Do religions permit pluralism, or a right to kill non-members?

Conclusion

On the question of pluralism and any 'right' to kill non-members, the traditions diverge along the boundary between scripture's specific historical/legal commands and its general ethical principles. Judaism and Christianity share Hebrew scriptures recording commands to destroy named enemy nations in a bounded covenantal setting, while both traditions also command love or just treatment of the stranger, and Christian scripture adds an explicit command to love enemies. Islamic scripture combines a stated principle of no compulsion in belief with conditional commands to fight specific unbelieving groups until repentance or submission. Buddhism and the secular declarations, by contrast, frame the matter as a universal precept or right that makes no reference to group membership at all; the Hindu passages given do not address the question, and the Sikh passage affirms divine impartiality without addressing killing.

Where they agree

• Judaism, Christianity, Buddhism and the secular sources all commend care, non-oppression, or love toward the stranger or enemy in ordinary life.
• Judaism, Sikhism and the secular declarations each affirm some form of equal human dignity across peoples.
• Where addressed, sources link the treatment of outsiders to remembering one's own past vulnerability or to universal moral principle rather than group loyalty.

Where they differ

• Judaism and Christianity's shared scripture records specific commands to annihilate named enemy nations, unlike the universal non-harm of Buddhism or the rights language of the secular sources.
• Islam pairs an explicit principle of no compulsion in belief with conditional wartime commands against specific unbelieving groups, a combination not found in the other blocks.
• Buddhism and the secular declarations present precepts and rights as holding without exception for group membership, whereas the Abrahamic scriptures given include both universal and group-specific commands.