Right of freedom of religion should not be a human right

[Belacqua]

It’s very important to understand what I refer to when I say religion. Mainly the biggest religions (Christianity, Islam, etc), which know have caused immense damage to humanity [...]

You've left the subject out of that second sentence. What word should go between "which" and "know"? "I"? "People who share my ideology"? 

I am not convinced that the biggest religions have caused more harm than good in the world. What logical, evidence-based data can you produce to show that this is so? 

 and have no evidence for what they claim. 

It would be more correct to say that there is no evidence of the type that you accept. Other people, with different standards of evidence, find adequate amounts of evidence for their religions. 

What logical, evidence-based argument can you offer to show that only institutions which accept your standards of evidence should be allowed to operate?

What should be taught is science and humanities, as both encourage questioning and are based on logic and evidence.

What logic and evidence-based proof do you offer to show that only science and the humanities should be taught? I'm not looking for personal opinion here. 

More importantly, what logic and evidence-based standards can you point to to prove that government should rule on what evidence people should find acceptable, what conclusions we should draw about history, and what subjects taken seriously by millions of Americans should be banned?

Since the opinions you express here are in the minority, especially in the US, what qualifications should we demand of the elite minority group which enforces these unpopular laws on an unwilling populace?