Let's recap.

Literally, what I said was this:

This isn't even secularism. Secularism would ban anyone from doing these activities in an official capacity, or public funds from being used for these purposes.

Banning individuals from religious expression is not secularism. That's the state imposing religious persuasion (or lackthereof).

And you said this:

Fine by me. Let’s call that extended secularism with aim of ending religions.

And now you're trying to backtrack by claiming this:

I’m advocating literally to prevent organised institutions forcing their fantasies onto others.

No, I distinguished quite plainly between public institutions and individuals in my first comment. You dug in your heels that we shouldn't just ban public institutions from forcing one set of beliefs on others, but that we should also force individuals to give up their own beliefs (thus, "ending religions," in your words).

The thing is, any attempt to systemically force people as individuals to give up their beliefs, is literally "institutions forcing their beliefs on others." So, no, you're just doing mental gymnastics to rationalize your own prejudice.

Also,

In addition I would expect « worldviews » to be rooted in reality and science rather than in mysticism.

Would you? Well, where do we draw the line? You realize science hasn't plumbed the depths of understanding the universe yet, right? Some things are still theoretical. Can we call those things "reality and science," or are they mere belief until proven beyond reasonable doubt?

For instance, is quantum gravity theory just religious mumbo jumbo? What about string theory? What about unified field theory? Hell, what about the big bang theory, the big crunch theory, and any speculation about dark matter and dark energy, or the origins of life and consciousness?

Who gets to determine what constitutes "science and reality," and what constitutes "religion and belief," particularly in these edge cases where there is no general consensus? The publishers of the journals? The peer review board? The dean of faculty for the science department at such-and-such big-name university? The administration of that university, who get to determine who keeps their job as dean of faculty? The board-of-trustees?

Academic freedom is already coming under fire in this political environment, and gatekeeping has always been a problem in academia besides. Do you really want to promote state-mandated and enforced worldviews based on some vaguely defined "reality"? Reality has always been a consensus, and nothing more.

How much further would it go? The social sciences? The humanities? All the subjects where "reality" can't be simply boiled down to a set of quantifiable data?

Because this would go a lot further than just banning religions. And even if that was all it would do, I would still be against it, even though I'm not religious, because forcing people to adopt my worldview is no better than when religious people do the same thing.