I don't believe I have ever met someone as enamored with their own intellectual shortcomings as you seem to be with yours. Congratulations, I'm sure there something to say for that, although I can't for the life of me imagine what it would be.
You have proven my point though. You apparently believe it's perfectly fine for someone to justify their own violation of US law with their own religious or moral beliefs, so long as those beliefs align with your own. That sir, is hypocrisy.
We have had over a dozen US citizens placed on trial for their participation and support of Muslim Jihadists. They are waging Jihad because they believe their God instructs them to to save the life of their fellow Muslims. If they were to be tried under the terms that you seem to advocate, they could be found NOT GUILTY if enough of their jury members were sympathetic to their religious beliefs and dogma. That is the logical outcome when we allow a person or a group to substitute their own philosophical beliefs for the demands of the Republic's laws.
Nothing about this case requires a belief in God.
Kansas law addresses this issue that the Roeder case presents, and you seem to keep glossing over that fact.