I think you can mock or disapprove of various aspects of any or all religions, but general mockery of an entire religion is at the very least disrespectful and could cause upset feelings.
It is the gross generalisation thing again.

Give it a rest...
Mocking religion is one of the core parts of every stand-up comedians routine. And generalisations is what makes it funny.

Disrepectful. Why should I, or anyone else, show respect to any religion which has caused untold suffering and death over centuries? That goes for pretty-much any organised religion. Nobody has the right to demand respect.

Upset feelings. This forum is, essentially, British. Part of the essence of being British is free speech. Free speech trumps hurt feelings, every time. Moreover, if someone has their feelings hurt by reading what's on here, their choice is simple: deal with it, or don't read.

I take your point, but I think there is a difference between comedy and 'serious' mockery, or denigration. A joke made by Bernard Manning was quite different to one made by Eric Morecombe for instance!!

How would you react to a post mocking Christians in general??
This is a discussion forum, you would at least expect a protest or different opinion would you not??

Opinions - yes.
Threats - no.

Mock Christians in the West. Most people don't blink and don't care and don't get defensive or argumentative about it. In the "christian" west we thrive on debate and open argument and nothing is sacred. The devout Christians I know in the West welcome the debate for it makes their faith stronger. They say they have nothing to be afraid of, that's how much they value their faith.

I'm not opposed to the general concept of religion. I think many devout people are admirable. I think many wonderful things have happened because of religion.

But I don't like Islam. I think it's a terrible, repressive and ugly and of all the world's main religions, it's by far the worst one. I don't like the role of women in Islamic societies. It's the Islamic world, not the Christian world or the Jewish world, that has the genuine problems with fundamentalists. There's no Christian or Hindu or Sikh or Confucian version of Afghanistan or ISIL. I think much of the Islamic world is terribly backwards. I think the Koran is hypocritical and even horrendous (yes, I've read it). I don't like the extreme double standards I find in Islamic preaching and Sharia law - such as it's ok for a Muslim man to marry a non Muslim woman, but if a Muslim woman marries a non-Muslim, all hell apparently breaks loose.

Does it mean I don't like Muslims? Hell, no. I like many Muslims. I respect their general devoutness (as long as they don't take it too seriously and attempt to infringe it on others). I know most Muslims are people who just want to have a normal life with their families and friends, no differently from how most people across the world just want to have a normal, quiet life, and I'm all for that.

I just don't like their religion.

There, I've said it.

I agree with most of what you have said. This what I meant!!
You have respect for devout christians you know. You know "most Muslims----" etc.
This is discussion, rather than generalised mockery or derision which sometimes occurs.

(I think all the religions have or have had their share of fundamentalists).

Entirely justified. I might criticise it if the grammar was bad.

My "religion" is to try to be nice to people, treat others as I would like to be treated, try to relieve some of the suffering in the world, not object to anyone holding a view unless its damaging to others but speak up or take action when that's not the case.

However, this is a debate forum, and since you've asked the question, I fail to see how any rational person needs a huge institution which has a history of torture, murder, rape, idolatory, homophobism, sexual discrimination, sexual repression, child abuse (by way of indoctrination) in order to believe in the same good things as I believe in. In fact, any rational person would be deeply embarrassed and should be constantly apologetic for all the things which his or her institution has done (and, in many cases, continues to do), which can't be good for anyone's spiritual well-being or self-confidence. So, happy-clappy Christians who are all about love are deeply hypocritical in the compartmentalisation they must go through in order to block out the vile sins of their institution. Although I give many of them great allowance, because they are weak-minded and have been indoctrinated since childhood into believing the non-sense forced upon them.

Hope that clarifies.

Religion:
"Ridicule is the only weapon that can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them."
-Thomas Jefferson

The way to deal with superstition is not to be polite to it, but to tackle it with all arms, and so rout it, cripple it, and make it forever infamous and ridiculous. Is it, perchance, cherished by persons who should know better? Then their folly should be brought out into the light of day, and exhibited there in all its hideousness until they flee from it, hiding their heads in shame.
True enough, even a superstitious man has certain inalienable rights. He has a right to harbor and indulge his imbecilities as long as he pleases, provided only he does not try to inflict them upon other men by force. He has a right to argue for them as eloquently as he can, in season and out of season. He has a right to teach them to his children. But certainly he has no right to be protected against the free criticism of those who do not hold them. He has no right to demand that they be treated as sacred. He has no right to preach them without challenge. Did Darrow, in the course of his dreadful bombardment of Bryan, drop a few shells, incidentally, into measurably cleaner camps? Then let the garrisons of those camps look to their defenses. They are free to shoot back. But they can't disarm their enemy.
-- H L Mencken, "Aftermath" The Baltimore Evening Sun, (September 14, 1925)

Unlucky for you that there is no rule in this forum which prohibits free speech. However distasteful you might personally find it. Since you have only made two posts, both complaints, why are you even a member of this bored?

First you make a kind request, then a threat. I would caution you against making threats in this forum.

Yes Bernard was funny

From reading your previous posts, that view does not surprise me.

Can't remember laughing more than sat in the embassy club. The good old days. A legend sadly missed.

I wonder what makes an Indian laugh ? Paki jokes ?

I did laugh at another Indian politician convicted the other day. Of course he didn't lie either. Sorry wrong thread.

Ok back to Mecca