Those who embrace a belief which is under attack should anticipate their beliefs being ridiculed in the town square. It comes with the territory so to speak.
If the poster takes such things personally, he should stay away from the open threads - and post on the closed threads instead (devotionals, prayer threads and caucuses.) They are a "safe harbor."
This Religion Forum is densely populated by exceptional theologians and each confession has champions who are fully capable of acquitting its beliefs while under fire on an open thread. I count you among them!
The robust open threads are the most popular threads in the Religion Forum. It should be seen as an opportunity to reach many people.
But I draw the line on "making it personal" because that is invariably the first offense in a flame war. And I do not want to see Religion Forum posters get into trouble by becoming a party to a flame war.
Also, the replies on a thread such as this one form an important dialogue which may be useful to Lurkers - especially those who are unsettled in their beliefs. The replies also represent many hours of research and meditation. That is why I avoid pulling them or banishing them to the Smoky Backroom - and cut a lot of slack for the correspondents so as much as possible they can voice their objections and testify to their beliefs.
Let me see how I can do. 'A' (1) says all Catholics are brainwashed, their well is poisoned; and (2) does not engage the counter evidence and arguments presented by individual Catholics because they are members of the brainwashed class; but (3) Avoids calling an individual brainwashed.
The problem, as I see it, is than that the target class and the individual in that class must couch his response in indefinite language without saying anything too close to "Anybody who thinks what 'A' thinks has placed himself outside civil discourse."
So an acceptable response would be, those who think we Catholics are brainwashed and conditioned, etc. place themselves outside the realms of civil discourse and reduce the conversation to frustrating and bootless name-calling.
One is formally and explicitly leaving the reader with the advice, "If the shoe fits, wear it," but, although one is saying "You are a member of the class whom this shoe fits," one is therefore only implicitly saying,"That shoe fits you perfectly."
Is that more or less it?