In Afghanistan, violent mobs go on a rampage because of what U.S. officials describe as the inadvertent incineration of copies of the Quran. In Iran, a trial court issues a final order of execution for a Christian pastor accused of apostasy.

Remind me again: Who is it that needs lessons in tolerance?

Merely juxtaposing these two recent news stories guarantees an accusation of Islamophobia. But phobias are irrational. There's nothing irrational about noting the violence of Islamic extremists or their violation of civilized norms of discourse. And when it comes to theological provocations, there's nothing charitable about believing that Muslims — the vast majority of whom are not extremists — are less capable of responding in a civilized manner than members of other religions.

In Afghanistan, the immediate assumption was that the U.S. military had deliberately desecrated Islam's holy book. Even if that were true, would it justify the violence in which more than 30 Afghans lost their lives and six American servicemembers have been killed in cold blood?

And what could justify the execution of Pastor Yousef Nadarkhani, whose capital crime — according to Iranian prosecutors — is that he was born a Muslim and became a Christian? After refusing to recant his faith, Nadarkhani now appears to be at imminent risk of being put to death.

Then there is the case of Talag Elbayomy. Elbayomy was charged with physically harassing an atheist he accused of blasphemy. The judge in the case, beyond finding no evidence of a crime, berated the alleged victim for being insufficiently deferent to members of the Muslim faith.

Elbayomy's trial didn't take place in Kabul or Tehran. It took place in Mechanicsburg, Pa.

The complainant in the case was Ernie Perce, state director of the American Atheists organization, who marched as a "zombie" Prophet Mohammed along with a fellow "zombie" pope in a Mechanicsburg Halloween parade. A good deal of fallacious reporting surrounds the Elbayomy trial, including the falsehood that the presiding judge — Cumberland County Magistrate Mark Martin — himself is Muslim.

Legal scholars such as Jonathan Turley have raised serious questions about Martin's decisions to exclude some videophone and eyewitness evidence. But the real shocker, which is a matter of public record, is Martin's scolding of Perce.

Martin, who served two tours in Iraq in the Army Reserve, made it threateningly clear that Perce's antics would be punishable by death in many Muslim countries. He made the similarly irrelevant assertion that there is a big difference between how Americans practice Christianity and how Muslims practice Islam. And Martin, an American judge, warned Perce that he was "way outside your bounds on First Amendment rights."

Over the course of 10 years of cultural and religious sensitivity training, Americans have come to accept the violent spasms of religious intolerance that frequently convulse parts of the Islamic world. But is it too much to ask that judges in the United States uphold rights enumerated in the U.S. Constitution?

Americans tolerate all sorts of offenses as the very acceptable price of free speech. Christians accept a popular culture that regularly mocks their beliefs. Jews accept Nazis marching through their neighborhoods. Americans of all religions and no religion tolerate the disgusting protests of the Westboro Baptist Church zealots.

When they don't, when they resort to violence or intimidation in an effort to abridge free speech, they are held accountable before the law. Supporters of peace, tolerance and basic human rights do a disservice to Muslim moderates when they hold extremists to a lower standard than themselves or gloss over their abuses — here in the United States or abroad.