Limits on religious freedom?
So I was just reading that this guy who is accused of shooting at the white house recently believed he was "the modern day Jesus you've all be waiting for" and that Obama was the anti-christ and he [ortega-hernandez] believed God wanted him to kill him [Obama]. I think some of the religious claims may have been taken slightly out of context (ie, I'm not sure if he literally thought he was Jesus, or more metaphorically thought so, like one would say "I'm the modern day fred astair!" or something), but it got me thinking a few things that I thought I'd bounce off you guys.
First, if he really did believe he was on some mission from God, it sort of drives home the point I was making in my discussion with Heath recently in the prayer thread. I think I may have made my last post in that discussion overly personal, by asking Heath to consider what he, personally, would do if his Prophet told him to kill someone, and probably caused the discussion to end by doing so, so I apologize for that. But, I think this case of Ortega-Hernandez illustrates that it's not just paranoia on my part to bring that kind of question up.
Second, if he really did believe these religious ideas, someone taking a very simple interpretation of the constitution might say his attempt at assassination was a protected action, since congress could make no laws restricting his practice of his religion. Now, I don't think any reasonable person would hold such a view. We all accept, probably without even thinking about it, that there are practical limits on religious freedom in the US. You can't kill anyone just because it's part of your religion. Their right to not be killed trumps your right to practice that aspect of your religion.
My question, though, is where does, and where should that line be drawn? How do/should we decide when religious rights trump, and when they don't? Thorny cases on this topic are fairly numerous. There's the issue of whether or not a parent who's religion rejects modern medicine should be allowed to let their child die of a curable illness. Whether religious practices that involve drug use (native american religious ceremonies involving peyote, for example) should be legal exceptions to the drug laws. Should religious organizations be able to violate the american with disabilities act and fire people because they're in a wheel chair, and simply not be subject to legal action because the government cannot get involved in how a religious organization does its business? I'm sure you guys can come up with others.
So, what's the right line to draw? Is there a good guideline we can use to determine where religious freedom ends?