It is when the teachings reaches into theoretical structures that are not grounded in current reality but on beliefs that the problem may arise. Stick to beliefs about technology within the next ten years and you will be fine, go beyond ten years and you are essentially saying that fusion power will arrive in twenty years (or strong AI). Except instead of the one technology that you are working on you list off dozens more equivalents of fusion power and then dozens more for each successive decade past the first. It quickly moves from being science to becoming religion.

So I understand what you mean, but I don't understand why you mean it. That is, this seems to be an extremely abnormal, somewhat vague, notion of religion and creates serious issues of where the lines are that are at best very blurry. I don't think that most people would use religion to include any people trying to make long-term predictions about technology. In one of the World Book encyclopedia year books from the 1960s (I don't remember the exact year unfortunately, I can go look it up when I return next to my parents' house), there's an essay by Issac Asimov about the future of space travel. He describes a large set of milestones that he expects over the next 300 years and when they should occur. Would teaching that Asimov made those predictions be too religious in your view? Wold it matter if he had a bunch of people who took those predictions very seriously? And if they thought that people should be educated about them? And if they said things like "we should do this because this is the last frontier" and "So there's the choice in life. One either grows or one decays; Grow or die. I think we should grow." Is that too religious?

This is especially relevant in the context of a legal setting since you care in part about whether any of these ideas get taught or mentioned in schools. If you tried on this sort of basis to argue that discussing uploading and strong AI in public schools was unconstitutional, you'd probably be laughed out of court.