Salman Rushdie managed to get himself in a lot of trouble by writing about things which Muslims felt strongly about, so religion is a longstanding area where conflict arises over words. I'm not sure that the editing of any text against the authors' wishes is a good idea (though there are good arguments for making some attempt at contextualizing the story with a preface), but it is hard to see how crafting an atmosphere where religious beliefs are compatible with some texts - there is always going to be a minority of religiously inclined individuals who seek out things to take offense at. Always. And no, before you ask - even I'm not crazy enough to send people off to Jack Chick's rants with a direct link.
CDs, DVDs, computer games, and most other popular entertainment already carry warnings for profanity. I'm not convinced that those warning are woth the paper they are printed on - certainly not in the case of the warnings stuck on the front of Harry Potter (which has warnings about possible satanic elements), nor some spoken word CDs (Richard Pryor and Bill Hicks stand-up routines are far more intelligent than the attacks set out against them by the moral majority, if only for their insistence on honesty).
Frank Miller wrote in an interview that the those who come after complex works, in the hope of suppressing them, are really rather stupid. They don't read the things they want to ban, they simply go after the titles which carry warning labels. Warning labels are bad. When our ability to get our hands on novels which are too inflammatory for some to allow to exist unchallenged, as in the case with books which have gone before courts, we risk losing much more than books from shelves. As readers, and as people who can think for ourselves, we should be aware of censorious intent in the minds of publishers who hope to clean up our history but we should not make things easier for these people.