Rationalia Abortion Thread (A New Start)

[pErvinalia]

Marx was responding to the conditions of his time, a time when those with capital called all the shots and set all the conditions for everybody else, a time when without capital you had little option to sell yourself or your children for a stale loaf, or die. Nowadays we have things like universal suffrage, independent judiciaries, enforcible rights, employment laws, financial regulations, central banks, and sundry other structural mechanisms by which we balance the competing interests of social agents - mechanisms that have transformed social and economic conditions for the betterment of everyone in the 'Western World', and to a great extent the kind of mechanisms which were sought and argued for off the back of the ideas of socio-political reformers before and after Marx and Engels. Nonetheless, anyone who thinks that the ideas of Marx, Engels, Adam Smith, Murray Rothbard, or anyone else alone are the only one-true-path to Utopia is probably a deluded, narrow-minded idiot.

Yep.

And interestingly, most Marxists view social democrats as a bigger enemy than full on capitalists or conservatives. They view social democrats as selling out to the state and prolonging the propping up of the capitalist system. That shows you how fucking deluded they are. Their closest allies are their biggest enemies. And despite informing Seth of this fact many times, he just doesn't seem to get it. He probably also doesn't realise that anarchists fucking hate Marxists, particularly. That's why they broke off from the Marxists when they started on with their elitist and authoritarian bullshit in the USSR and Spain(?).

[Seth]

I love it when atheists know the bible better than Christians!

I find that an interesting and compelling quantum of evidence of the religiosity of Atheists. If Atheists actually have "no belief" about God, why do they spend so much time studying the word of God and arguing about it?

Y'all sound like Yeshiva boys in your dedication to theology.

Well, many of the religious texts in the world are among the oldest writings, and therefore to be an educated person one would want to have some familiarity with such ancient texts. It's the same reason I've read the poetic and prose Eddas, bunches of Norse Sagas, the Baghavad Gita, the Tao Te Chingg, the I'Ching, the Book of Mormom, Protestent, Catholic, Jewish, and other Bibles, the Koran, the Epic of Gilgamesh, and tons of other ancient writings. It always felt to me, when I was reading something, that it was like a direct communication to another person, who existed somewhere in the distant past. A writer, 1,000, 2,000, or 3,000 years ago is sitting at a table somewhere, quill or stylus in hand, placing his thoughts down and communicating directly with readers centuries and thousands of years down the road....

So, reason number one is that, being interested in learning, then it is important to read the material that exists try to understand the context and what people are saying, and why.

Another reason is that nobody knows everything, but as a practical matter we all make decisions based on the information we have that certain things are true and other things are not, certain things are substantiated and other things are not, certain things are doubtful and other things are not, etc. However, that doesn't end the analysis for a critical thinker or a skeptic. To this day, if someone claims to be a god-believer, for example, I want to know why that person holds that belief. I hold open the possibility that I might be convinced. I am very interested in what reasons a person has for holding a belief, and my interest is piqued even moreso when that belief is contrary to a belief I hold. I.e., if I'm wrong about my current understanding, then I want to be corrected.

Another reason is that once you get going on ancient writings, i can tell people who may not think of them as fun reading, that you get used to them and they become VERY enjoyable to read. I liken it to when people generally start reading Shakespeare. it's tough. It almost feels like a different language. it can be boring and difficult to follow and understand. But, once you get rolling and start reading play after play, and learning the obsolete languages used, and familiarizing yourself with the references, metaphors and other literary devices used, it is as fun as reading a modern novel.

That seems to me to be more interesting is the position taken by many religious people that someone who doesn't believe ought not take much of an interest in the religious texts they don't believe in. That, to me, seems to say something about those religious people -- they're saying that THEY aren't interested in reading things that are contrary to or challenge their beliefs. That's an alien concept to me. Were I a god-believer, and heard, say, Christopher Hitchens when he was alive making an impassioned presentation about atheism, I would as soon as possible go find his books on the subject and read them, and learn what the position is. Likewise, I'm not a Communist, but I've read Das Kapital, the Communist Manifesto, and his Critiques, and Engel's Principles of Communism, etc. It's from reading Communist and Marxist texts that I know how repulsive Communism, Marxism and related ideologies are.

I've got a 14 volume limited-edition set of Burton's translation of "A Thousand Nights and a Night." I started reading volume 1 some years ago. I got about fifty pages in before I concluded that it was the most sexist, misogynistic, and disgusting piece of literature I'd ever read, and is probably a perfect example of the Islamic mindset with respect to women.

It's for sale if anyone wants it. $1500

[Seth]

Nope. Christ changed the rules with his sacrifice, which was the entire point of his life and death. When he died and was resurrected (according to Christianity) all those old laws were repealed and new ones put in place.

Jesus repealed the Ten Commandments? Nice!

Well, repealed and reenacted in part anyway...

That must be why Christians seek to put the 10 Commandments up in schools and courthouses in the original, Exodus 21, form, and not the "reenacted" form of the New Testament.... weird, eh? Christians advancing outdated and repealed 10 Commandments?

Christians are neither infallible nor free of sin. Their political actions with respect to Ten Commandment displays likely have more to do with resisting the oppression of secularists and Atheists upon their right to freely exercise their religion than anything else.

[Seth]

If Atheists actually have "no belief" about God, why do they spend so much time studying the word of God and arguing about it?

Same reason libertarians should spend time studying the writings of communists when they insist on criticising communism.

Indeed. Like the Bible, properly read, being among the most potent forces for atheism in the world, so too, a good reading of major works of communism is a potent force against communism.

Abso-fucking-lutely true.

Marxists don't actually want the lumpen proletariat reading much of anything except the propaganda they are spoon-fed because any halfway intelligent person who actually reads Marx quickly understands what a stupid fucker he actually was and how utterly idiotic his ideas are.

[Seth]

No tu quoque fallacy there, nor an ad hominem, as I am commenting on your posts on socialism on the various forums. You don't understand that 'Marxism' is a subset of 'Socialism'. That's where you go so horribly wrong.

Well, you know, that probably is true of Seth. He does often attribute beliefs to others -- like, when he labels atheists "Atheists" with an upper case A, and then attributes to them a lot of political beliefs that are not part of lower case atheism. I am sure he presents his arguments against socialism with the form of socialism that he ascribes to persons who avow themselves as socialists.

However, understand, that if you advance an argument in favor of some form of socialism, it is up to you to define what you're proposing and supporting. it's up to you to support your own argument. Often, folks advancing socialism do not deal much in specificity in that regard. What many pro-socialists do is simply declare that free market capitalism is some sort of oppressive, law of the jungle type system, and socialism has the goal of helping the poor, so therefore socialism good and capitalism bad.

Indeed. Very astute observation. I would add that my practice of lumping all socialists together under Marxism is quite deliberate and is, and always has been an invitation for someone, anyone, to engage in a truly expansive and critical examination of socialism, as you suggest, which has never yet happened. Although some individuals have made beginnings by, for example, pointing out that some democratic socialist societies recognize the utility of capitalism and are therefore "mixed economies," that's where they stop when challenged over the root assumption of all forms of socialism, which is the core assumption that members of a socialist society have a compulsory duty of labor and property to other members of the society beyond that which comprises compensation for those benefits of society that they consume, and that the collective is therefore authorized to impose such duties and enforce obedience and compliance over the objections of the individual.

That's where the debate always ends...in deafening silence...every single time. No socialist seems willing to discuss the implications of the core beliefs of collectivism versus the core beliefs of individualism. No socialist is willing to even attempt to morally, ethically and legally justify this fundamental premise of all socialist (which is to say collectivist) societies. Not once in more than 20 years of prodding and inviting such a response have I seen any real effort in this regard.

And I believe there is an obvious reason that the debate ends there, and that is because socialism, as the progeny of collectivism and it's core principle, has no legal, moral or ethical foundation or justification and therefore all forms of socialism are illegal, immoral and unethical as a matter of basic fact because no matter how much you dress up the pig, it's still a pig. The fruit of the poisonous tree is poisonous.

[Seth]

I think the problem is that you guys in America are utterly and irrationally spooked by Marxism. You don't seem to realise that it is a tiny fringe movement. Marx undoubtedly had some pertinent critiques of capitalism, some that may or may not be still relevant today, but it was his pseudo-scientific bullshit that caused the ideology so much trouble (and still causes it trouble today).

No, it's not. It's an insidious and growing cancer in America that must be cut out and destroyed. You only think it's a "tiny fringe movement" because you refuse to accept the simple fact that Marxism is as Marxism does, and the actions of Marxists are quite literally everywhere, all over the world, including here in the US. You just don't want to see them and therefore you never will.

But I, and many others like me, do see Marxism everywhere because it IS everywhere. Marxism, you see, is not all about marching in the streets waving flags and chanting slogans. In fact it's now NEVER about that because Marxists WANT people to believe that Marxism is dead because that way the actual Marxists (not their useful idiots) can use the Neo-Marxist tactics of slow, insidious cultural Marxism and change from within rather than overt revolutionary Marxism of the past. I keep telling you that this is the plan of the Frankfurt School Neo-Marxists and you keep not paying attention.

If you actually take the time to study and look carefully you'll see the influences of Marxism quite literally everywhere. It's just that they are carefully disguised as something else, like "Progressivism" or "microagressions" or "Black Lives Matter" or ten thousand other Marxism-directed cultural cancers that all lead to a single easily identifiable goal of producing Marxist State Socialism as the ultimate goal. Marxists know that utopian Communism is impossible, so they've given up on that and what they seek now is Soviet-style centrally-planned and controlled State Socialism with they themselves, the Marxist elite, in full and absolute control of all the earth.

They want power, just as Stalin wanted power, and they don't give a fuck who has to die or be oppressed so they can get it. Socialism, you see, isn't about socialism, it's about central power and control by the elite so they can rob the people at will. If you don't believe me, look at the structure of every single socialist country on earth and try and tell me that any of them actually represent the proletarian working class and their interests. I don't know of a single operative "worker's collective" business that actually doesn't have an elite leadership of some kind. I don't know of a single society that actually operates as if each member is exactly equal in every way to every other member, including Cuba.

Every society on earth is a hierarchy of some sort, and socialist hierarchies are just as corrupt and power-hungry at the top as any other. That's just simply a fact. You folks here natter on endlessly about "Labour this" and "Conservatives that" without realizing that both sides, just like here in the US, have exactly one thing in mind at all times: preserving and protecting their perquisites and elite status.

It's human fucking nature rEv, and I wish you'd get it through your thick skull that socialism isn't about equality, it's about deluding the working class into thinking that's what it's about to pacify them and keep them turning out cans of potatoes that the elite can make a profit off of. It's been that way since the Russians co-opted Marx's fanatical utopian nonsense and stopped it at State Socialism. I've explained to you time and again why that happens and will always happen in any "socialist" collectivist society when the OPM runs out, but you won't listen because you're a deluded proletarian useful idiot who has been propagandized into thinking that Capitalism, which creates very wealthy people, is "unfair" to the little guy, like you, and that if you just give yourself to socialism, body and soul, somehow you'll get rich by taking what those rich people have, which will make things "fair" and "equal." It will make things "equal," that much is certain, but you need to examine what sort of "equality" that actually turns out to be like, and I guarantee you it doesn't include you getting a fucking dime from Bill Gates or anybody else. At best it gets you grubbing for potatoes with a sharp stick under the watchful eye of the Commissar whose machine gun will be ruthlessly used to liquidate you if you fail to meet your quota of potatoes. At worst it leads to you building roads in Siberia until you die from starvation and are then buried in the road base without a second though.

Whatever it turns out to be, once the OPM runs out, it ain't going to be pretty, particularly for unemployable depressives such as yourself, who, because they give nothing will get nothing.

At least in Capitalism and individualist societies the individual has a chance, however remote, to rise into the upper strata of economic prosperity because Capitalism and individualism are meritocracies where the only actual obstructions to your success are your own limitations.

Under socialism anybody that presumes to stick their head above the lumpen crowd and attempt to break through into the strata of the socialist elite will be hammered back down one way or another...unless they are willing to play the elitist game of socialism and are of benefit in preserving the elite status of those who are in charge, in which case a few individuals of extraordinary talent may be allowed to rise above the seething mass of lumpen proletarians to be used as a come-on bit of propaganda to give a bit of false hope to the proletarians so that they will remain pacified and at work a while longer. "The Hunger Games" brilliantly illuminated this precise principle.

If you want to see what happens when someone actually tries to build a true equality-based "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" society look no further than Venezuela, which is in chaos and privation and where people can't even obtain toilet paper and are beginning to starve.

If that's what you want, go for it, but let anyone with a lick of sense who wants to leave do so, for the love of God.

[JimC]

No tu quoque fallacy there, nor an ad hominem, as I am commenting on your posts on socialism on the various forums. You don't understand that 'Marxism' is a subset of 'Socialism'. That's where you go so horribly wrong.

Well, you know, that probably is true of Seth. He does often attribute beliefs to others -- like, when he labels atheists "Atheists" with an upper case A, and then attributes to them a lot of political beliefs that are not part of lower case atheism. I am sure he presents his arguments against socialism with the form of socialism that he ascribes to persons who avow themselves as socialists.

However, understand, that if you advance an argument in favor of some form of socialism, it is up to you to define what you're proposing and supporting. it's up to you to support your own argument. Often, folks advancing socialism do not deal much in specificity in that regard. What many pro-socialists do is simply declare that free market capitalism is some sort of oppressive, law of the jungle type system, and socialism has the goal of helping the poor, so therefore socialism good and capitalism bad.

In most cases, a centre-left position would be that free enterprise is an inextricable part of society in the developed world, and that it has both good effects (such as encouraging innovation and competition) and potentially bad effects (if left unchecked and unregulated). The argument then centres on what useful combination of trade unions and government economic policy will allow free enterprise to flourish to a reasonable degree, without exploitation of workers, excessive damage to the environment and over-concentration of power and wealth in the hands of a few (this does not mean wanting equality of wealth, but a cap of some sort on the frequently massive gap between rich and poor).

The degree to which restrictions are placed on free enterprise is part of the political argument in any given country; an acceptable balance will arise via the ballot box.

[Brian Peacock]

Nope. Christ changed the rules with his sacrifice, which was the entire point of his life and death. When he died and was resurrected (according to Christianity) all those old laws were repealed and new ones put in place.

Jesus repealed the Ten Commandments? Nice!

Well, repealed and reenacted in part anyway...

That must be why Christians seek to put the 10 Commandments up in schools and courthouses in the original, Exodus 21, form, and not the "reenacted" form of the New Testament.... weird, eh? Christians advancing outdated and repealed 10 Commandments?

Christians are neither infallible nor free of sin. Their political actions with respect to Ten Commandment displays likely have more to do with resisting the oppression of secularists and Atheists upon their right to freely exercise their religion than anything else.

Ah, so courthouses are a religious venue now? Guess they're dispensing religious justice too.

[Brian Peacock]

And all the time Seth keeps this discussion, like so many others, fixed on political theory he's basically avoiding having to address the issue, of the Christians attitude to the morality of abortions and its failure, as demonstrated by the likes of Mr Dear who used his religious beliefs to justify terrorism and murder -- (in the voice of John Wayne) "For surely it was the will of God." -- and the Protestant and Catholic legislators of Northern Ireland who threaten doctors with prosecution and even forbid abortion for rape victims and clinically dead foetuses.

[JimC]

Seth wrote:

...Christians are neither infallible nor free of sin. Their political actions with respect to Ten Commandment displays likely have more to do with resisting the oppression of secularists and Atheists upon their right to freely exercise their religion than anything else...

So, I guess we'll see muslims putting up sections of the Koran all over American courthouses pretty soon?

[Seth]

No tu quoque fallacy there, nor an ad hominem, as I am commenting on your posts on socialism on the various forums. You don't understand that 'Marxism' is a subset of 'Socialism'. That's where you go so horribly wrong.

Well, you know, that probably is true of Seth. He does often attribute beliefs to others -- like, when he labels atheists "Atheists" with an upper case A, and then attributes to them a lot of political beliefs that are not part of lower case atheism. I am sure he presents his arguments against socialism with the form of socialism that he ascribes to persons who avow themselves as socialists.

However, understand, that if you advance an argument in favor of some form of socialism, it is up to you to define what you're proposing and supporting. it's up to you to support your own argument. Often, folks advancing socialism do not deal much in specificity in that regard. What many pro-socialists do is simply declare that free market capitalism is some sort of oppressive, law of the jungle type system, and socialism has the goal of helping the poor, so therefore socialism good and capitalism bad.

In most cases, a centre-left position would be that free enterprise is an inextricable part of society in the developed world, and that it has both good effects (such as encouraging innovation and competition) and potentially bad effects (if left unchecked and unregulated).

Which of course is a bogus argument because nobody actually thinks that free enterprise can or should be "left unchecked and unregulated." This is absolutely the most common red-herring strawman argument against capitalism that socialists trot out, and I wish you would stop doing it because it's just grossly misleading and displays either fundamental intellectual dishonesty or fundamental stupidity.

The argument then centres on what useful combination of trade unions and government economic policy will allow free enterprise to flourish to a reasonable degree,

Why are "trade unions" a necessary part of the supervision and regulation of free markets? The proper role of government in regulating economic activity is nothing more or less than policing the market to prevent and punish the initiation of force or fraud by anyone in any sort of transaction. Beyond that government has no role in meddling in the private affairs or trade negotiations of private businesses in a free market, and that includes putting its thumb on the scales with respect to trade unions.

Unions and their relationships with employers should be beyond the power of government to regulate other than for reasons of public peace and order, and that authority should extend only as far as arresting and prosecuting ANYONE who engages in labor dispute violence, for any reason at all and without regard for their rationale or self-justification for initiating violence.

Beyond that restricted authority, it should be entirely up to the employer and the unions to come to an agreement, or not come to an agreement, about wages and benefits. Note please that I do NOT include workplace health and safety regulation which IS a proper venue for government because a failure to provide a safe and healthy workplace is an initiation of both force and fraud on the employees.

If an employer decides he doesn't want to deal with the union, then the union is free to have its members walk out or to engage in free-speech but peaceable picketing to try to gain public support for consumer-based voluntary economic sanctions on the employer, and the employer is free to hire anyone he likes at whatever wage the individual hired chooses to accept as fair trade for his labor input, whether or not the union thinks it's adequate.

without exploitation of workers,

Please carefully define what "exploitation of workers" means in your mind. As stated it's an extremely broad concept that doesn't actually provide anything to discuss.

excessive damage to the environment

Regulation of damage to the environment falls under the "force or fraud" provisions of Libertarianism. I like to characterize it more precisely by using the concept of "exported harm" to narrow the field somewhat. My "exported harm" construct holds that the owner of land (or an "environment") is free to do with his land as he pleases provided that he does not directly export harm to others, either individually or collectively, in doing so. This includes the potential of future harm to others long after the activity takes place, which covers things like disposing of toxic chemicals that may leak or otherwise escape the boundaries of the property, and it includes the potential danger of sudden forces that cannot be controlled or retained within the boundaries of the property, such as the manufacturing of toxic gasses or explosives.

In all such cases of exported harm the greater community gains authority to reasonably regulate such activities and materials in the interests of the safety of individuals and property in the community.

Therefore a government regulation forbidding the manufacture of highly-volatile and potentially explosive rocket fuel in a densely populated urban area can be prohibited under the exported harm principle because the landowner cannot absolutely guarantee that the materials will not detonate and thereby export harm to others nearby.

On the other hand, if the plant is located in a remote area where a sudden detonation of the materials (which has happened) can damage only the property of the manufacturer, the government would have no power to prohibit such manufacture, but would still have the power to regulate that manufacture in order to prevent the exporting of harm to the employees and visitors to the facility. Thus we see that the "exported harm" principle works in both the macro and micro sphere of effect and can apply to literally any activity by any individual that exports, or has the ability to export harm to others.

In the micro sphere, an example would be firearms regulations that specify under what physical conditions a firearm may be lawfully discharged either for pleasure, practice or defense. This would of course allow government to prohibit the discharge of firearms except in necessary and reasonable self-defense in any densely populated area where such gunfire would endanger others nearby. It would not permit the government to ban the weapons themselves, which short of being actually discharged are harmless and do not in and of themselves export any actual physical harm, but it would permit government to do what it already does by way of ensuring as much as possible the safety of the general public by criminalizing unsafe or improper discharge of firearms.

and over-concentration of power and wealth in the hands of a few (this does not mean wanting equality of wealth, but a cap of some sort on the frequently massive gap between rich and poor).

By what moral argument would government gain the authority to dictate to any particular individual how much wealth he or she may generate and accumulate? Why should a person's ability to generate wealth be subject to what is essentially the veto power of the collective? How does the individual's great wealth in and of itself cause economic or social or any other kind of exported harm to those with less wealth that would justify restricting the wealthy individual's ability to generate wealth or right to the exclusive possession and enjoyment of that wealth?

The degree to which restrictions are placed on free enterprise is part of the political argument in any given country; an acceptable balance will arise via the ballot box.

That is a fallacious appeal to common practice, not an argument supporting any sort of restrictions. You need to explain why such restrictions are morally justifiable in the first place instead of saying, in effect, "well, that's just the way it is."

[Seth]

Ah, so courthouses are a religious venue now? Guess they're dispensing religious justice too.

Well, the point is that the free exercise of religion CAN be reasonably regulated and the government also has an affirmative obligation to prevent even the appearance of government sponsored sanction of any particular religion or religious beliefs.

On the other hand, people of faith in the personal of members of the public do have a right to freedom of religious expression, including such expressions taking place in the public square.

What this causes is an inquiry into the facts when it is alleged that a display of religious expression is violating the prohibition on the "establishment of religion" by the government.

With respect to your example, such an inquiry would result in a judgment that the display of explicitly Judeo-Christian religious principles such as the Ten Commandments in a courthouse or courtroom would be very likely to lead the average individual not of that faith to believe that the administration of secular justice might well be compromised and skewed in favor of Judeo-Christian ethics.

Because the Constitution guarantees each person due process of law free of religious influence, and because due process means that the actions of law cannot themselves be manifestations of religious belief (such as Sharia law) under the Establishment Clause, it would therefore be clear that the display of the Ten Commandments, or the Torah, or the Koran, or a bust of Buddah or Shiva or any other religious icon or text would indeed be unconstitutional. But not merely because such materials might make some non-believing individual "uncomfortable" or cause them to feel "unwelcome" or "excluded," but because such materials threaten the secular objectivity of the court itself and therefore they impact the due process rights of the individual.

On the other hand, the erection of a Ten Commandments monument in a public place which is managed with the expectation of being a public venue for free speech and expression, like a public park or sculpture garden, does not inherently entangle the government in an establishment of religion so long as the materials themselves are not paid for with government funds or erected by government employees. The distinction here is important. Government has an affirmative constitutional duty to support and protect the right of each and every individual to engage in both peaceable religious expression and peaceable speech and expression and it has a duty to not discriminate against anyone in doing so based on the (otherwise peaceable) content of the speech or expression, whether religious or secular. Indeed, to some extent free exercise (and thus expression) of religion is more carefully protected than non-religious free speech or expression because it is explicitly protected by both the Free Exercise and Free Speech clauses of the First Amendment.

Therefore, if a Muslim wants to erect a monument to Islam, or a Jew wants to erect a menorah, or a Christian wants to erect a Ten Commandments display or Christmas nativity scene in a public place which is managed as a venue for public free speech (ie: where other forms of speech and expression such as public assemblies, protests, etc. are permitted) the government is constitutionally obligated to judge all such applications based on necessary public property management factors alone absolutely without regard for the religious or non- religious nature of the expression.

The common excuse used by religious Atheist fascists in objecting to Christmas nativity scenes and Ten Commandment monuments that the simple viewing (or even potential viewing) of such objects makes an Atheist (or anyone else) "feel uncomfortable" or "feel excluded" or "feel discriminated against" is absolute constitutional and legal bullshit of the worst sort.

There is absolutely no right to freedom FROM having to endure public displays of religious belief. The First Amendment does not provide and in fact expressly DENIES any such right. The "offense" that an Atheist might take at having to look at a Ten Commandments display in a public park is not only completely irrelevant it is in fact constitutionally dismissed and repudiated because the First Amendment has the express purpose of denying to anyone that sort of heckler's veto of peaceable speech or expression, religious or otherwise. Not only that, but the First Amendment imposes upon government an affirmative duty to act in defense of free secular and religious expression and to sanction those who seek to interfere with it. Therefore, government is certainly authorized to take legal or physical action against those who interfere with or infringe upon the otherwise lawful and peaceable speech and expression of anyone else, including people of faith.

What that means to me is that when it comes to the sort of nuisance lawsuits filed by the "Freedom From Religion Foundation" against citizen-erected public religious displays on public property as lawfully permitted by the administrative government agency that approves such permits for areas designated for free speech and expression displays, the FFRF should be both counter-sued by the private owners of the display for tortious interference with the religious group's civil rights under 42 USC 1983:

42 U.S. Code § 1983 - Civil action for deprivation of rights

Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer’s judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable. For the purposes of this section, any Act of Congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia.

and they should be criminally charged under 18 USC 241:

TITLE 18, U.S.C., SECTION 241

If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same;...

They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

And so should any federal judge who fails to summarily dismiss any such filing.

FFRF, you're on notice.

[Seth]

And all the time Seth keeps this discussion, like so many others, fixed on political theory he's basically avoiding having to address the issue, of the Christians attitude to the morality of abortions and its failure, as demonstrated by the likes of Mr Dear who used his religious beliefs to justify terrorism and murder -- (in the voice of John Wayne) "For surely it was the will of God." -- and the Protestant and Catholic legislators of Northern Ireland who threaten doctors with prosecution and even forbid abortion for rape victims and clinically dead foetuses.

Well, Christians are perfectly entitled to draw moral judgments about abortion based on their religious beliefs as an essential aspect of their right to the free exercise of their religion and their right to speak and express themselves freely in the public square. Moreover, Christians are perfectly entitled to allow their religious beliefs about abortion to inform their political decisions, their legislative advocacy, and their support for laws which comport with their religious beliefs. That's democracy in case you've forgotten.

And you are likewise perfectly entitled to do the same according to your religious beliefs. That you don't like their agenda is balanced by the fact that they don't like yours, and may the best man win.

That you think their beliefs and their personal and political expression of those beliefs as citizens are "failure" is your opinion, to which you are of course entitled. And theirs is theirs, to which they are entitled. But that you believe it to be so does not make it so, no matter how eruditely you may express your opinion.

I find it interesting that you tout the benefits of democratic determinism when it suits you and you revile it when it does not.

If the people of Ireland want laws prohibiting abortion, well, according to democratic socialism they are perfectly entitled to have it just exactly that way, because under all socialist systems, in the end, the rights of the individual are always subservient to the needs and desires of the majority.

In the United States however, we have an individualist construct called "The Constitution" which guarantees the absolute supremacy of certain individual rights over the will of the majority, which is a deliberate check and balance on the tendency of democracy to run amok and become majoritarian totalitarian tyranny.

[Seth]

Seth wrote:

...Christians are neither infallible nor free of sin. Their political actions with respect to Ten Commandment displays likely have more to do with resisting the oppression of secularists and Atheists upon their right to freely exercise their religion than anything else...

So, I guess we'll see muslims putting up sections of the Koran all over American courthouses pretty soon?

Hardly. But we may see them in public parks, and that's just fine with me.

[JimC]

To this part of my post:

The degree to which restrictions are placed on free enterprise is part of the political argument in any given country; an acceptable balance will arise via the ballot box.

Seth wrote:

That is a fallacious appeal to common practice, not an argument supporting any sort of restrictions. You need to explain why such restrictions are morally justifiable in the first place instead of saying, in effect, "well, that's just the way it is."

You have missed my point entirely. Your version of what restrictions are permissible or reasonable is not holy writ, neither is mine. Presumably, you would argue for less government restrictions than me. Fine, in any particular nation or electorate, you put your argument out there into the political marketplace, I will put mine, and we'll see what the voting public makes of it. Each country will find a balance that works for it.