In short, if religion wasn't the force it is, then you might have a point. But then, I doubt you would be too happy if it wasn't the force it is.

If people could quit bickering about things like whether or not there is a god, get along, and start solving the world's problems - I wouldn't care if everyone believed oranges could talk. I'm far from a religious zealot. Since beliefs are a choice I decided to go with everyone is God, and they're choosing their afterlife by what they believe while they're alive. Probably bullshit, but harmless bullshit.

The difference between Mocking someone because of their beliefs and Burning someone at the stake because of their beliefs

is the difference in magnitude of the actions

Your position, correct me if I'm wrong, is that the Atheist group advertising their function with a satirical depiction of 'Jesus & Mo' should have considered the feelings of anyone that is liable to be offended by the depiction before going ahead and using that depiction. By going ahead and using the cartoon and causing offence, they behaved like ridiculing bullies who went out of there way to persecute religious believers and brought whatever repercussions that resulted on themselves. Right?

This is me correcting you because you are wrong: My position is that the group should have considered whether or not posting the cartoon in the advertisement of their function was in alignment with the goals of their organization. - If the goals of their organization are to ridicule people that believe differently then they do, posting the cartoon met that goal. - If the goal was to amuse members without ridiculing people who believe differently, there's no reason the announcement needed to be public as they could have limited it to the 421 members (last i checked) group. - If their goal is to expose people who believe differently to other options as to beliefs, the ridicule in the cartoon is counterproductive IMO. - Since the post was representative of an atheist group, it is speaking for the group, and that should be considered when deciding what to post (less hub-bub for an individual posting what he pleases. When it's representative of a group you're moving from freedom of expression into something more convoluted). - Paula Kirby should not accuse those promoting tolerance of infringing upon the right to freedom of expression when they oppose an intolerant message, they're just promoting tolerance.

@Griz - Attributing spurious, vacuous quotes to RD on your blog is just petty, small, and weak. Very weak.

Stay classy, Griz.

@Tyler - I didn't use quotes, and I actually posted that as a question there because I knew it wouldn't survive the moderators here. Is it criticism or ridicule?

Criticism (with poor spelling): https://plus.google.com/u/0/117136177586265116712/posts/emWuVVkP3SY

Comment 240 by Greyman : Does this include political beliefs—such as those routinely satirised in editorial cartoons—or is it just religious beliefs that need handling with kid gloves?

Yes, despite being socially acceptable it's wrong. However, a majority of satire is criticism, not ridicule, where the cartoonist is offering a different viewpoint on the effect a certain political attitude has on society. Additionally the consequences are less (political effect vs. eternal damnation), so it's a much more forgivable affront.

You did a flawed thought experiment in the first paragraph. This is what you imagine is true but again, you've made no effort to pursue it in any depth by checking it against evidence and reason. Most believers are not mentally ill. They ARE wrong though and a world that indulges their very wrong beliefs is not going to help the mentally healthy or the mentally ill. Saying, "You are wrong." is not persecution. It's a form of respect.

The human brain can believe data from an external source to be true. When new evidence is presented, that data is compared against previous belief and is weighted by it's evidence. If a person continues to believe something despite credible evidence to the contrary, there's something wrong.