Ok.....So you killed off Religion...

[Esquilax]

You haven't stated why we should teach only common beliefs. I agree with you that demonstrable subjects are worthwhile. But why not add classes that deliberate and answer more important questions which are undemonstrable? --questions such as the nature of knowledge, our purpose and whether there is a God. Esquilax, what is the purpose of education? Use only undisputed demonstrations in your answer.

My high school and university philosophy classes both had whole sessions dedicated to asking precisely those questions. There's a theology course at my university too. But there's a difference between offering these courses as electives once students are more equipped to think critically, and making them mainstream courses that everyone takes regardless of conviction.

More importantly, there's a difference between taking those questions as subjective and open to examination, as my classes did, and teaching the tenets of a specific religion as historical fact. I don't think anyone here would be opposed to schools offering these classes optionally and without a pretense to being absolute fact, assuming budgetary restraints can handle that and they don't, say, detract from science or math classes, but that's also not what we're objecting to here.

If you want someone to teach you that the bible is literally true and all, go to a church. If you want someone to treat your religious claims with the same processes as we would any other non-demonstrable claim, then that's fine. Religion is a part of the culture in which we live, ignoring it isn't going to change that, but no religion should be given special access to children at a time when they're open to new information in order to preach.