Let me start by saying that I've nowhere supposed or asserted that "God sees us as children". As I understand it, you're an atheist so my argument takes that into consideration... I thus phrased it as "many Christians believe they are metaphorical children to an autocratic father in heaven" --- this is a statement that can be agreed upon whether one is a theist or an atheist or something in between.I kind of get where you are going with this, but would appreciate it if you can spell it out.
My issue here is that when you suppose God sees us as children - and I do see where that comes from - then there are implications to that.
If we are children to God it is right that he punishes us with eternal suffering if we fail to do as he tells us?
Indeed, there are implications to this belief as it relates to human rights... at least with respect to how those same Christians might understand them. Rightly or wrongly, children are typically viewed as irrational and ignorant compared to adults and thus incapable of forming rational and worthwhile opinions on matters... indeed, this is implicit in the UNCRC when it tramples on their right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion by subordinating it to their guardians who must "provide direction...in a manner consistent with the evolving capacities of the child". The gulf between humans and the omniscient deity that most Christians believe in is conceptually even wider... if this deity restricts or denies entirely the right to freedom of religion to humans, as you suggest is implied by your initial citation from within the Decalogue (more on that below), this is entirely consistent with how human rights documents treat children implicitly or explicitly. As such, your argument is compromised. While I can appreciate that you hold to an ideal in which children do have this right, that is not generally reflective of the world we are presently living in nor does it represent the majority position on children's rights as they have thus far been expressed through various rights documents.
With that ball in motion, I return, as promised, to the initial subject of the Torah text with which you began... the immediate context of "other gods" are those of the Canaanites, whom the redactors indict for practicing child sacrifice --- we agreed that this is a legitimate restriction on freedom of religion because it infringes on others' right to life. You thus widened the net to include the worship of ostensibly peaceful Hindu gods, yet does the Decalogue text really have these deities in mind or actually condemn their worship outside the community of Israel? The text arguably reflects a monolatry imposed by the Israelite deity on his people who agree to the terms of the covenant... only later, within a framework of monotheism, could its ideas be extrapolated to humanity as a whole --- and no doubt a large number of your interlocutors hold to this (mis)interpretation, along with the anachronistic concept of eternal suffering in hell, but I'm not convinced it is prudent to build scenarios based on readings that ignore the historical context of the biblical text, which is arguably more tolerant of other deities receiving worship than you allow.
In summary, your appeal both to human rights and to the biblical text suffer from flaws, which makes for an overall challenge that doesn't hold together very well... at least not without some significant fine-tuning.