Transhumanism in general? Or just transhumanism of the sort we're discussing?
E.g., suppose Sam is a transhumanist in this sense -- that is, Sam affirms the possibility and desirability of fundamentally transforming the human condition by developing and making widely available technologies to eliminate aging and to greatly enhance human intellectual, physical, and psychological capacities.
But suppose further that Sam isn't a transhumanist in the sense you're discussing -- for example, suppose Sam doesn't endorse any particular text (#10), and doesn't particularly believe that such a fundamental transformation of the human condition needs to involve anything like the coming of a messiah (#9), and doesn't wear any special symbols (#8), and engages respectfully with people who disagree (#7), and doesn't consider other people significantly less able to see the truth (#1).
Does it still follow, in your opinion, that Sam's beliefs about the possibility and desirability of technologically enhancing human capacity should not be taught about in public schools, necessarily introduce biases into Sam's judgment of others, etc. etc.?
If Sam has specific ways that are currently applicable in transforming the human condition and is doing so voluntarily and with out profit to himself then what he is practicing is indeed pure religion. "Pure religion is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world." (James 1:27) However, this is not what is generally thought of as religion and is not regulated as such.
If Sam has specific ways that are currently applicable in transforming the human condition and is doing so for profi...