I didn’t expect that.
Nobody does.
But I did expect @Slow_Moving_Vehicle 's response.
It’s like finding out that your refugio along the Camino de Santiago has a resident emergency doctor. No one expects the Spanish Inn physician.
The post they replied to accuses us all of bigotry, saying we are only arguing against you because we consider you an “uppity heathen.” This is a ridiculous summary of the arguments being made, and only makes sense if you were angry.
The majority of people disagreeing with you are atheists, i.e. fellow “heathens.” And, even among the Christians, none of us have told you should use the honorific because of religion. We’ve simply explained the social convention and why it exists. You use the correct honorifics for others so they will use them for you. You call people what they want to be called.
In fact, your objection isn’t even because of your religion. You don’t cite any religious rule, creed, scripture, teaching, custom, etc to justify your position. You admit it’s just your personal feeling about the word “father.” The only reason you being Jewish is relevant is because it means you’re not Catholic. But neither are most of the rest of us. It doesn’t change our position.
The social rule at play here is not religious. It applies to all honorifics, regardless of their origin. Neither Judaism nor Catholicism are being singled out. The same rule is why you should refer to Joe Biden’s wife as “Dr. Biden,” not “Mrs. Biden.” It’s why everyone, religious or not, refers to “Rabbi [so-and-so].” To not do so communicates disrespect (which is why, @Babale, it would not apply to a KKK leader, as we would be intentionally disrespecting them).
You’re the one who has made a special rule for the title “Father.” You’re the one saying you can’t use that for anyone other than your own father, an unusual stance. Most people will refer to other people’s parents as “father.”
I was all ready to leave off with my post above, where I pointed out why the rule existed and then said why you’d probably get away with not following it in most cases. But then you had to (1) paint this as us being bigoted (2) come in and try to rewrite your angry post as not being made in anger and (3) paint someone pointing out that anger as acting in bigotry.
That’s not at all what is happening here. You are not being forced by oppressive Christians into using a title you don’t want to use. People, many who are not Christian at all, let alone Catholic, are trying to fight your ignorance about a social custom. And then getting attacked for doing so.
Absolutely no one in this thread has said that “the uppity heathens need to shut up and conform to the dominant religion.”
Sorry, I don’t agree. Much of what you have told me, @BigT, has been in a condescending tone. I’ve told you the reasons I am uncomfortable with using the title “father” for anyone but my actual biological father, the man who raised me but you have completely dismissed that, essentially saying my feelings don’t matter I should conform no matter how uncomfortable it makes me feel. This is particularly galling considering that most actual clergy I have encountered in life understand this is an issue for some people and are much more willing to give me an alternative than you are.
You did not say “stop being uppity” in so many words but that is how you come across to me. Are you Catholic clergy? If not, why are you so invested in insisting that I MUST use terminology that makes me uncomfortable?
Seriously? I have never in my life referred to someone else’s male parent as “father” when addressing that person. It was always “Mr. [last name]” if older than me, or perhaps his first name if he said to call him that.
“Referring” isn’t the same as “addressing”. If you are referring to Mary Smith’s male parent, do you refer to him as “your father” (when speaking to Mary) or “Mary’s father” (when speaking to others) or is it always “Mr. Smith” ( even if you don’t actually know whether that is his name) ?
Not condescending at all, no sir!
Thank you for Christplaining my religion to me though, I didn’t understand it until you did.
At “back to school night”, I always wrote “child-name’s mom” on my nametag, along with my actual name.
In fact, I once interviewed a young woman from the same college my son was attending. I mentioned it, and it turned out she knew him, and blurted out, “you’re [son’s name]'s MOM!”
I want to be clear, I am not suggesting you ought to refer to a priest as “Father Smith” if it makes you uncomfortable. Just saying that in my experience it doesn’t sound weird.
In my case it’s even more funny, since while my ethnicity is half Jewish my religion is Neo-Pagan. Assumptions are fun, aren’t they?
Moderator Note
@BigT @Broomstick @Babale etc. this is a reminder that we are in the Factual Question forum. Please stick to the facts. If you want to discuss other aspects of this topic, feel free to do so, just not in this forum.
What titles someone is referred to in different cultures is factual. How that makes you feel and whether or not you prefer to use those titles is not factual. We do allow some commentary in FQ, but not to the point of it all getting out of hand like this thread has done.
You go to your room, young man, and just think about what you’ve done!
Lol. Oddly, you might read up on that. While a terrible horrible time of history, it is not at all like the media would have you believe.
my ancestors who were forced to flee Spain for the terrible crime of being Jewish would disagree.
Disagree with what? That it was a terrible horrible time? Or that film, etc distorts the real history?
Pretty much, that is sadly true about most popular films that purport to show a historical period or event.
Guess I’m not sure what point you are trying to make 
That films do not accurately portray the Inquisition. And that people should at least read the Wiki.
The fact that films, especially Hollywood, take a lot of liberties with historical facts is a truism. And who in this thread is suspicious of taking depictions of the Inquisition in movies as facts, anyway? So I’m as puzzled as @Babale what your point is.
Why continue with the hijack, since I have made my point very clearly, and twice now. You are in agreement, so what is your point?
Maybe his point is that some people did, in fact, expect the Spanish Inquisition, despite what Hollywood would have us believe