@Dieter: I found your comments about satire interesting. I agree that in principle no distinction need be drawn in lampooning the secular and the sacred (in practice, of course, one stays one hand where one chooses). I agree that "You can discuss and attack and ridicule and refute socialism, conservatism, ecologism, what have you not; so of course you are allowed to discuss and attack and ridicule and refute any religious doctrine you like."
What struck me, though, and what I have been mulling over ever since, is your idea that while political and religious doctrine may be fair game, individuals are not (because, as you say, it is possible to insult people but not ideas). That is a generous and compassionate position, but it is not one that I entirely support (some individuals, quite frankly, deserve to be insulted). It seems to me that lampooning public figures (presidents, popes, general secretaries, etc.) falls well within the bailiwick of the satirist. In fact, I see this approach (which is overtly farcical) as preferable to the personal attacks one finds (in America in any case) during election campaigns. But that is only a personal preference, of course. Those who sponsor political attack ads obviously have the right to be heard, and the innocent have the law courts for redress.