are in fact either ignorant (to some extent) or - well, not bigots, that word has a specific and precise meaning, but prejudiced to some extent.

You might want to examine the chain of reasoning that got you to such a statement.

I am wary of Islam, a belief, not Muslims, a people. I am wary of racism, greed, and neo-conservatism, all beliefs. I am wary of Islam because this belief necessitates the embrace of a text (Koran), which endorses murder.
There is no special rule that says all (religious) beliefs are equally moral; if they were, that would be an amazing coincidence, don't you think? Again, I think any belief founded upon faith is flawed and ultimately intolerant, since it stifles intellectual debate and honesty.
I am wary of Islam in particular because of it's powerful footing in the world, and the fact that (without creative interpretation of the Koran) there is no contradiction between being a good Muslim and killing innocent people in some cases. I am not concerned with, say, Devil worshippers because there are like ten of them.
No one would call me prejudiced if I said I was wary of Communism in particular, or Humanism in particular. A religious belief is just a belief, and does not merit special protection against addressing its faults.

I can understand a belief in a particular religious view, it requires faith. But I don't hold the view that one can believe in racism, or greed, or political positions.

Its not a special rule, but by definition all religious beliefs are equally moral. Regardless of which religion one subscribes to, that person will hold that their position is 'moral', and for them it is so. It begs the question, how does one quantify the morality of all religions? If you are religious at all your bias will corrupt the comparison. If you harbor no religious faith whatsoever, then your own sense of right and wrong, however derived, will hold sway. Each is equally bigoted and in a detached view, equally moral.

In my view, to bear "responsibility to comment on the actions" of others who are like minded, in this case Muslims concerning militant Muslims, is not imperative at all. One can only be held responsible for one's own actions on any level, not that of others. Individuals have no control over other persons without their consent.

Followers in both Christianity and Islam appear to fall into two basic groups, if I can be allowed to categorize in such a way. One is rule oriented and has an outward, imposing aspect. The other is focused more internally as a personal guide to ones own 'perfection', to be judged only by God.

Religion is protected only insofar as civility will allow, for 'faults' and 'beliefs' are purely in the eye of the beholder.

"by definition all religious beliefs are equally moral"

Sorry, no. If the sacred text of the religion of the flying spaghetti monster consistently says don't kill, while that of the flying lasagna monster says killing is justified, the former is more moral. If you really believe that we can't even establish a basic morality of our actions towards others because everything is "purely in the eye of the beholder", then I don't know what to tell you. I make certain assumptions when commenting on this site, like that you will understand English, that you have access to a computer, and also that you would agree that killing is generally wrong.

say killing is ok? We try not to make assumptions here or to put words in others mouths.

.. all the assumptions you would like. That's a personal issue.

What is clearly not an assumption though, is your leap to the idea that I may "really believe that we can't even establish a basic morality of our actions towards others."

Morality is a word we use to describe a set of values that defines what is right and what is wrong. Society has a long established track record of defining "a basic morality of our actions towards others." The basic moral set comes to be by agreement.

Why do we call the color red, 'red'? Because we agree to. No more, no less. It works the same for the word 'moral'. The "flying spaghetti monster" sect (red) will think their view is moral. The "flying lasagna monster" sect (blue) thinks their view is moral. To each it is. I can infer from your comments that you would be more closely aligned with with the "flying spaghetti monster" sect (red). (However, justifiable killing is not defined --capital punishment, war, personal defense, etc.) Each sect is not looking at the same color and calling it something else. Each sect sees its own color. Red and blue are both moral, or immoral, depending.

If we can't agree on word definitions then we can't communicate. There cannot, by the generally accepted definition of the word 'moral', be an absolute set of defining rules for what is moral and what is not. There will never be total agreement across the board. 'Color' is a noun, a visible attribute. Easily agreed upon. 'Moral' is an adjective (as we are using it here), relating to principles of right and wrong. Again, easily agreed upon. But, what each of us considers to be right or wrong defines our principles, not the word 'moral', and only for ourselves, not others.