The question is extremist, in the terms that a definite response is reasonably expected, for a good number of countries prize freedom of speech, which this falls under, and to allow for a government controlled ban on speech regarding nearly anything (explicit hate speech [subtle and indirect and "ambiguous" hate speech is still okay], death threats, etc excluded) is ridiculous.
This is not a debate question, nor is it a topic of discussion with the majority (if not all) of members of debatepolitics.com. The discussion should be on morality of conduct, not legality of conduct.
Perspective needs to be placed first in the personal. Social interactions are governed by niceties and often include not fully expressing one's opinion on a matter.
The more divorced people are, they, consequently, are also more dependent on stereotypes, which, for some reason, weakens their own social mores.
Should disparaging remarks of any religion be a crime? No. But are disparaging remarks necessarily poignantly critical and insightful or are they mean? Disparaging words are demeaning and belittling. They are designed to hurt.
Should it be illegal to emotionally hurt people. Clearly the answer is no. And it shouldn't be illegal to intentionally hurt people emotionally either (for none physical harm can ideally be avoided), but is that morally responsible? Is it something for which people should be awarded? Is it something for which free speech should be celebrated?
Free speech has a purpose, and so to does morality. It is not illegal to disparage people or religion or people of a certain religion, but it is wrong to do so.
