In the comboxes below, commentor Assiniboine asks, "We can handle this sort of thing, and you can't?" That's basically the analysis offered by Michael Cook of the Australian internet magazine MercatorNet. I agree to a large extent, though I feel it might come across as a bit too self congratulatory.
Why is blasphemy not treated in as strict a way in the modern Christian (or, rather, "post-Christian") West the way it was in Elizabethan England? Is it precisely because of the rise and challenge of secularism? I.e., would a modern theocratic Christianity respect freedom of expression and respond with the same kind of civil and respectful response that Cook points to with respect to the Da Vinci Code? One wonders. [Of course, it would seem to me, a modern theocratic Christianity is a rather outlandish prospect. Unless it is in the fevered imaginings of those who equate the Bush administration with the Taliban.]