Nothing, I already noted it is currently taught as historical observation, historical influence in politics as part of political or social science. It'a already OK, and I agree it's OK, and we agree.
I disagree, but it's not necessary to agree on this point. Knowledge requires knowing what's true (reality), and any part of a religion that happens to coincide with reality may be true, but such things are not true BECAUSE of the religion, so they aren't really part of the religion per se. Any part of a religion that does not coincide with reality, is false, and is essentially "nothing". Which we know is most of what religion is.
God says it's wrong to steal. What does this mean? It's just worRAB.
That's the relevant point we diverge on.
It's improbable that a course could be devised that covers all religions we know of, and covers them equally, and would still be a useful course. If that criteria could not be met, it would violate the constitution. Futher, the interperetation is still seperation of church and state, not co-existence, equally distributed or not.
That's just the tip of the iceberg. There is no rational justification for teaching a religion to a minor, that is, teaching a minor about things that don't exist, as if they exist and are correct, without justification. That's lying, it's not knowledge. Adults are taught in Universities, if they so choose (state U is funded in part by taxes aren't thye?), all about theology, which is the science of religion. But to teach A religion is just irresponsible.
-Mach