Recognising the right to have no religious belief

Editor’s note: If you would like to submit a letter for possible publication, please email it to editor@rationalist.com.au. See our Publishing Guidelines.
Dear Editor,
Recently, I participated in a Victorian Department of Health survey. The phone interviewer was keen to zap through questions, not reflect on them. 
After I had commented on a couple, I recognised he simply wanted or needed to get to the end. So I didn't comment when family violence was defined as being, among other things, preventing a person from practising their religion. 
While the government recognises that oppressive behaviour in denying a person a right to pursue spiritual/religious beliefs is recognised as a form of violence, it appears that it has not understood that family violence can also be, and often is, expressed as denying a person the right not to pursue religious belief or the right to express/pursue non-belief.
In the case of fundamentalists and sects, this is highly relevant – and, potentially, does much harm. 
I found the experience of participation in the survey fairly reductionist, and that raised concerns about the usefulness of material gathered in this way. 
I think it is important for the Rationalist Society of Australia to be aware of this. The relevant point is capacity to recognise one form of 'violence' and not another. Selective rights with strong historical cultural bias, it seems to me. 
Barbara Panelli
 
Does agnosticism apply to the Tooth Fairy?
Dear Editor,
When Michael ...