And if you want the thoughts of someone who is, I'd tell you that it's absurd comparing the values and norms of the Medieval world to today.
People seem to throw around "The Crusades" a lot without knowing much about the period. Let's see... Rise of Seljuk Turks, Battle of Manzikert, ambitions of Pope Urban II, all in a world where declaring war on someone was a day-to-day thing VS Cartoons in the year 2006, where we have "diplomacy".
It's already been covered several times in the 100 pages how often and commonplace it is to depict Jesus or any other various Biblical icons with significance to Christians and/or Jews in any way one feels to. If you, umm, draw cartoons on my right cheek, I'll turn the other.
The reason we don't accept the riots isn't because we don't believe as strongly in religion; even if we did they would still be condemned because they are quite simply wrong. Are you suggesting that if the West was devoutly religious we would condone violence?
As for the girlfiend analogy, if you punch someone for insulting her you'll [theoretically] be arrested for assault and such, which is why sensible people don't throw punches (or molotovs) every time they are insulted, and those that do are [theoretically] delt with by the law.
So once again, are you trying to say that the Muslim rioting is justified because they are highly religious? If so, does the same apply to any other crime someone might want to commit because of their religion? Is a suicide bomber justified because he honestly believes America is the Great Satan?