inviting them to church.
tomndebb said:
This seems a tad bit ingenuous. I think one could reasonably count the “modern” version of the troubles as beginning with the Easter Uprising in 1916.
Actually in Hinduism, being Krishna or Vishnu seems to be a requirement for being a guru. OTOH, being Krishna isn't as big a deal for them as being Jesus is in Christian culture.
I think Jews believe just as vehemently as Christians about thier religion, they just aren't Evangelical about it.The 1916 uprising led to a series of encounters with Great Britain (weakened and distracted by WWI) until the southern portion of the island was granted leave to become the Irish Free State in 1921. Once the Irish Free State was formed, there was a brief civil war, basically limited to the Republic, that lasted barely a year between those who had agreed to the division and those who had opposed it.
From that point until 1968, there was nothing that resembled organized bloodshed. While the Republic worked through political channels to demand more and more self-determination and fewer ties to Great Britain, (and suppressed the Republican absolutists who still carried grudges), those absolutist Republicans basically gritted their teeth and plotted actions that were rarely carried out against the government in the South while the pro-Republican minority in the North just sighed and carried on.
When the world-wide protests began in the late 1960’s (civil rights and anti-war in the U.S., the Apartheid battle in South Africa, the (corrupted) Cultural Revolution in China, the assertion of Flemish rights in Belgium, the rise of the Quebecois separatist movement, among others), the Catholics of Northern Ireland began to assert their rights to cultural and political equality, demanding jobs, etc. When the (equally impoverished) Protestant working class resisted (fearing to lose their too few jobs), Britain sent in the Army to insure “order.” In a stunning display of heavy handed stupidity, they basically took the side of the Protestants and suppressed the Catholic protestors. This provided fuel for the fire and recruiting posters for the (basically dormant) IRA, and a new round of the Troubles opened up after 46 years, with a completely different set of participants.
Ok you Irish hiackers take it some place else. 
So, I’ve revised my theory. As I was walking home yesterday, trying desperately not to puke, I cam across two very obnoxious Hare Krishnas. Very pushy. Then, what providence. A guy walking around with a big sign with a quote from the Koran. I do not believe that there is anything inherently different about Christians. I now believe it’s Western Culture. Since Christianity is so tied up in it, it follows that a lot of Christians will exhibit said behavior. There is something about the tradition of imperialism and advertising in Western Culture. Something that makes people think they have the right, even the responsibility, to force their beliefs, no matter how strange, on others. If you take any religion and stick it in Western Culture long enough, it will begin having followers who display said characteristics. What does everyone think? This is a theory in progress, so any critiques of supporting evidence is most apreciated.
Hmm, Hare Krishna comes from India and the Koran comes from Saudi Arabia, so what does that have to do with Western culture? Besides, as I pointed out, obnoxious religious proslelytizers are in Asia and around the world. Certainly, the Muslim armies in the 7th century Arabian peninsula were not shy about sharing their faith. You’ll have to admit that it’s part of human nature to try to convert others to your religion.
Well, goboy. Here is my point. The hare-krishnas are white american citizens. So was the guy with the Koran sign. I believe that if you take those religions out of their native environment, and stick them in a hyper-capitalist society. THey will start taking on more and more characteristics of society. One of those is aggresive advertising. Korea is also I highly Industrialized Capitalist society, hence the Jeezers there.
An then the Irish…oh, wait. Sorry, oldscratch. 
tomndebb, I yield to your superior knowledge of history.
What does this mean? I don’t speak Korean.
Umm…no one wants to hear about my run-in with the ultra-orthodox at the Western Wall again, do they? That was an interesting (aka, really bad) experience. My friend got spit at by a haredi guy once, too. She wasn’t following their dress code. It is rude to wear “immodest” dress in an ultra-orthodox neighborhood, true, but she wasn’t in one at the time.
Well, they’re preaching aloud because it says to do so in their doctrine. That is, [paraphrasing] “to spread the word.” Of course, people take that statement and interpret it in their own way. Some even travel to other continents just to enlighten the locals about their god’s existence.
quote:
I just tell them, “Yesu-nim an midoyo.”
It means, “I don’t believe in Jesus.”
oldscratch, the behavior you attribute to the freaky old guy muttering about Jesus isn’t confined to Christianity, as has been pointed out already in numerous replies to your OP.
I don’t even know if it’s cultural (except for the fact that, as noted, in America there are proportionally more Christians).
My take on it is that it’s a human situation. People want something to believe in and give their life meaning. Religion is one of the ways to do it. As a result, there are going to be a percentage of people who get “freaky” about their religion. But those people would be just as “freaky” about any other cause they latched onto to give their life meaning. Look at PETA, or vegans, or Pro-lifers or Pro-choicers. There are fringe factions in every group. You notice the Christian element more because
a) there are more Christians in the U.S. than other religious groups
b) you have trained yourself, for whatever reason, to notice and make a mental note of people acting weird and mentioning Jesus.
There are probably other valid reasons and explanations, but those are the only ones I could think of off the bat.
Excellent Dave. And if you notice, you generally don’t get people like PETA, anti-NEA, and really really radical vegans in third world countries. Sure, you do get people rioting and protesting, but it’s usually about issues of some importance. Like those Kashmiri guerillias funded by Pakistan have just slaughtered my family. Or that oil company just set my river on fire. things like that. I’m theorizing that this attitude exhibited by both religous and non-religous people in the industrialized world (over issues of relative non-import) are a characteristic of the industrialized world. These characteristics only spread to religion after it has been in contact with the dominant culture.
No radicals in third world countries? Uhhhh…sure. Didn’t you read the news a couple of years ago where a mob of fundie hindus demolished a mosque brick by brick and built a hindu shrine?
No vegans or PETA in third world countries? What about Jains, or extreme Hindus? Remember Ahimsa? A friend from India remembers riots over rumors that someone was killing cows.
A person from my hometown (Fairbanks AK) was lynched by a mob of Guatemalan peasants who thought she was going to kidnap a child she was talking to and bring him to the US for organ transplants. The local police tried to protect her, but the mob stormed the jail, pulled her out, and beat almost to death. She suffered major brain damage and is now in a nursing home in a semi-vegetative state.
But I would say you have a germ of truth here. In an agrarian economy, no one has the time to stand on the street corner proclaiming the end of the world, they’d starve to death. Industrialized countries are so wealthy that people have the free time for such silly things. But of course you blame capitalism instead…