So if the dude who decides whether you get to eat tonight - or any night at all for the next six to twelve years - insists that you say grace over the food before you get to eat it, then that's not a problem for your religious freedom?

Believe me, parents have no choice, they are obligated to feed their children. Actually the power of parents is limited--which really was what I have tried to convey. To shorten this part a bit: you are talking about relationships where people might be able to force persons into a religion. I don't advocate force or abuse of power or the like.

What you don't accept, I think, is the following: parents have a system of values which they pass on to their children. Religion is only one part of this, but, it IS part of what parents do by right. When you teach your children what your values and ethics and beliefs are (by conversations, setting an example or whatever) they have no real choice either. They are confronted with their parents' values and can only develop their own priorities when they are growing up. So, there is no real freedom from religion for the children of the religious or freedom to adopt religion for the children of atheists as long as they are children.

JakeS:

I disagree with the idea that society has no escalation points between cheap talk and sending in child protection.

I don't want to depend on somebody's opinion of what is proper or not. I have really strong views on arbitrariness and so. If society wants to set a norm, that's called a law, but you were talking about additional norms set by propriety. Say what behaviour you want to outlaw, and what interventions you dream of if the banned behaviour occurs. And if you want to limit any fundamental rights, kindly point out why your proposal is a proportionate measure of maintaining a conflicting fundamental right.