I think this is a very fair point worth addressing, and I want to be clear that, as I am no longer a moderator here, I speak as a member and not as a representative of the CCF mod team.

I think there is a difference between mocking the religious and mocking those who make their religious beliefs political. I saw for the first time last week someone arguing that anyone who considers themselves a Jew HAS to support Trump because of X or Y, and (as a Jew) I wasn't sure whether to laugh or feel furious. It certainly isn't just Christians anymore. And even within Christianity, Catholics and Evangelicals are being prodded in different directions. But, regardless, it isn't about mocking the religious (or, at least, it shouldn't be). It's about those who believe legislation should reflect their religious values. I know many practicing Christians who have a myriad of attitudes about homosexuality. Some believe it's wrong, some are just uncomfortable with it, some are in favor of it, and some actively fight for the community. None of those people are worthy of mockery, IMO -- but the people who fight to inhibit the civil rights of the LGBTQ community because of their religious beliefs deserve mockery, and I think that's the group Simon and others are attempting to target. Those who believe only their religion and religious values are correct, and that this country therefore belongs to their religious denomination and no one else.

You have a right to believe whatever you want to believe, and you have a right to be respected regardless of your beliefs. But once you use your beliefs as a rationale for silencing or harming others, you are a "religious nutjob". It's not a dig at the religious; it's a dig at those who use their religion as an excuse to exclude and persecute. Knowing you as well as I do, Captain, I'm willing to bet that doesn't fall in line with your religious beliefs at all. Thus, you are not part of the group being mocked/criticized.

This is the point I was attempting to make - it's nutjobs who are religious (or who use a cloak of religion to support their positions) that I was objecting to, rather than the religious as a whole.

However, that being said, I can see that this has been an inflammatory term and has caused offense, so I apologise for my use of the term and I'll endeavour to avoid such terms in the future (most of my internet political discourse is on a football (soccer) forum, strangely enough, where fairly...robust... language is the norm. Even so, I shouldn't import those sensibilities here)

I think this is a very reasonable request to make of the community. Good call.

I think it is pretty clear that the term religious nutjobs refers to nutjobs who are religious, not nutjobs because they are religious because there could very easily be religious volunteers, religious philanthropists, religious scientists, religious extremists, etc. Just as easily, you could say tall nutjobs, fat nutjobs, atheist nutjobs, flat-earther nutjobs,etc.

Not to argue against the idea of using more specific language to avoid confusion, just pointing out how and why I don't the term carries the offensive meaning you perceived, Captain. I'm also Christian and am most certainly not a nutjob like those twisted, warped evil hateful pseudo-religous nutjobs the Westboro Baptist church, but I digress.

I'm very critical of Pat Robertson when he quotes from the Bible, but not great aunt Mimi for example. One is very political and effects people and has a satellite television network etc., the other is running the rummage sale in the church basement every weekday morning to get a memorial on the grounds spruced up.