This of course requires the banning of anyone who would break this rule, else it is moot. So we can restate it as:
1) Anyone who makes Religious attacks have no place in this News/Activism forum and should be banned.
Another strawman. It "requires" nothing of the sort. It is a statement of opinion, calling for no action. Therefore, your spinning it as a call for banning is a distortion of the initial position.
I proposed the exact opposite (not a distortion) 2) Everyone who believes religion has NO place in politics should be banned.”
Again, a distortion, in that it is NOT an "exact opposite". "No place in politics" is a far cry from "no place in the News/Activism forum." Seeing as there IS a religion forum on this board, that is the proper place. Since there IS a proper place provided, the comparison to removing all place for discussion is a gross distortion of the initial proposition.
A position you claim is a “Straw Man” (though it is the counter to proposition 1) and not something set up to be easily defeated). Perhaps in your confused way you mistook position 1) as the “Straw Man”, because it is so easily disposed of.
Your counterproposal is still a strawman. It is set up as an equivalent opposite, but it is not. Moreover, you did not "easily dispose" of it. You didn't address it. The proposition is that religious attacks don't belong on this forum. Instead, you go on to commit the same logical fallacy again:
If proposition 1) is taken to its conclusion, the only safe people on Free Republic would be Buddhists or atheists. If you cannot “attack” another religion in logical terms, it implies either a) all religions are true as the Buddhists believe, or b) no religion is true and we Should all be atheists. One man’s attack is another man’s logical inquiry, so banning religious “attacks” (debate) is the same as calling for no religious discussion at all. While everyone could presumably be a Buddhist and live with this, in practice it would mean anyone who believes a moral structure should guide political thought would have no place here - i.e. an atheist. Indeed, this is the tactic of the ACLU.
You set up the strawman that putting the religious debates here on FR in the forum set aside for them constitutes banning them. It does not, so your first argument fails.
You then state that it means that if "logical terms" cannot be used to debate religion, only atheists and Buddhist would be immune. Yet, you would seem to reserve the definition as to what a "logical attack" is in your next paragraph, implying that it is up to each man to decide. An argument either is logically valid, or it isn't; you don't get to decide.
What you actually seem to desire to do in these religious discussions is define the axioms, not the "logical terms". It is very handy in a religious argument to place oneself in the position of defining certain items of faith as unassailable, but others as subject to logical testing. Then, those that agree with your premises automatically win.
I do see now that there is a third proposition: 3) No one should be banned who discusses religion in the political sphere (as long as the discussion is within the bounds of comity), since religious mores are the foundation of our political mores.
Again, the proposition was about the appropriate forum, not banning, so your (3) does not address the actual proposition. That aside, define comity. Does it include ridicule? Or does it only extend to respectful, even if fervent, disagreement? Any religion can be attacked by ridicule, but such tactics add nothing to either comity or productive argumentative discussion. In my opinion, having seen your posts across many of these Romney threads, you cross the line. Often.
“Again, the proposition was about the appropriate forum, not banning, “
No, it is very much about banning and censure to appease those who can’t defend the basic premise of their religion and by implication cannot defend the resulting moral chaos that will be drawn into the political sphere by that confusion.
But you can debate the number of angels on the head of a pin all you want, it’s a well known method of obfuscation. The evident fact is you are for censure and bannings and I am for open discussion a la Free Republic. This will be clearly seen in your response, where you will continue to take umbrage at my being able to express any religio-political views in this forum.
Appealing for the thread to be moved to the religion forum is a much used tactic by the mormon apologists who know that the thread will be viewed by a much higher number in the news forum. Thus, effective censorship.
It also sets the thread up for stricter moderation which is often taken advantage of by the apologists in baiting others into making posts that either result in getting the thread locked down, pulled, or the banning of posters.
This tactic is often used when the apologists feel they are on the losing side in the debate.