The funding is what is unconstitutional. With this logic, the government could fund whatever it wants, then use that as a means of control. And that is exactly what it does.
The funding AND the teaching of religion would be both be unconstitutional. Unfortunately, the Interstate Commerce Clause and various Supreme Court decisions, the feds have overstepped their boundaries. Still, teaching religion with federal money is EXPLICITLY unconstitutional. It should never happen.
Who wants to try a bottle of merc's "Extroversion Olive Oil?"
Isn't religion a subject in the US? It is here... It's basically about learning about different religions, which is important in developing understanding for each other. What is wrong with that?
Comparative religion isn't a subject that is available in public schools afaik. It private and post-secondary schools, it comes up more frequently. Nothing is *wrong* with that being a subject, but there is a fear among the non-Christians and the ACLU-ers that it will become 55 minutes/day of promoting Christianity in a classroom.
And that would be the case if the wrong teacher were to run the class.
(Example: My psych teacher [or his wife my English teacher] would have done fine teaching it. They were awesome about not projecting their own biases because they wanted everything to be open for debate/discussion. My journalism teacher would probably not have been the greatest for teaching a class that had anything to do with religion, as he was a Seminary student working towards the priesthood before he became a teacher, and his very Catholic stance came through enough to be of potential influence.)
"If you can't be a good example, you'll just have to serve as a horrible warning." Catherine Aird