Freedom of speech is the liberty granted to individuals to express themselves freely without any censorship. However, the very rights are subjected to certain limitations such as slander, libel, incitement, obscenity and an intention to commit crime. The discussion on Phoenix pastor who is wishing that President Obama would be dead provides a concise example on the practicality of religious tolerance and freedom of speech. It is profound to underscore the fact that both the Phoenix pastor and President Obama have express right to freedom of expression as stipulated in Universal Declaration of Human Rights in article 19. Therefore, the pastor has the right to freely express himself and he should not be censored on the same ground. As stipulated in Article 19 of the Universal Human Rights Declaration, the pastor has the right to share ideas and information of all kinds regardless of the periphery involved and in this case, he should not be criticized on the basis that he made the remark against the president of United States of America. On the other hand, the pastor had no right to censor Obama bearing in mind that every individual has the right to exercise his or her freedom of expression. However, due to the fact that the pastor used discriminatory remarks that could result into incitement and hate speech, it can be argued that he was not justified at all by wishing for the death of Obama. As a matter of fact, even though freedom of speech and expression is guaranteed to all individual, it may not be good taste to openly make such remarks in public both from religious and political points of view. Furthermore, it is prudent to observe that no single religious code of ethics or principles would permit such utterances at any given time largely due to the fact that it does not promote peaceful co-existence among people, the latter being a core value in religion. Therefore, the Phoenix pastor is unjustified. We can also argue that to some extent, he abused the freedom of religion, freedom of speech and religious tolerance as laid down in the United States constitution (Ontario consultants on religious tolerance par. 1). In a more critical analysis, the pastor is wrong because there should be a sensible balance when exercising freedom of speech, freedom of religion bearing in mind that religious tolerance should be firmly in place regardless of faith one professes to. In addition, religious freedom of an individual has no impact on the freedom of speech of another person. Therefore, even though the pastor has the right to exercise his religious freedom, he has no right to interfere with the freedom of Obama in any way. The pastor had no authority or constitutional right to incite his congregation against the United States President even though the latter had commented and apparently gave a nod to contentious debate surrounding abortion. Moreover, there is need to censor speech on religious issues because individuals have different faiths and hold varying views on certain religious aspects. As a result, the comment made by the pastor was wrong on the basis that he did not merge his religious difference with that of Obama in a tolerant manner but instead tried to suppress the discourse of the speaker. Hence, it was erroneous for him to condemn Obama and wish