You're not part of a religion, you're part of a cult

>> All religions are cults, <<

That could be debated, but most religions do not advocate violence/harm against non-believers.

>> and all religions and cults have First Amendment protection. <<

The 1st amendment provides five protections. Can you name them without looking them up, first?

Anyway, religious freedoms (one of the five protections of the 1st amendment, is recognised by the US Supreme Court as providing both freedom of religion and freedom from religion) are protected as rights, but only to the extent that they don't infringe on the rights of others. When a religion infringes the rights of others (eg, by advocating violence against infidels, heretics, and apostates), that's crossing the line into a cult which is not entitled to religious protections.

Are Cults Legal?
https://www.hg.org/legal-articles/are-cults-legal-35055

>> Even ones that do are protected under the First Amendment. Actually engaging in violence or harm is illegal and not constitutionally protected, of course. But simply advocating for harm against non-believers does not violate freedom of religion. If it did, we would have to outlaw Islam, Judaism, and other religions. <<

"Inciting" violence is not protected speech, as per Brandenburg v. Ohio - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio

While many religions' ancient sacred texts have passages that are not kind to outsiders, modern practices mostly distance themselves form such passages, framing them as historic artefacts from a different time. One popular and fast-growing religion, however, does currently advocate and promote violence against infidels, heretics, and apostates. In itself, this is not "crossing the line", but when incidents of actual violence are considered in aggregate, a reasonable person might begin to doubt the legitimacy of such religious teachings, and consider it more of a dangerous cult.

>> Speech, religion, assembly, press, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances (and I did not have to look them up) <<

Either you're extraordinarily well versed in the US Constitution, or you're lying.

>> That is true. However, again, simply having a teaching that advocates for violence against non-believers does not mean the government can ban a religion. Otherwise, it would require that both the Koran and the Bible be prohibited, since both contain verses which promote violence and death for non-believers. <<

"The government" can and should take legal action against individuals and/or groups who repeatedly "incite" violence. Whether it's an outlaw biker-gang or a registered religious organisation does not and should not matter.

>> The link you provided doesn't really help your argument, since it acknowledges that what a cult is cannot always be clearly defined. <<

Do you disagree with the assertion, that a religion which advocates for killing infidels, heretics, and apostates is not a cult? While there's certainly no legal definition of a "cult", (I'll say it again) "the government" can and should take legal action against individuals and/or groups who repeatedly "incite" violence. Whether it's an outlaw biker-gang or a registered religious organisation does not and should not matter.

I think you need to re-read Brandenburg v. Ohio... “Freedoms of speech and press do not permit a State to forbid advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.”

"The Court used a two-pronged test to evaluate laws affecting speech acts: 1. speech can be prohibited if its purpose is to incite or produce imminent lawless action; and 2. doing so is likely to incite or produce such an action." - https://globalfreedomofexpression.columbia.edu/cases/brandenburg-v-ohio/

Regardless of how you define a cult, ANY organisation that advocates for killing people because of their beliefs or expressions should be under law enforcement surveillance, and ANY organisation that "incites" people to commit violence on those grounds should be shut down.

>> The key word you're glossing over is "imminent". <<

Not at all. I've mentioned it twice, above.

The key word you're glossing over, having not mentioned it at all, is "incite". While most religious texts have sections that are not kind to outsiders, one popular religion stands out for "inciting" (and committing!) violence against outsiders.

Of course, they don't just target people who practice other religions. Most of their victims, internationally, are people who practice the same religion, but practice it "wrong" - imgflip.com/i/20wx5b

Again, it's not the texts (although the Koran is arguably more explicit) it's the preaching.

Not too many preists or rabbis are encouraging or inciting violence against outsiders... But there are plenty of imams who are using their positions to incite violence.

It's like you want to miss the point... The Bible, Torah, and even the Koran do not "incite" violence. How they're taught *may* be an incitement to violence, and *that* is not protected under the 1st Amendment.

“The Supreme Court has held that "advocacy of the use of force" is unprotected when it is "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action" and is "likely to incite or produce such action".[1][2] In Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969), the Supreme Court unanimously reversed the conviction of a Ku Klux Klan group for "advocating ... violence ... as a means of accomplishing political reform" because their statements at a rally did not express an immediate, or imminent intent to do violence.[3] This rule amended a previous decision of the Court, in Schenck v. United States (1919), which simply decided that a "clear and present danger" could justify a congressional rule limiting speech. The primary distinction is that the latter test does not criminalize "mere advocacy".[4]” - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exceptions#Incitement