No, that's actually quite straightforward. If somebody decides where your bed is, what you eat, when you sleep, how much money you have to spend, what you can spend it on, where you spend the majority of your waking hours, and even to some extent who you am allowed to socialize with in your free time, then they wield power over you

If, yes. In reality children aren't THAT weak-willed, and your parental options to enforce all that are limited, with good reason. And these limits enforce a more democratic education style than what was usual when I was a child. So, parental power depends to a certain extent on negotiation skills on both sides.

JakeS:

No, the school and penal systems should be neutral because they wield power over its inmates. The fact that they are state institutions (in most of the first world) is neither here nor there - the fixation on protecting citizens from the state, rather than from abuse of asymmetric power relationships in general - is a pernicious Libertarian obsession.

Ha, THAT can of worms probably deserves a better place than somewhere in this long thread. You probably don't deny how quickly democratic control of a state can break down, and how totalitarian the immense power of the state then becomes. I am quite fixated on protecting citizens from the state, and not shy about it.

No, institutions of the state should be neutral, because they are for all citizens, not only the religious ones. In a (theoretical) state of 100% voluntary adherents of the same religion it wouldn't matter.

JakeS:

That is not true for sexual or racial harassment. Why should we expect it to be for religious?

Because efficient proselytising implies persuasion, not harassment. I find it unlikely (or extremely rare), not impossible. But I really find the example of the doctor is where you can illustrate your point best, and I agree that the abuse of power is a problem. You cited this as an argument to limit parents' right to raise their children in a religion though. You asked how to deal with the combination of position of power and proselytising.

This is from the text you quote:

in the end to me it's all about the patient and I'm not about to do anything that makes the patient feel uncomfortable or lose confidence in me,

If you want an analogy to parents raising their children, you must look at what we expect as responsible behaviour there. I have no issue with rules to prevent abuse of power under the heading of what is (ir-)responsible behaviour for a defined group. I object to rules under the heading of limiting freedom of religion. This difference sounds perhaps academic, but I think it enables drawing the border between tolerable and intolerable behaviour accurately. The rules (and sanctions!) for a doctor must be different from those for parents.  

I am afraid, I have an issue with your differentiation between legality and propriety. Propriety or moral are not political. Do you want to legally ban and sanction a certain behaviour? Or do you want to ape the politicians who lamented the use of "financial instruments" as improper that they had legalised? Well, if next they declare bicycle theft legal but improper, everyone is free to steal bicycles and that is all that counts. So the only question is what parents can do before you send out child welfare officers.

JakeS:

In principle. In practice, I am having some difficulty coming up with a realistic example of not-belief imposing on believers

At last. I am quite content with "in principle" and I have no issue with your lack of imagination. ;)  I guess any thoughts what you are going to teach your own children are a bit premature, right? Only then you need to determine what is proper more than what is legal, of course.