We are clearly operating under differing definitions of "absolute." If the right to religious exercise were absolute, human sacrifice would be a protected religious expression.
The definition of absolute rights does not mean they can not be violated, they can be.
We are clearly operating under different definitions of "absolute." If absolute rights can be violated, does the word absolute mean anything at all?
Absolute rights are inherent and require justification to violate, else they are inviolate.
Rights are inherent. That's why they're rights and not privileges. If a right can be violated with or without "justification," it'a not absolute. Your use of the phrase "absolute rights" is more accurately and more succinctly summarized as "rights."
Obviously. Under whatever definition you're using, there are no absolute rights. That's, because more than a few people can and will violate them.
"If the right to religious exercise were absolute, human sacrifice would be a protected religious expression."
Free exercise of religion is an absolute right. Human sacrifice is not. In short, the sacrificed can't give up his right to life, in the same way one can't voluntarily be someone's slave. It has to the fact they're not free to change their minds after the fact, the inherent fraud involved and the victims are likely to be minors, or equivalently incompetent.
Whats your def of absolute right? Example?