Why not all? It's definitely necessary to pay attention when a powerful group is lobbying to pass laws to require you to live by their standards. This does not mean you can't have an intellectual and academic disagreement with their position.
And you might have noticed that "insult" is rather built-into theological debate because it seems every time a new belief springs from another one, both sides insult each other as matter of doctrine.
Absolutely. That was one of the things that really started to bother me while I was still a Christian. At one board the Calvinism/Arminianism debate forum had to be shut down because each side claimed moral authority and then mercilessly bludgeoned the other with it.
Discussions about religion are fundamentally inclined towards "holier-than-thou" arguments, since they tend to involve morality. In an argument about a scientific topic, a person can be mistaken or even ignorant (a situation that can be rectified), but in an argument about religion a person is more likely to be called wrong or morally debased (not so easy to fix). I couldn't count the number of times I've seen the "God, thank you that I am not like other men" speech in one guise or another.
But instead of debating a subject intellectually and academically, most of our correspondents these days either scurry away, argue against their own self-made strawmen, redirect the discussion to some cherry-picked word or phrase - or else throw spitwads.
All of which are back-handed compliments, by the way. But we'd rather have a robust intellectual and academic debate on the issues actually raised. That is the point behind the excellent essay which betty boop wrote to begin this thread!