"My mind is closed to anything almost any conservative Republican might have to say because most of them are liars. If you think the exclusion of liars is a violation of "free speech" then our views are irreconcilable."

I have a right-wing friend with the same extreme partisan filter as you except for him, all things coming from Democrats and Republicans he deems to be RINOs are liars. When I tell him that there can be no critical thought when tribal membership is what you use to determine truth he usually says, we agree to disagree, and we don't destroy a friendship formed decades before either of us had a clue about each other's political views. Who gets to decide who the liars are, you, him or me? I'm fine with us deciding for ourselves. I'm quite outspoken in my disdain of political partisanship as a Litmus test for truth. That doesn't mean that we will never agree on anything, so I don't automatically dismiss your thoughts.

I assume that your science forum has stated rules about religion presented as science and if so, enforcing them is fine. It doesn't take much time to see that that is where someone's ideas are coming from so it's also fine to stop reading when you see fit. I don't read to the end of many articles or comments. Not necessarily because I disagree with them. Most often it's a what's the point? Does this lead to an actionable path to a solution or understanding (often the same thing) or is it just venting hate?

My disdain for the extremes of tribalism isn't about the views of the tribes, but rather the tribalism preempting logical thought by willfully dismissing all things that threaten an ideology. That is by the way what censorship is most often about. Not truth, but threats to the ideology of the censor. Basically, "I don't want to hear that shit!" That's your decision, but you should be the decider of that.

When are you going to explain why you think who decides is not a real argument?