"To be fair, we'd have to require all religious texts, and there are far too many to be covered in any reasonable length of time."

You've hit the nail on the head. The reason we cannot teach religion in schools is because it will violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

In Lemon v. Kurtzman the Supreme Court established the Lemon test which applies to government action on religion.

It consists of three "prongs"

"1. The government's action must have a secular legislative purpose;

2. The government's action must not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion;

3. The government's action must not result in an "excessive government entanglement" with religion."

If any one of these tenants is violated, then the action is unconstitutional.

While teaching religion in schools could be done in such a way as to not violate the first two prongs, there is no possible way to teach religion in schools that does not violate the third prong. As Cerin said the government would have to choose which religions to teach, which denominations to focus on, which of the variations of their holy books et cetera. Having to make these choices would clearly "result in excessive government entanglement with religion." There are a vast number of religions. And what about unpopular religions? Do you teach Scientology? Do you teach various unpopular cults? Do you teach a religion that advocates horrible, heinous crimes? Setting a standard of acceptance or recognition would cause the government to become entangled with religion. It is for this reason that religion has absolutely no place in schools.

Being taught the differences between Shiite and Sunni religious philosophy isn't going to help you understand them better.

A Shiite doesn't kill a Sunni because the Sunni disbelieves the "heirs of the fourth caliph, Ali, are the legitimate successors of Mohammed". They fight for the same reason every other ethnic groups fights with different ethnic groups. Competition for scare resources.

I'm also an atheist, and I'd agree that it should be an option. It's the "required" part I don't agree with. Who decides which religious texts are required, and which are not.

And in each religion, which sects' text should be used? Protestants would want the King James version. Catholics would want the Latin Vulgate. Muslims would want the Koran. You'd end up seriously pissing someone off.

To be fair, we'd have to require all religious texts, and there are far too many to be covered in any reasonable length of time.

It should only be taught under the title: "Religious Doctrine". It's perfectly reasonable to know what religion X believes.

It wouldn't be unfair to have it as required reading (again, under the title: "Religious Doctrine"). There is one reason to include it and one reason not to:

- for: so much of the doctrine is left over in culture, and knowing it may also help students understand history.

- against: it's just plain poorly written and incoherent. Generally, the goal of a school is to help young people think clearly, so reading a piece that's so scattered and inconsistent may not be very helpful in helping children learn to articulate themselves.