Did. Curious that the whole thing began when you brought up "religious absolutism" in a context that had nothing to do with it. Oh, and I didn't read into it what you did. Particularly the "cowardly" observation. What, pray, would be courage in this context?
If you remember, when you first accused me of a non-sequitur you asked me not to respond.
Well, there again was the humor at your expense. Honestly, I didn't think it was all that subtle.
I thought now would be the time to lay out my chain of reasoning, . . .
My breath is bated.
. . .to include the steps I omitted. But that's a lot of work . . .
Indeed. I'd suggest saving it. If I am correct it might make a fine dissertation.
Religious absolutism usually, and especially in this context, is related to moral absolutism. Religion is the fountainhead from which absolute morals spring.
Absolute morality, in this context, is the justification for condemning abortion as murder and as always, under almost all circumstances, immoral.
Liberal interpretation of the Constitution is seen as immoral and corrupt because it is seen as Godless, as against religion and its teachings.
And so on.
"cowardly"
Cowardly refers to the use of innuendo (innundo in tribute to The Philadelphia Story). An example would be the implication that spelling errors are a sure indication of ignorance - or is everything just "more humor at my expense"? At some point of course that ceases to be humor and becomes disrespectful bullying or an all-purpose out from responsibility.
Honestly, I didn't think it was all that subtle.
It wasn't. Believe me it wasn't. But I treated it with tolerance and honored it. My mistake.