Replies

The customary counter-argument is, of course, that the First Amendment prohibits this sort of consideration. But the First Amendment is no protection against criminal activity. You can't, for example, run a counterfeiting ring from your church and expect it to fall under the First. Well, that's what they told me when I tried it, anyway. Nor can you perform human sacrifice, although I can think of certain people on whom it might be an improvement.

That certainly applies to being the accessory to murder in the form of stockpiling weapons and explosives with an eye to using them for terrorist activities. Whether you can state that it's part of your religion - and in the case of Islam, I wouldn't rule it out - or not is no defense. Similarly, you can't offer sanctuary or support to murder conspiracies. Or shield the perpetrators afterwards. We haven't even approached the touchier realm of treason yet.

Judging from certain of my liberal friends, it's a form of one-upsmanship for them to consider themselves so open-minded that they will actually defend someone else's right to murder them, and, presumably, you as well or preferably you alone. That's quite a feat of intellectual abstraction and also the act of a remarkably stupid individual. You are an oppressor and hence you deserve to die in the name of cosmic justice or something like that. I'll pass, thanks.

"they will actually defend someone else's right to murder them"

I may not agree with you, but I will fight to the death to make sure you have the right to kill me if you, in your good conscious, in accordance to your deeply held religious beliefs, choose to do so.