So you are saying I should be allowed to rub raw bacon all over the desk of my Muslim co-worker with no repercussions?

The first amendment guarantees the right of free speech to American citizens.  Next ?

Of course. Why not? Respect God?

Free Speech Laws is almost an oxymoron. There are only two regulations to speech that I agree with. I am against deceit and incitement to violence.

One big question is "Can one criticize Muslims for believing in Sharia law? Sharia law says to kill apostates. It also says cut off the hand of a thief, and stone adulters (sp) to death. Can we make fun of Mohammed?

People are entitled to respect, books and beliefs are not and therefore fair game
( sometimes I break that by calling the very religious "Sheeple" but . . . )

So, nobody could criticize atheists or agnostics either? What about people who have no opinion about existential concepts? How about people who believe in human sacrifice? I don't want to put the force of law behind anything that enables people who criticize anything to be apprehended or, at the very least, fined. Nope, I don't think so.

I'm not going to vote on something so ridiculous. Most religion is just political ideology tied to an imaginary God to give it authority, so what happens if all political ideologies are tied to a God in the same way and no one's allowed to criticise any of them? Politics and religion are both about applying moral rules to how society is run, and different people have different, usually warped ideas about what morality is and how it works. Most such ideas are immoral rather than moral, and the ones which are tied to imaginary Gods are particularly lethal in their impact due to the capacity for stupid people to believe in them so strongly that no amount of reasoning can ever make them see sense.

Religion is an idea (or group of them), and no idea is above criticism or ridicule. Free speech is intended to protect the things that say what people don't want to hear, not just what they like to hear. Tough cookies if you don't like that I don't like your ideas. If I don't like that idea, now where are we?

It is ok. But for "the standard model"'s sake, evaluate case by case, and don't make enemies for no reason.

We need to think that religion is in many cases the basis of the person's culture and own identity.
It would be liking criticizing the nation, the culture, their most deep sense of self.
We all have this strong identity concept, it is an emotional an irrational attachment that is difficult to dissociate.

Any idea or group of ideas should be criticized. But is like hard core liberals, progressives , conservatives or any group when confronted with some ridiculous or bad parts of their thinking reacts as it was personally offended.

So yes, from a rational POV, criticize everything, from a strategic and effective POV, take care to not make enemies for your cause with no benefits at all, because generating strong defensive emotions will only create enemies.

Example; When a feminist says that "every man is a (sometimes they use "potential" ) rapist",

After that sentence you can explain its validity, the feelings, the studies etc. But the harm is already done, you already turned part of the audience against yourself

Yes, you are free to criticize religion (or the government, or anything else) without censorship BY THE GOVERNMENT. You are not guaranteed immunity from the consequences of that speech, nor are you guaranteed a private platform for your views.

free speech is free speech, criticize and make fun all you want, like comedians do, if some are offended by that it's their problem not yours, most fanatics are very thin skinned and are offended by criticism, and others are not, some even mistake making fun or criticizing is insulting, again, their problem not yours.

Rowan Atkinson: “Devil Sketch”
Hello, nice to see you all again. Now, as the more perceptive of you have probably realised by now, this is Hell, and I am the Devil. Good evening. You can call me Toby, if you like – we try and keep things informal here, as well as infernal. That’s just a little joke. Now, you’re all here for eternity, which I hardly need tell you is a sod of a long time, so you get to know everyone pretty well by the end, but for now I’m going to have to split you up into groups. Are there any questions? Yes? Um, no, I’m afraid we don’t have any toilets. If you’d read your Bible you would have seen that it was damnation without relief. So, if you didn’t go before you came then I’m afraid you’re not going to enjoy yourself very much … but then, I believe that’s the idea. Right, let’s split you up then. Can you all hear me still? CAN YOU HEAR ME AT THE RACK? All right, off we go … Murderers, over here. Looters and pillagers – over there please, thieves if you could join them, and bank managers … Fornicators, if you could step forward – my God there are a lot of you. Could I split you up into adulterers and the rest? Adulterers if you could just form a line in front of that small guillotine there. Okay … Americans, are you here? Look, I’m sorry about this, apparently God had some fracas with your founding fathers and damned the entire race into perpetuity. He sends particular condolences to the Mormons who He realises put in a lot of work. That’s the way the wafer crumbles. The Iranians, I’m afraid, can’t be with us – someone’s been holding them in purgatory for about nine months. Sodomites, over there against the wall. Atheists! Atheists? Over here please. You must be feeling a right bunch of charlies. Okay, and Christians! Christians? Ah yes, I’m sorry, I’m afraid the Jews were right. Okay, Moonies, maniacs, marmite eaters, male models, masochists, mass murderers and masseurs, if you could take a pew at the back - with the Methodists that is. Now, you’re the lot who used to kill whales, is that right? Ah, yes, I must remember - I’ve got some strips to tear off you bastards later. Everyone who saw Monty Python’s “Life of Brian” – I’m afraid He can’t take a joke after all. Alright now, one final thing. We’re trying to implement some kind of exchange scheme with the Lord God Almighty, or Cliff as we know him. Some of you will travel up and have a decade in heaven and we’re having some angels down here. Now, I hardly need tell you that in heaven you will be expected to behave in an exemplary manner, so I hope you will do the exact opposite – tear off their wings, use their haloes for frisbee practice, that sort of thing. Well, I have to go now, unfortunately, but Beelzebub here will show you the ropes ... and the chains, and electrodes. And I’d just like to leave you with a favourite joke of mine, if I may. Quite apt to the circumstances, I think, which goes something like: “Knock, knock. Who’s there? Death. Death wh…”

Interestingly the Muslims don't get a mention!

The poll results are not suprising.

I honestly think that ALL religions should be open to criticism BUT not the people per se.
Criticize the belief when and where ever possible, but only the belief simply because the believers, imho, are, in most cases, the poor duped fools ( snowflakes) and know not what they are doing.
As to who, imo, are the biggest of religious snowflakes, I'd have to say that the Morons ( Mormons) would probably rank even or just a touch above the Evangelicals and their ilk BUT the Fundie Muslins would easily rank at Number !.

It's OK for a Muslim to say "all apostates should be killed" but not OK for someone to say "kill all Muslims"??? The first is about hate and the second about violence, I guess.

t1nick (below) probably has the answer. It's OK to speak hatefully but not OK for speech that inspires violence.

I voted and I see all votes at this point are yes, including mine. I am not going to go out of my way to confront someone about their choice, none of my business. If however someone confronts me, I will be more than happy to share my thoughts about how idiotic their superstitious beliefs are.

I voted yes, because I don't think criticizing religion should be mandated by government. That doesn't mean that I think it is ok to do, just for the sake of being an asshole. I think that in a discussion, to disagree with religion of any kind, it should be ok to express your opinion. That does not mean it is ok to to be rude, dismissive, or nasty to a religious person, just because they are religious. Of course, that doesn't always seem to apply to religious people commenting on atheists.

My, great comments without no attacks on the other for expressing their opinion. Looks like their is a lot of intelligence on this subject. Just finished watching a documentary on Netflix titled, The Family. It centers on the power that religion imposes on politicians to bow to their views through their organization and via the National Prayer Breakfast.

I will generally avoid criticizing or ridiculing the religious beliefs of family or friends when in their presence or when communicating with them. I may possibly make a rational criticism of this or that particular aspect of their belief though.

But I also would be against the idea of never, ever making fun of anyone's beliefs or religion. If a person is going to advocate many of the things that Christian dogmas teach, then one is making oneself a fair target of at least a certain degree of ridicule. I don't think we should support the idea of squelching all such ridicule or crfiticism.

I have a personal rule for "poking fun" .... Off limits are things that are not choice (hair pattern, number of eyes, skin color, disabilities, ancestry heritage, national origin ....) .... Questionable are hard to control choices ( weight, accent, number of languages .... ) ... Fair game is anything that is clearly a choice (religion, politics, style, hair color, tattoos, piercings, nose rings, bumper stickers, .... ).

That does describe my idea of "fair" pretty well, but it does not ensure popularity.

Islam is not a Race or one ethnic group.

So criticism of any thing which you do not believe or poses as some sort threat to your way of life, your culture is to be criticized with prejudice, for they are criticizing and subjecting your culture to Evangelistic threats!

You know, I look up school statistics a lot. Every statistic has a chart for race. Why is that? It has race, poverty level, and number of special needs students. Those must be the greatest factors that affect learning, I guess. There is a little bit about how safe a school is. I think that has to do with reporting how many altercations (fist fights) that the school has, along with successful drug busts. The percent of autistic students in Georgia (USA) is 10%. Does that number seem high? It's 18% in my district. Is something in our water?