I did not come on this thread to "defend blasphemy," only to defend Molly Norris as an innocent human being.

Are you suggesting that I am somehow a blasphemer? Just for defending Molly?

The thing that galls me is your utterly callous lack of sympathy for Molly. Let me put it to you straight: If some Muslim lunatic caught up with Molly and cut her head off, would you even shed a tear for her?

Serrano is not under a fatwa, Tommy. No radical Catholic put out a "contract" on him. Unlike Molly, Serrano does not have to worry about getting a knife in the back if he goes out for a loaf of bread.

You're being glib, Tommy, but I'm not letting you wiggle off the hook.

And by the way, "She needs to learn to have a conversation with words that persuade, not insult," makes you sound like some condescending, Old Testament patriarch. It is really off-putting.

As for "Piss Christ" (which I find utterly puerile), Serrano is not a blasphemer — just an a**h***.

Sorry, Tommy. You're dead wrong and all your statements in favor of free speech can't conceal that.

Molly Norris is a perfectly ordinary, totally inoffensive, free American citizen who has been marked for death by intolerant foreigners. And they mean business. That is beyond outrageous – it is horrifying. More to the point, what happened to her could happen to any one of us. Why do you think they targeted a "nobody" like Molly? Specifically because she's a nobody. The idea is to strike fear in everyone.

If you cannot find it in your heart to sympathize with Molly (because of some medieval hangup over "blasphemy"), you are more than a little intolerant in your own way. Perhaps you will see things differently if a fatwa ever winds up around your neck.

There's over 7 trillion dollars tied up in retirement accounts. If you honestly believe that the psychotic spendthrifts in Washington are not looking at that pile and drooling like a kennel full of Pavlovian dogs, you must be from another dimension.

Even under ideal circumstances, suing the government is extremely difficult – and flat-out impossible if a compliant judiciary rubberstamps everything the government does.

Bless you, Paules, for that sly dig. I positively hate the word "nuanced." It has been beaten to death by liberals. That goes for the word "vibrant," too. It is almost always used by liberals to justify some sort of multicultural abomination.

Emily, if you are not a liberal, never use the word "nuanced," again. Please, please, please, don't do it.

Out of respect for Claire, I will overlook the oozing contempt in that remark.

Major, we cling to our guns because we believe in our fundamental right to defend ourselves – either from common thugs, or from a greedy, arrogant government that regards us as nothing but lemons to be squeezed dry for tax revenue.

Major, we cling to our religion because we still hold dear the spiritual principles this country was founded upon, and because we know that the terrorists will hit us again. In dark days to come, only Faith will sustain us.

Hopefully, you will find those answers somewhat enlightening.

Oh, Balliol could've done much better. They could've named the tortoise "Fanny Kaplan." Now that is hardcore.

You make an excellent point, yourself, Midge. When celebrity-like "moderate Muslims" turn out to be dangerous frauds fronting for extremist organizations, that does an incalculable amount of damage to the image of honest, moderate Muslims everywhere. Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf (of GZM infamy) may be the worst of the lot. The man's insincerity is plain to all – except the gullible MSM.

That's a damn good point. If moderate Muslims really want to strike back against the negative stereotyping, than they have to come out in force. Think of the headline: A Million Muslims March for Molly (I love alliteration).

If they can organize something on that scale, it will demolish once and for all the idea that a moderate Muslim is only a "myth."

The point is, they must show that they are willing to put their own necks on the line by challenging the radical Imams and daring them to issue a million fatwas.

The case of Molly Norris is a perfect example of the thing I find most disturbing about Islam – the tentacle-like reach of Islamofascists and their fatwas. The simple fact that an innocent American woman has been specifically marked for death by intolerant foreigners is beyond outrageous – it is positively horrific.

And it's bound to have a ripple effect in Molly's community. Think of her family, her friends, and her co-workers. Are they going to think any better of Islam because of this? I seriously doubt it. If there are any peaceful, moderate Muslims in her community, whatever good impression they may have made has now been destroyed at a single stroke. And I honestly believe that is a secondary intended effect of a fatwa. It keeps moderate Muslims marginalized and it reminds everyone – Muslim and non-Muslim, alike – who is really in charge.

Ah, now I understand. You're a moderate Muslim and I blithely ignored you. That does make me look a little silly. Forgive me, Humza.

But let's stay focused on Molly Norris. This story is going to make Islam in general look very bad. If they can slap a fatwa on Molly (of all people), they can slap a fatwa on anyone, anywhere in the world. And they mean business. Occasionally one of their targets gets murdered.

In the current social and political climate, this story is the worst possible PR for Islam. You have to agree with me on that.

Have I violated some sort of forum etiquette? I am confused.

Claire, Mark Steyn has covered this ground many times. He will not be the least bit surprised by this story.

Simply put, the Islamic world has figured out what works. At the slightest provocation, real or perceived, no matter how slight, Muslims take to the streets like howling, bloodthirsty maniacs and threaten to slaughter innocent people.

And the West meekly backs down – every single time. It is abject surrender before creeping Islamofascism.

You have chided people in Ricochet (including myself) for thinking of Islam as a great, sinister global monolith. What are we supposed to think when people like Molly Norris – a perfectly ordinary, totally inoffensive human being (and an American citizen) – become the target of a fatwa issued by deranged Imams halfway around the world? Molly will now spend the rest of her life waiting for a knife in the back whenever she goes out to buy a loaf of bread.

Where are your precious "moderate" Muslims, Claire? Their silence is deafening.

I'm angry, Claire, but not at you. I'm angry because a totalitarian ideology disguised as a religion is trying to turn the world into a nightmare, and everyone turns a blind eye to it.

"Who approached you? Tattaglia? Or Barzini?"

More specifically, Biden and Obama (in that order) called Mike Castle. Whatever was discussed, they made the overture. Naturally, this has stirred up all kinds of speculation. In the comments section at Michelle's site, "Truesoldier" posted a plausible explanation: "My guess is that they are trying to convince him to run as an independent to siphon votes from O'Donnell in exchange for either a Czarship or one of those "unpaid" positions they offered Sestak."

That sounds about right to me. At the least, they may have asked him to endorse Chris Coons.

As of this posting, Mike Castle has not called to congratulate O'Donnell and refuses even to mention her in his emails to supporters. I seriously doubt that he will endorse her.

And now he might turn traitor.

Christine O'Donnell has been criticized for having a poor character. That's better than having no character at all.

The "smart guys" in the Old Republican Guard backed Castle and gave him money. My faith in their wisdom diminishes with each passing hour.