You are falling into the trap of assuming the state must accept religion. We where happy to indoctrinate Indians though forcible separation from their parents.
So, it's not actually about 'religion' or 'tolerance' it's about the short list of accepted religions.
PS: Some argue that https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Child_Welfare_Act fixed this, but there are plenty of more recent cases disproving that idea. As of 2010, Alabama,[41] Indiana,[42] Kentucky,[43] Louisiana,[44] Missouri,[45] and Tennessee[46] still use the "existing Indian family" exception.
> You are falling into the trap of assuming the state must accept religion.
I prefer to think I'm "falling into the trap" of assuming that personal choice is important and we want to preserve it. Like most things, both extremes of the spectrum are unhealthy. Indoctrination by your parents about the "one true way" to think is dangerous, but so is indoctrination by the state.
The way to fight misinformation is not to restrict that information, it's to provide more information so people can make informed choices. It's a free market of ideas, and information (and light regulation) is key.
> We where happy to indoctrinate Indians though forcible separation from their parents.
We were happy to enslave people as well. That doesn't mean we should condone conduct such as that going forward.
> So, it's not actually about 'religion' it's about the short list of accepted religions.
No, it's about opening people up to the possibility of choice, and that there there may exist views different than they have been exposed to. I'm an atheist myself, but I can't imagine a world in which people are forced, coerced or steered to a particular belief as being better.
Adults also get personal choice as to which TV programs they watch, which beverages they drink, which candidates to vote for, whether to join the military. The option is not whether to constrain the choices available to children - it's a matter of who gets to decide. Remember, always turn things around: how would you feel if the religious right got to tell you that you couldn't raise your children as atheists or agnostics?
> how would you feel if the religious right got to tell you that you couldn't raise your children as atheists or agnostics?
This has been a common state of affair in many places for thousands of years. But here is the thing, you don't need to indoctrinate someone as an agnostic.
An interesting comparison is the effort to maintain belief in Santa Clause vs end it.
On a side note - you do know that Santa is real, right? He was a real bishop in Turkey in the 4th century, participated in the Council of Nicea, and was even reputed to have thrown a punch at Arius on the council floor.
I'm not actually sure how common it was for the government to intervene in families' home lives, even, say, at the height of the middle ages or the Byzantine empire. That said, to whatever extent it did happen, it was wrong, and the Catholic church acknowledges as much these days.
On the other hand, I think the history of humanity, which involves nearly universal belief in some flavor of divinity, is all-but-conclusive proof that your second point is incorrect. That doesn't mean the x-theists are right: just that religion is quite obviously the default state of humanity, and irreligion is the exception.
Religious thinking doesn't require divinity. various outspoken outrage groups qualify, as does anyone who has a belief system that is not evidence-based.
Promoting Religion has clear upsides and most humans for most of human history have not had their thoughts recorded. Further, religious people kept a lot of our history's. So we have no idea how common actual belief was.
I suspect in 10,000 years looking though limited and relatively random records Santa could be considered a widely warshiped god even if effectively zero adults believe in him today. Private journals are solid evidence, writing on temple walls is not. A coworkers Rabbi growing up was an atheist.
If we are going by popularity either Atheism or Agnostic beliefs are probably the single most common specific beliefs. Religions come and go, shifting through time so a modern Mormon has little in common with a 5th century Christian sects.
So, it's not actually about 'religion' or 'tolerance' it's about the short list of accepted religions.
PS: Some argue that https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Child_Welfare_Act fixed this, but there are plenty of more recent cases disproving that idea. As of 2010, Alabama,[41] Indiana,[42] Kentucky,[43] Louisiana,[44] Missouri,[45] and Tennessee[46] still use the "existing Indian family" exception.