Religion is obviously not the only source of a sense of humour. Individual Christians and Muslims are therefore able to be funny on other grounds, just as some Jews may happen not to be funny. None of that's relevant to the article.
Nor is the article really about comedy that takes religion as its explicit subject, as in something as lame as a formal joke about Moses. I use modern comedy as an example to support the main point, which is that Judaism distinguishes itself from the other monotheistic religions by having a greater sense of humour about monotheism in general. In fact, Judaism is an implicit satirical takedown of such religions. Jewish scriptures, for example, are implicitly and explicitly self-critical (explicitly in Job and Ecclesiastes).
So again, the question isn't about how individuals may or may not be funny. The question is whether the three monotheistic religions are equally viable sources of a sense of humour about religion--not about any old thing. I'm talking about whether monotheism was long established as an absurdity, requiring a shift into secular humanism, before Christianity even came on the scene.
So your questions secular Jews and Monty Python are irrelevant. In so far as Monty Python made fun of religion, the logical source of that comedy was secular humanism and historical-critical study of the Bible. It's the genetic fallacy to say their comedy was religious because the comedians were brought up as Christian. You've confused the genetic/causal origin with the logical one.
What happened to the sense of humour of the Jews who were the early Christians? Don't you know from history? What happened was the apparent end of Judaism via the Romans' destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple. Another thing that happened was the combination of Judaism with Roman religion, and the latter wasn't known for its sense of humour (the Romans being mainly about the efficient running of their empire, not about spiritual depth or rigorous self-examination). So the Jewish side of Christianity was quashed by Roman solemnity (hence the dreary culture of the Roman Catholic Church).
The subject of modern comedy isn't so relevant. Jewish comedians make fun of lots of things. What matters to the article is whether their religion supports their sense of humour because Judaism serves as a giant satire. No such thing can be said about Christianity or Islam, the latter being greatly empowered and therefore more rigidly totalitarian or implicitly dystopian. Jews were almost always on the outs, which is why their scriptures are more self-critical and implicitly funny. Even modern Israel is in the humorous situation of being tiny and surrounded by enemies.
No, I'm not denying that non-Jews can be funny. Again, it's obvious that religion is hardly the only source of a sense of humour. I'm not denying that Christians or Muslims can be funny on an individual basis. I'm denying that their religions serve as implicit satirical takedowns of monotheism, and I'm denying that their scriptures are self-critical, filled with bathos, or that we should expect them to have a sense of humour specifically about their religion because their imperial past means they can't afford to take that outsider's perspective. This is most ironic in the case of Christianity because Jesus was obviously just such a downtrodden outsider (and he was a Jew, and likely a funny one, but his humour would have been left out of the traumatized early Christian memories).
There's a long wikipedia article on Jewish humour, by the way (link below), and there's no comparable article on Christian or Muslim kinds. There's a short article on Christian comedy, which is comedy aimed at a Christian audience, but not about comedy generated by the Christian religion. And there's an amusing article on the severe restrictions put on Muslim humor by the Quran. Talk about walking on eggshells, if you make the wrong kind of joke as a Muslim, you go straight to Hell.
You seem to suggest that I'm "bigoted" because I give Judaism a pass. But there is no God, so the heart of Judaism is false as theology. There were no miracles, many of the Jewish protagonists are fictional, and the supposed history in the scriptures was made up as propaganda.
Your response to the point about philosophical charity commits the whataboutism fallacy. You continue to not write with philosophical character. That is, you don't sound here like someone who's been philosophically trained.
