I’d like to ask a question and let me say up front that I will completely understand if this post is immediately removed.
Anti-Catholics on here frequently use disparaging terms for Catholics like “Romanists” and “Papists” (I’ve seen “Mackerel Snappers” used once or twice, but it’s been a while). These were slurs that were quite common decades ago in an era when other slurs were often quite common, nearly all Americans have since come to understand the bigotry associated with these terms and have ceased using them.
Here’s my question, can you give me a list of terms that were commonly used as disparaging terms for Jews prior to the mid-20th century, that no American (Jesse Jackson doesn’t count) would dare use in polite society, that you would allow to be used in the Religion Forum to describe Jews? For instance, in this sentence, “Like a horde of Turks bent on sacking Byzantine the Romanist have run roughshod over our caucus,” what anti-Jewish term would be appropriate to insert for “Romanist”?
Historical documents may use terms which would not be used today, e.g. "Christ-killers." And such documents may be discussed on "open" RF threads.
But if a Freeper used that term to disparage another Freeper rather than as a term used in the article being discussed, I would probably pull it as flame bait or egregious "making it personal."
The terms "Romanist" and "Papist" occur in sources offered from both sides of the debate. Likewise for the term "Snake Handlers" etc.
These spitwads are thrown from every direction on "open" town square style threads.
Posters should realize that the other guy doesn't throw spitwads when he has ammunition, count it as a win and walk away. The spitwad thrower would be left alone looking like a child having a temper tantrum, petty and discredited both personally and tarnishing his own side of the debate.
Unfortunately though, some get their feelings hurt and/or lower themselves by throwing spitwads back.
Often people rubber-neck when passing car wrecks and likewise the childish threads rack up a lot of "hits." But the result is the same - the spitwad throwers get a reputation and do themselves and their side no favors. The winners, like the EMTs and LEOs, are the ones who come along and clean up the mess.
Finally, when we ban a term or a source then it has to be banned across the board. For instance, any reference to Jack Chick is not allowed - whether pro or con. It's a "no go." If the term "Romanist" or "Papist" were banned - then no source using that term on either side would be allowed. Both sides would lose a lot of source documents.
Thick skin is required for "open" RF town square type debate.