I'd say you'll get as much freedom in religion as you get in freedom of anything. All freedoms have at least a LITTLE restriction. TOTAL religious freedom would be a terrible thing because you could hide behind belief to do whatever you want.
So long as laws aren't made to inhibit others from believing in something (or force people into believing something), I would consider it pretty free. At a social level you'll get some harassment based on your religion, but for how Christianity-accomodating the US government is, it's not as oppressive of other religions as some other places.
Freedom of/from religion means that the presence or absence of religious motivation for an action has no bearing on whether that action is allowed.
You are free to attend a lecture on linguistics and you are free to attend a religious sermon. You are not free to murder people for queue jumping at a lane merge and you are not free to engage in human sacrifice to Cthulu.
"The core of this religions is that there is no other religion but their own, only there way is the right way. So giving them right to free religion basically removes the right from others to practice their religions."
I'm not following this. How does your second sentence relate to the first?
example: "The core of my belief is that only by eating a steady diet of vegetables can you live healthier. There is no other way." "So giving me my right to believe this removes your right to eat all kinds of meat and avoid vegetables."
I just can't reconcile it as a logical argument. Can you explain more?
I really do find that to be a problem of freedom of religion. If anything the social law should always be above any religious law. And here we stand giving rights to people to follow any religion, even those that say "screw the official law, we have all the stuff you need". System is kinda broken that way. And same goes for some other freedoms.