Please put Mo in a bear suit on the cover next week Dan.
That said I am sick that ONE group gets appeased by threats of violence...... then anyone who feels Muslims pose a threat to our civil liberties is called a bigot. It's like saying someone is sexist for noticing most rapists are men.

We need to talk about the fact that the KKK still exists although these days they are of a different religion and often (but not always) of a different race then the original. The original KKK killed Emit Till for whistling at a white woman the new KKK kills the infidel for dissing Mo'.

Having seen the episode, there's no way it was censored by Comedy Central or anyone else in reaction to anything. The joke ending, with its extended, bleeped out summations of the episode's preachy moral, followed by the kid's satisfied "yeah", was obviously always intended. Without Mohammed being bleeped and censored out the whole time, the juxtaposed outrages being committed by Jesus, Buddha, et all makes no comedic sense.

This whole "controversy" is obviously just a goofy marketing stunt. Kind of a lame episode full of retreads and old gags, too.

OK, we understand that there are crazy Muslims. But the demonization of the entire Muslim world only plays into the hands of both Muslim extremists and those from the US and other countries that champion empire and apartheid. As we sit here, the case is being made for there to be war with Iran. And there is no sincere push to end the unjust war in Iraq, or the murder of civilians in Afghanistan. Have we not learned anything in the US? What are the holier-than-thou readers doing to denounce the murders of Muslims by Western armies?!?

Dan - I am surprised you have taken such a simplistic tone on the subject and seem to be fine with this Us Vs. Them mentality. But if we are to take that line, I ask this - who has done more damage to whom? Muslim extremists to the "west" or Western extremists to the Muslim world?

From one atheist reader...Amen

@32
In order to live in a free society we accept that people will say things that will piss us off.
They have the right to do so without fear of violent repercussions.
Homosexuals have the right to say "we believe marriage is a civil right and we are offended", not the right to say "you'll probably end up fired for this, and btw your address is now on our website for anyone who may or may not want to CONFRONT you."

Holy scripture is totally unmoving. Referencing it is almost like saying "This is how it once was and this is how it shall stay."
Now, I agree with most of the morals in these sorts of books, for example, not killing people.
But sometimes the things written in there are admittedly backwards. That's where it gets tricky.

You can't just update holy text. It doesn't work that way. But you also can't do it like the catholic church, interpreting the bible to the point of corruption. I believe that the newest religion, science, holds the greatest hope for surviving in modern society. It is reasonable, progressive and fills it's followers with the fervor of religious zealots. However, instead of looking to hold one opinion and never letting go of it, they want to find new facts, invent new theories and cross out theories that make no sense. Geo-centrism anybody?

However, science is very cold and unforgiving, and tends to not deal with things people really care about, like where we go when we die. I think science can not and will not answer these questions for a very good reason. You need to find your own beliefs and believe in them. Finally, never settle on one truth. Like the ancient philosophers once believed, to find the truth you must first accept the fact that you do not know it.