I'd really love to see something besides your own assertion that Muslims are perfectly fine with any sort of ridicule or attack on their religion EXCEPT commentary about Muhammad.

No one said that they were "perfectly fine" with ridicule or attack. But Muslims permit disagreement on a variety of issues - that's why there are several schools of Islamic thought that handle how to interpret the hadith. Every school has a slightly different way of handling issues - but none of them accept that the Prophet can be ridiculed or mocked.

Glenn, I would honestly love to be able to conduct a good poll that proved my point (or disproved it), but all I can offer is anecdotal evidence (oh, and remember the riots following the publishing of the Danish cartoons, including cartoons that were not a part of the original set and were added BY MUSLIMS to inflame passions? - does THAT not count as evidence that Muslims get really pissed off if you say anything about their faith's main Prophet?). I'm not meaning to imply that every Muslim is willing to take your life if you mock the Prophet, but a disturbing number of Muslims ARE willing to do so.

This, again, is anecdotal, but I used to attend church as a kid. Never once, ever, in my entire time in church did I hear a preacher exhorting the followers to practice violence (and these were some crazy, anti-abortion churches, too, with lots of speaking in tongues and waving of arms). The basic lessons learned every week were: if someone had done wrong, you prayed for them. If you had been wronged, you forgave them.

In my early adulthood, I attended mosque every week for a few years. For every four sermons that preached peace and love, there was at least one that encouraged rage, that promoted hatred, that cursed the infidels, and that blamed the Jews for everything. And this was in the US. One imam actually told a congregation that we, as American Muslims, didn't get angry ENOUGH when people insulted our religion and that it was OUR DUTY as slaves of Allah to fight to the death to defend the honor of our faith. I left in disgust, but who knows how many other people took that message to heart?

I cited numerous large bloggers who published the Mohammed cartoons. Why didn't they have fatwas on their heads?

Robert Spencer wrote numerous derogatory books about Mohammed, including with Mohammed in the title. Why aren't there fatwas on his head? Oh, OK - so there's the Mohammed cartoon controversy and the Rushdie fatwa. What else?

Well, I certainly wouldn't suggest that everyone who has ever mocked, or promoted mockery, of the Prophet is going to end up with a fatwa on their heads. Incidentally, I believe that there IS a fatwa against Robert Spencer (a fact that he's REALLY proud of). But there are two things to keep in mind:

Islam has no central religious authority, so anyone with basic religious training can issue a fatwa. I'll bet that there are hundreds of thousands of fatwas that have been issued against offending Americans, and then quickly forgotten. They are issued in Arabic, so unless the issuer has a press center and some good translators, you and I will likely never hear of them.

The reason the Rushdie one got so much attention is that the Iranian government was behind the issuance (very unusual - not many Muslim countries have a judiciary like Iran does, but then, they are Shiite, so they are more centralized than Sunnis). They were public about it, and it kicked up a media storm.

BJ Novak might very well have a fatwa on his head, but it would have been issued by some madrassa-attending mouth-breather from Bumblefuck, Egypt, and only his family gives a rat's ass that he produced it after finding the video on YouTube (I found that bit hysterical, btw).

So what's the implication? Do we bomb them? Invade their countries? Detain and surveill them? Put them in interment camps? What?

I struggle with this constantly. Some of the suggestions are terrible (I would no sooner intern an American Muslim than my own father). Since you don't accept my assertion that Muslims, on the whole, are dogmatically and culturally encouraged to respond with violent rage and death threats to disparaging comments, then I can't really debate with you as to how we can handle these differences.

And I don't know. I'd like Islam to be wiped off the face of this planet. I'd like us all to be humanists. But how? I have no idea. Probably through the slow, steady erosion of faith through education and scientific discovery - the same way Christianity will die in the US and the rest of the Western world.

I'm a bi woman who only dates men now, despite having spent years living with my long-term girlfriend.

Thems the rules, though. You're in a committed relationship. You could, if you wanted to, discuss your desires with your husband, and incorporate fantasy into your sex life. I do this with my lovers - it's great fun. I watch straight porn with my partner, and get off on watching the womens' bodies.

I've noticed that the buzz I can get from being attracted to other men and women is often enough to push my libido over the top with my boyfriend. I just channel the sexual energy, and it works well for me. Sure, I want to get busy with some women I know, but that wouldn't be fair to my partner.

But why refer to Aznar repeatedly throughout the article as "the Spaniard". Why not "the Spanish President", "Aznar", or even "he"?

I felt like I was reading the script for The Gladiator.