For example, highlighting historical atrocities does not constitute hate mongering - claiming atrocities without any historical basis would likely be considered hate mongering.
But hate mongering is a high bar and statements which condemn religious beliefs are not automatically hate mongering.
It is not at all unusual when one belief spawns from another that both condemn the other in harsh terms, e.g. heretic, anathema, apostate, cult, sect, Satanic. Such terms are often part of the poster's deeply held beliefs and may be used in the poster's holy writings. And such terms do not automatically constitute hate mongering.
Slurs such as "Papist" or "Snake-handler" or "Moron" or "Nazi" are not hate mongering. Childish, yes; hate-mongering, no.
Slurs such as "baby killers" and "blood suckers" depending on the context might be pulled as hate mongering.
>>”Nazi” are not hate mongering.<<
????
Where do you think the whole our Lady of Fatima is really Mohammed's daughter thing came from?
But hate mongering is a high bar and statements which condemn religious beliefs are not automatically hate mongering.
On this thread, Catholic churches have been called "NAMBLA mills" and you said to just refute it. Certain things are too outrageous to refute. Have their been some Catholic priests who were pedophiles? Certainly, but there have also been plenty of non-Catholic clergy who were pedophiles.
In the mid-20th century, Protestants began to relax their rules on artificial contraception. To the best of my knowledge, NO Protestant denomination teaches that artificial contraception is wrong and some even allow abortion. The Pill IS an abortifacient, so I'm curious what your reaction would be if I decided to call Pentecostal churches "abortion mills"? Could I call Calvinists "abortionists"?