As best I can tell, it went down like this: The guy in the funky clothes, who is the head spokesdude for a bunch of people who like an invisible guy, repeated some seven hundred year-old slander about a bunch of people who like a different invisible guy (or maybe the same invisible guy going under a different nom de guerre; theologians differ.) Basically, he implied that they were all violent and warlike. The fans of the second invisible guy, upset at being called violent and warlike, immediately protested this unfair characterization by rioting and promising to go to war against the followers of the first invisible guy.
"We shall break the cross and spill the wine. ... God will (help) Muslims to conquer Rome. ... God enable us to slit their throats, and make their money and descendants the bounty of the mujahideen,"This would be comical, if it wasn't for the fact that the followers of the second invisible guy are trying their level best to get nukyular weapons.
Personally, I don't see what there is to get all-fired upset about. I mean, so the spokesdude for the first invisible guy said some mean things, but how seriously can you take a guy who wears dresses with red loafers and has a staffer in charge of casting out demons who gets publically wrapped around the axle over children's novels? This doesn't stop the followers of the second invisible guy, though, not for a minute; they can get their noses out of joint to the point of rioting over an editorial cartoon, so actual seven century old slander is like a red flag to them, and rates a spot of nun-killing at the local children's hospital.
How did I get stuck on this planet?