Victoria, I very nearly added a final paragraph (for you, it turns out) acknowledging that depictions of persons can of course be found in Islamic art, just as some Christian rulers have attempted (unsuccessfuly) to prohibit icons. But generally Islamic art has avoided depicting the human form, and Muslims have uniformly avoided the temptation of idolatry; whereas Christians, especially Catholics, have degraded their religion by the pagan-like worship of images and idols since at least the 5th century A.D.

The Muslim prohibition against depictions of Mohammed is clear, consistent and easy to obey (unless one is trying to start a riot); whereas, the jinned-up Christian outrage over some depictions of Jesus but not others is wholly subjective and, I suspect, a PR stunt akin to the War on Christmas. It's like the difference between criminalizing child porn (i.e., clear and enforceable laws routinely upheld by the courts and applauded by the public), versus pandering to red-state religious conservatives with silly attempts to ban all "porn" (unenforceable because as we all know one man's passion is Mel Gibson's snuff film).

I am not defending Islam and will not be goaded into doing so. I am however dismayed that five years into the Bush-Cheney Crusade for Christ we are all still so ignorant of our supposed enemies that the Catholic League can get away with comparing the "scandal" (if any) of Chocolate Jesus to the incendiary impact of depicting the prophet Mohammed.

As Palm Sunday is now dawning upon the Catholic world, I'll respect your holy day and not contend any further. If it is not already obvious to you that Islam, unlike the Catholic church, strictly prohibits icons and idols, then your ignorance and/or stubbornness only proves my point about Americans not knowing enough about our supposed enemies.

Please know that my problem with the Catholic church arises from its interference with the 2004 U.S. election against one of its own sons, John Kerry, in favor of the Bush-Cheney crusade against Islam. Their latter-day crusade has not been in the best interests of the U.S. or Europe (or Israel), and in the event has proved disastrous -- and it is my hope that moderate Christians will reject the warmongers in 2008 and rediscover their own religion.

It occurrs to me that the hatred expressed by some Christians toward Islam stems from the many similarities between the two religions, especially between the radical fundamentalist followers of both, who wage culture war at home and a real war abroad. It is troubling that you are unwilling and perhaps unable to see that your complaint against Islam for curbing free expression can also be (and throughout history often has been) asserted against the Catholic church. You demand respect for Christianity -- especially from American voters -- but refuse others in the world the same respect. Ignorance, not Islam, is our true enemy.

Wow, are you still at it? OK, fine; you're not a Christian. You're just someone who really, really dislikes Muslims, and wants the rest of the world to share your dislike. Whereas, I view your fear and loathing as having enabled the neocons to push the U.S. (and Israel) into the mess they're in today. Which is why I do not want to join in your condemnation of Islam, any more than you want to agree with or even acknowledge my original point that religious images have throughout history been treated very differently by Muslims than by Christians, especially Catholics -- thus making the Catholic League's comparison inapt.

By the way, I believe Salon has covered most if not all of the issues you listed concerning American Muslims. But it doesn't obsess over the sins of Muslims ad nauseum, unlike the conservative media echo chamber to which you apparently are accustomed.

C'mon, THE Boise State University is undefeated and deserve a shot against the winner of THE Florida versus THE Ohio State University . . . wait, hold on a minute. [What? Really??]

Umm, never mind.

This war was lost the moment it was started over GOP lies about non-existent WMD and phony connections to al-Qaeda and 9/11. The only real question has been how many people must die so that Bush-Cheney can DeLay political embarrassment by evading responsibility for their invasion -- a colassal blunder -- and the occupation -- a clueless disaster. The adults in Congress must step in and stop Bush-Cheney and the neocons, before another half-million Arabs, Kurds, Brits & Americans die. It is the right thing to do.

Meanwhile, five and a half years after 9/11 the real terrorists bin-Forgotten, yet al-Qaeda continues to attack the West and threaten the U.S. Shame on Bush-Cheney and the GOP.

Faux News is what all broadcast news would be like in the Confederate States of America had the southern rebels won the Civil War. (The occupation of Iraq IS being waged by the CSA. See Rajiv Chandrasekaran's 'Imperial Life in the Emerald City.') Any lib or Dem who appears on Murdoch media is assisting the Bush-Cheney neo-fascism and the destruction of the American Republic by the GOP.

And who, may I ask, is this "Alan Colmes"?

It's quite simple: The Great Decider has decided what Congress must do, and now it's the job of the "Democrat" Congress to do it. But the U.S. corporate media seems to finally be grasping that there is something more important at stake than just the '08 horse race. For example, there was the media question asking Junior if he believes he as "the president" (Cheney notwithstanding) has ANY obligation to respect the wishes of We the People and our duly elected representatives in Congress on an important question of war and peace.

What? That didn't happen? [sigh]

Well at least there was the quick "Democrat" response from Sen. Reid, who responded by pointing out that the Congress HAS "funded the troops" and that Bush-Cheney ought not continue to ignore the failure of their occupation and the wishes of the American people.

What? That didn't happen either? [sigh]