“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.
Very telling when Mitt says that there are "Church Leaders" who are pro-choice and that you cannot be excommunicated for holding that position.
Nice! What is the doctrine of Abortion and the Mormon church?
I believe that there are many non-Mormons that know the Mormon doctrine better than most Mormons.
Repeating a lie over and over doesn't make it less of a lie. I have called for no banning or censure. I have merely called out your debating tactics as being logically flawed, and with conscious repetition, intentionally deceitful. This latest to me just proves the point, it being the fourth or fifth strawman offered so far. You are the one who asked that proof be shown. QED.
...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.
So, what is the basic premise of your religion, FC? And what is the rest of that gobbledygook supposed to mean? That if you can't defend it, whatever it may be, moral chaos will be drawn into the political sphere via your confusion?
You gotta stop blowing your allowance on $5 words. I take "umbrage" at your "obfuscation" by logical fallacy, not your "religio-political views".