Religious Freedom

The event that prompts this post is, I'll admit, a bit outdated. Remember that raid on the Fundamentalist Mormon sect (known as FLDS)? Let me recap for a second in case you forgot. A teenage girl called an anonymous tipline to say that she had been abused on the ranch (Yearning for Zion, I believe it is called, if you'd like to wikipedia it). Alright, so that was good, right? She worked up the courage to call out whomever this asshole who abused her was, and hopefully he will be thrown in jail.
But no. Instead, the next day, the powers that be invade the ranch, and take over 400 children away from their families! Because of a phone call?
Think about a regular community, like Traer, or in Ohio like Berea. A girl is abused and calls the proper authorities. Would the police raid every home in the town and take away all legal minors? Hell no!

What I am saying is that I am with the FLDS on that case--apparently the Supreme Court of the state of Texas was, too. One phone call does not warrant taking hundreds of children away from their home. It was, clearly, an issue of religious discrimination. People think the FLDS is bizarre (which it is), and maybe even barbaric, because they allow polygamy, and they pretty openly think men are better than women. Not to mention, they tried to go off and live on their own! How dare they!
Well listen, the fact is, just like freedom of speech, when you have a country with freedom of religion, you have to let the weirdos in.
The state claimed their right to take away the children, because they feared them being 'socialized' to become abusive. The courts rejected this as too broad.

Ok, so thats my opinion on that case. But it brings up some interesting questions about freedom of religion that I just don't know the answer to.
Freedom of speech laws have had many famous court cases to sort how far it goes. Basically anything that isn't obscene (as defined by the Law) is free. But what about freedom of religion? It seems intuitive that we would want a vast range of freedom of religion--but then cases like the FLDS weaken those intuitions. Religious pacifists don't have to fight in wars; this seems fair. Can a religion be openly racist? I would say that should probably be allowed, for similar reasons as freedom of speech. Where do we set the limits? Any suggestions? We can play it safe up in abstract theory land to simplify things.

The second question I have is about organized religions vs. non-organized religions. If the law is willing to grant religious people exceptions from obligations, which they ought to, why can't irreligious people have the same perks? Ok yes, you shouldn't get to avoid draft because its inconvenient, but that isn't exactly what I'm saying.
What I am saying is that, I don't belong to any religious group. But I have ethical standards I take just as seriously as devoutly religious people. Why should I be legally obliged to do something I consider unethical, if religious people don't? And how many members does a church need to have before their beliefs are accepted?
Certainly we can imagine strange religions which would bring serious problems--like a religion which had a compulsory communion of LSD or another illegal substance. The government has let this type of thing go with certain Native American religions; why couldn't a new start-up religion be just as valid?
I'm not asking these questions in order to cheat the system--I'm just trying to consider a principled way to give equal rights to all religious and non-religious people, regardless of their particular faith's popularity, normality, or age. And this question is proving more difficult than I thought it would be. Any takers?

Defeat by Self-Refutation

The more philosophy I think about/read, the more evidence there seems to be in favor of the following view:
"Every philosophical position is self-refuting." (Which, if true, is itself self-refuting)
I mean, its just bizarre--maybe its just the way I think, but it seems like every original criticism I can come up with against a view is that it is self-refuting.
Verificationism, for example. "All sentences are either true by definition or only true by appeal to possible experience." Self-refuting.
Naturalism...this is too hard to sum up in one brief sentence. wikipedia it. But naturalism is arguably self-refuting, because if evolution is true, our brains were only evolved to survive and reproduce, not necessarily to reason well. Therefore, our theories don't have any probability of being true, only of being conducive to survival. Therefore, naturalism, a theory created by us, has no probability of being true. Self-refutation.

But I have a new one. I was looking into the 'Brights' movement. The Brights are naturalists. A bright is defined as: "A bright's worldview is free of supernatural and mystic elements." Brights are naturalists. So I'm thinking...am I a Bright? I certainly am a methodological Bright, that is, I don't think science should ever posit mystical entities as solutions or causes of events.
But naturalism originates from skepticism about mystical entities like Gods or spirits. Now I have that skepticism, but I remain utterly agnostic about these entities. Now is naturalism an atheism about these entities? It seems the answer must be 'Yes'--they are the opposite of supernaturalists, who DO believe in the entities. It seems to me the best to withhold judgment on anything of which we have no evidence of. The Brights claim that the absence of evidence is the evidence of absence.
Ok, so what is my point?
The Brights are implicitly holding the Universal claim: "All events in the world have natural explanations/causes." But a Universal claim goes beyond naturalism. It is asserting something beyond all possible experience. It is thus, supernatural. Thus, the Brights are self-refuting.
Unless they are just methodological naturalists; in which case, I am a Bright. But so is everyone but evangelicals. That seems to make the movement much less interesting.