Theists: Hitchens Wager

[chimp3]

I am confused! However, if a freethinker would fight and die for the rights of others to believe.....

Yeah, I think they can, I think that a believer can too..but, what I'm wondering (as an solution to the puzzle of the question, in any case) is whether or not in some circumstance explicitly religious martyrdom could actually be a moral act.  

No! As an example, I do not believe people should be punished for hate crimes. Murder is murder. Because a murderer killed for greed or power rather than bigotry does not mean the victim/ family does not deserve equal justice! 

Okay, I guess there's there's alot to unpack in that one, but...I think the next bit is probably the bit that I;d look to challenge if I were trying to answer the question.  

Maryrdom is a motivation not an action!

That seems like a fine line to draw.  Sure, though, if we rule out that sort of martyrdom as an action then it couldn't be an action that theists were capable of that atheists weren't.  Though, honestly, it is an answer to that question..as expressed in the punchline to hitchens wager, as related by hitchens himself.  -Now imagine some terrible act that only a believer could do.

In suggesting the obvious counterfactual, I'm asking you to consider whether or not some instance of that punchline set, so quick, so easy to think of (in hitchens estimation) might have been misclassifed as immorality when it was, in fact, moral?

If that is the case, those terrible acts limited to believers are already asserted as being uniquely in the possession of the faithful.  Misclassification has the potential to make at least one of those uniquely possessed acts moral.

I never limited anything to believers!