The Limitations of Freedom of Religion

     The Bill of Rights guarantees Freedom of Religion.  However, this license to be left alone, to believe what one wants, is dependent upon the legality of the rest of one's actions.  To illustrate the contrary, intrinsic philosophy, explore the following example:

Suppose an individual decided to subscribe to a new "religion" called "malsi".  This religion believes that it is God's will that malsians capture, torture, and then behead all government workers and judges in the judicial branch of government where one lives.  Only when the last person in the judiciary is "cleansed" will the malsians be able to go to a heavenly paradise.

Obviously, if this set of beliefs is ruled intrinsically sacred because of the American Constitution, then this country, and especially its judiciary, are in for a horrific future.  But, in reason it is not.  Why is that?

To be free to exercise one's Individual Rights is dependent upon one's respect for the Individual Rights of everyone else.  If a known religion, such as "malsi", notoriously advocates a threat towards the freedom and safety of individuals, then judicially preemptive measures may be warranted--especially in war-time.

Finally, pointing out that Freedom of Religion is not intrinsically absolute, in law, does not give Congress the mandate to declare that Right null and void.  Freedom of Religion still stands even if one prosecutes on the grounds that a religion is advocating threats to innocent individuals.  The element of war-time military association acts to magnify the perceived level of threats that would otherwise be considered as less than they are.

Paul Wharton
Objectivist Capitalist Medicine Promoter

Special thanks to Eli Lilly & Co. (LLY) for being the fuel of my mind