That list above is actually a pretty good example of what could be called an extreme form of (possibly even) weak atheism.

It's whenever someone makes the conclusion that religions are based on falsehoods and fallacies and can do considerable harm (weak atheism is based around the notion that the religious claims that have been made so far, are unfounded and constitute no evidence for themselves), and suggests crude, simplified and poorly thought-out solutions.

Having that said, anyone who disagrees with point 3, should ask themselves whether the law should have any say in whether parents are allowed to feed their children false or morally reprehensible ideas, be it pseudo-science (debunked, harmful alternative medicine comes to mind), false history (say one that favors one's own race or nation) or acceptance of morally reprehensible ideas (like, ah whatever, I'll just say Hitler - some brainwashed children are fed sugar-coated lies of that period similar to the apologetic, euphemized attitude many take with regards to God in our beloved Scriptures) from a young age.

Like, is there any line before teaching the children violence, bigotry or self-damage, that should be prevented from being crossed?'

Or should the entire focus be on formal education? How prudent would it be to rely on that, seeing as how parental influence from a young age can leave rather stubborn marks in the unformed mind?

So while I'm absolutely positive that the idea to ban "any teachings of religion" without distinction is not acceptable (I sincerely hope the guy doesn't include education about and comparative religion into his suggested prohibition), some ideas within as well as associated with religion, are just at that level of falsehood and harm, and should be obviously treated just the same way.

Would it be alright if parents scared their kid with a tentacle monster who would eat them alive if they don't do their homework?
Ok, how about fire & brimstone?

You get the drift.