That depends on how cheaply you can hire a killing (at least in several friends' cases).

Pre-nups are not at all stupid. They ARE cold as hell, which is why they only tend to appear in second or third marriages, or when one's lawyers are day-to-day associates.

And that you should have had a pre-nup, assuming any assets before the marriage. Most people get married when too young and un-wealthy for a prenup to help, of course (unless the pre-nup becomes an occasionally updated in-case-of-splitup contract).

Except that most people would live to gather the wisdom of 1 year, 1000 times, instead the experience of 1000 years. Seriously, after a couple years as a hotel room clerk, gas station attendant, bank teller, assembly line worker, stripper, waiter or waitress, etc., how much more do you learn? Or, if this had appeared 1000 years ago, how much would you get from the doctor who spent 850 years convinced that bleeding someone treated anything (except porpheria), the farmer who could run a team of oxen but thought that horse collars were new-fangled (ignoring tractors, or no-till techniques), or the sailor who spent most of his life on single-masted square-sailed ships with oars but now worked on roll-on-roll-off transports?

Redefining Marxist-Leninist Communism as a religion, which therefore frees atheists from its sins, is ridiculous sophistry.

And these moslems in Andalucia got into their controlling position by free elections, I suppose? In fact, I would question whether they were ever in the majority, let alone when they conquered it.

Furthermore, aristotle-dude neglected the invasions of Egypt, which was overwhelmingly Christian (as well as a part of the Roman Empire [the part usually called Byzantine by the modern West]), and the rest of North Africa, as well as Syria, Palestine, whatever they called modern-day Jordan at the time, etc., as well as subsequent invasions of the Imperial heartlands in what is now called Turkey, Greece, the Balkans, etc.

Complaining that the Christians were not as cultured as the Moslems, and therefore had no right to defense or counter-attack, is not only absurd (since the Roman Empire in Constantinople certainly put the best of Islam to shame, in that respect), but implies that the Nazis had the right to invade anyplace because there were more and better orchestras in Germany than insert-your-victim-here.

Atheism is a necessary part of (Leninist-style, at least) communism, according to most of its official ideologues. Further, they killed some religious believers who were otherwise not objecting to other communist doctrines such as state ownership of all means of production. Therefore, the communists killed for atheism.

At least some of them. OTOH, communists also executed people for choosing their ancestors poorly (the Czars minor children, frex). Sometimes, the communists executed people for backing the wrong communists in the competition for power among themselves. Basically, communists were not good people, at least in large numbers or state apparatuses, although I expect that a few were, as individuals.

Did he ever speak or write, objecting to the hoarding of stamps as a sign of counter-revolutionary activity? If not, I would question your second premise.

> but certainly one cannot be executed for leaving their religion

One certainly can; whether one should be is an entirely different matter.

> I bought the car from Honda through the dealer. I gave them money, they gave me a car - fee for service.

Did you insist that the dealer remove the Honda logos from the vehicle, as well? After all, you bought the car from Honda, without specifying that you would advertise their product in any way, didn't you?

Not that I don't sometimes agree with your sentiment. My father damaged our Chevy Citation, two weeks after he bought it from the dealer, and insisted on paying $24.95 for the replacement Chevy emblem when we could have just filled the locator holes with a little bondo, instead, and I berated him for it the whole night that we spent fixing the damage.

If we change "just to make a profit" to "just to get what they or their clients want, regardless" then I expect that the answer is: at least back to the time of Cicero. The only nice thing about lawyers is that, before they took over, people used to get what they wanted by hiring mobs (or demagoguing them, ala Mark Anthony's Ovation in Julius Caesar, or Cicero's Against Catiline) to kill their opponents (and, usually, their families, as well).