The essential flaw in the background is "What is religion?" From the free internet version of the Oxford Dictionary: "A cause, principle or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion".
According to that definition in the snip above, people who are actually practising their religion--with "zeal and conscientious devotion" are religious: their religion may be atheism or another zealous pursuit. They are not against religion in schools (or anywhere). They are against anything contrary to their own belief system. The essence of their religion is anti-Christianity.
So what happens? Every "religion" seeks to introduce its specific religious brand into schools (and elsewhere). It is their belief; they believe that what they are doing is right. Many otherwise intelligent people cannot see through this and accept it, going with the flow of "anti-religion".
Part of this belief system is the very convincing attitude of the promoters of the religion. If this has a scientific flavour (like education and mental health sanctification)--so much the better. Most untruths are well hidden within imagined and even real truths: The first lie is that their concepts are secular and generally accepted. The fact that it is not true, is irrelevant to them. If this religion can become mainstream, most people on the bandwagon do not realize exactly what they are promoting.
The point is that Christians are not so good at this; they want the Bible in schools and have no pretence about it.
If some people wish to practise a "secularly presented religion", it should not interfere with the freedom of others. Such "mind control", as Ian Wishart elucidates for us, contradicts to the religious freedom that we proudly profess.
Tony Harris, via email