I taught children with mental and physical disabilities and I advocated for their rights. But I think it is appropriate since they are slow or non thinkers when it comes to their religious beliefs. They may even be educated and/or smart in some areas, but they do not apply the same logic they use in some areas, to their beliefs. I am fully capable of debate and have no fear of defending the truth. Mockery has merit in that it makes one feel better when surrounded by such a horrible situation, such as the dangers of religion. There is something called gallows humor. It is used by professions who have to deal with very difficult situations, such as medical people, teachers, and so on. No one should start a discussion or debate with others by calling them religitrards, but you must know your audience. It is used for humor and stress relief, not for debate.

"Religitards" to me, just seems so inappropriate and downright rude. Holy Rollers or Bible thumpers.

I find name calling inappropriate at any time; to me it is an indiction that you cannot defend your position.

if atheists/agnostics were the majority then we'd definitely be the assholes if we called them that, i don't see how being the minority changes that

Not enough voting options! I dislike it because it tends to be meanly intended, AND is obliquely insulting to the learning challenged. However, I DO agree with the sentiment that the religious tend to be highly gullible and likely lacking in intelligence, skepticism, or logic skills.

tough to undo indoctrination from an early age. Knowledge is helpful so give them good books to read

They are what they are defined by their beliefs. I don't think it's necessary to insult them. Ignore them, avoid them, get on with your life.

It's a negative slope you don't need to go down.

Well first off it's not a respectful thing to say. I'll mock your beliefs in a heartbeat if you bring them to me. What I won't do is mock you. Or in this case them. There is nothing gained by insulting a person ever. There is plenty gained by demonstrating why someone's beliefs are irrational. I can't think of usefulness in injuring anyone on a personal level.

I don't object to it. And I don't think it's appropriate. [Complete the syllogism]

Many years ago, an older professor of American Studies I knew called fundies "Christers." Although I didn't adopt the term, I liked it because it simultaneously showed disagreement (even scorn) and yet has nothing actually disparaging in the term.

The GOP has done the same to the Democratic Party by consistently calling them the Democrat Party, arguing that the Democrats don't merit the capitalized proper adjective "Democratic" because they allegedly aren't "democratic." The "Democrat Party" can now be heard as a normal designation even outside of right-wing circles.

It would be fun to see that happen with "Christers," but I think "Bible-thumpers" is a perfectly good existing word already.

"Retard" and any other related term is ableist in nature, so no.

Just because you don't agree doesn't mean you have to use derogatory language to describe. It makes us look bad when we stoop to their level; we need to strive to be above them.

Anything using the word retard as a slur is not okay in my book. Kind of like how "libtard" is used.

All insults are inappropriate, we can always improve the way we think of others, and our moral compass doesn't have religion as our true north, so our thoughts can find a purity without being pious, not matter what side of society we stand on there is always work to be done getting along with others.

I voted not appropriate.
I cringe every time I see or hear it. It dredges up an old word that was long ago deemed inappropriate to use about people with special needs.

To me when someones uses that word, they're just showing their own immaturity.