The Book of Mormon: Contradictory Blasphemy on Broadway

It's interesting to consider how certain discourse, created by the same individuals, is sometimes challenged and ultimately censored, and sometimes it is not. But what's even more interesting to think about is the question: Why? 
When speaking about Trey Parker and Matt Stone's success in the creation of both South Park and The Book of Mormon the Musical, the two tackle topics that most are too afraid to take about. They have a knack for making people uncomfortable with their use of satire, irony and often blasphemous scripts, but at the same time, it always makes people laugh. 
Previously, Muslims were rioting over the portrayal of Muhammed in cartoons and the pair decided to use this conflict as a plot line for one of their South Park episodes, but comedy central told them not to do so and claimed "religious tolerance" as their reasoning. 

As you can see, they did it anyway- gaining much criticism along the way. Yet truthfully, it seems everyone is just a little bit scared about what happens if religion, or any other sensitive social construction, ideology or topic is satirized for what it really is. But not Parker and Stone. 
So this is what they do; they challenge the norm and in the process are trying to see what they can get away with, which is exactly what they did with The Book of Mormon. 
The difference this time is no one told them they're musical was too radical or needed to be censored, it was praised and applauded nation wide.
SO, what's the difference?
Poking fun at one of our own national religions is acceptable and laughable, but those elsewhere is too much of a threat and sensitivity?  
Is it possible that the state is enforcing it's censorship power as a response to fear, and primarily as a reaction to the context of how the Other responds to our media; our media as it pertains to the United States in which it is a culture of its own. Could it be related to Zizek's theory that the "terror is there, not here," so we are not nearly as concerned with what our own citizens think?
Do we censor media in fear or how those outside of the United States will feel about our media more highly than those on our own turf? Or are the state's contradictions simply a power play based on convenience that whatever is done based on a case by case situation when it best fits them? Food for thought...

Puddington, Arch and Christopher Walker. 2010. "SAYING THE UNSAYABLE: Revisiting International Censorship." World Affairs173 (4): 75-83. http://ezproxy.rollins.edu:2048/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/822629074?accountid=13584.