Gah, religious fundamentalists! Clearly drawing and quartering is the only just punishment for these people.

One could easily argue that writing and speaking (and, in some cases, reading) are also vocational skills. Does a mechanic need to write well? Hell, do most people need to write well, when the extent of their writing is filling out a few forms and making a few reports (if that). And as for "speaking well", as long as you can get your idea across, you are pretty much set for almost every job.
That is the complaint that a lot of (idiot) teenagers have with school. They just want to get out of it, because they don't see how geometry or trig (or even science in general) will help them in the world. And, in most cases, they are right.

The problem with using religion to teach morals is that religious morals are not based on ethics. They also derive from societal and cultural norms that have very little to do with modern civilization. As such, they may do more harm than good.

That one becomes arguable, and it depends on how deep you want to go down the rabbit hole. Just teaching Commandments 5-10 (the ones that aren't about worshiping Alanis Morisette) are probably things that nobody will really argue against. Going into interpretations of birth control, we'll pretty much all argue about that.
Maybe it isn't based on ethical behavior so much as just following "the rules", but I doubt you would argue that "thou shalt not kill" can do more harm than good (unless you are telling it to a soldier in a combat zone :p).
Either way, my point was just to show that there ARE arguments for and against a lot of the desires to put more religion in school. I for one prefer it to be separated, but it is always good to try and see things from the other perspective(s).

Here you get to meet the founder of Conservapedia, home-school teacher Andrew Schlafly. I cringe when I listen to what is said in the video (in addition to how it is voiced, by the way).
Also, for an answer to Conservapedia's "Trustworthy Encyclopedia", check out RationalWiki. Not sure if there's an answer in turn to that as well.

I definitely agree with your last statement. The trouble is that human beings find such divided thinking quite difficult in the heat of the argument, or when faced by a perceived threat. We fall back upon our instinctual behaviours a bit more.
I also agree that any form of learning can be taught in a way that promotes the benefits of an open and questioning mind, and I wish that my own educational experiences had reflected such an enlightened approach. Despite my forwarding of philosophy as a taught subject, I actually think that physics represents a far more practical way of exposing people to their place in the universe and the potential of our race. The problem is that in reality these subjects are taught in the way you stated, with learning for testing's sake. That is why I suggested philosophy, as the focus of the subject is easier to accept as a student.
I don't agree that the main purpose of teaching religion in schools was to moralise the population, though. To me, religion is always taught as more of a fact than a belief system during times when the dominant culture of a population feels under threat from immigrant or emergent cultures. I think it is a subconscious move by a state to try and reinforce a 'them and us' mentality. Morality should be an individual and personal aspect of our lives, not an arbitrary set of rules learned by rote.
Ah well, I feel no need to open any can of worms that are tangent to the OP. I was just in a mood for a debate this morning.

"Wikipedia has become unsuitable, because it's become very biased. It's become very anti-American and anti-Christian." at 1:08
Awesome definition of bias by an American Christian. :)
Translation: I disagree with Wikipedia, therefore it hates me.

This. This is the most important aspect what makes a good history class.
Anyway, I am really shocked that the textbook gets rewrited because this doesn't fit to an ideology of a party or some religious fraction. This is nearly...fascism.

And to befuddle the godless commies who'll burst into fire if someone prays near them!

I'm reminded of a South Park quote
Gerald Brofloski: "You see Kyle, we live in a liberal-democratic society, and democrats make sexual harassment laws, these laws tell us what we can and can't say in the work place, and what we can and can't do in the work place."
Kyle Brovslofksi: "Isn't that Fascism?"
Gerald Brofloski: "No, because we don't call it Fascism."

Very smart man.
Systems which do not question cannot improve. It seems they want to be ignorant, which is fine by me, the problem I have is they're making other people with little choice in the matter ignorant too. Breach of freedom...

Who controls the present now controls the past! :)

It's a Rage Against the Machine lyric, a twist on Orwell. They love him. :)

That is beautiful. I've never heard such amazing dialogue from a video game before.

He sounds like Bert from Sesame Street, only a lot more boring.

Wraith, do you teach? Almost all the books lately are heavily slanted one way or another. Personally I think it's disgusting, but to be fair, this isn't just a right-wing thing.
Just an fyi, the books are too leftist oriented in my neighborhood. History textbooks here no longer have any names or dates or events (I'm serious, my friends are always complaing because these are on the state exams, but the city buys textbooks without them), they're a litany of real and imagined offenses cribbed from Howard Zinn. They're more aligned with W.Z Foster than Burkhardt. They're trying to destroy majoritarian history or the concept of an American nation. I read one that had nothing on WWII except the Japanese internment camps and the Holocaust. Nothing about the battles that were fought, or who Hitler was or the role of the Soviets and the Italians. It's a victim's guide to history.
That said this is still idiotic, but unsurprising. A sign of the times. Really, I want Liberalism back. The kind that believes in America and believes in progress, freedom of speech, all that rather than the kind that looks for oppression everywhere, denies all objective truth, censors the opposition, and reads Tarnac 9 manifestos.

People like this used to tick me off so fucking badly I would feel like going medieval on their asses, quote Pulp Fiction.
But honestly, in these cases stupidity and ignorance is a choice. Getting into discussions with people like this is like banging your head on a concrete pillar. No way to win.

No, there are only arguments against (in this case), because there is only one correct answer, and it is not the one that's on conservapedia.
In a nutshell; religion taught as a part of history in a factual, unbiased light - yes. Religion taught where everything is skewed to make us look better because we are SPECIAL - no.

Not sure if that was a joke. Sounds like one, but can't be certain.
There are different shares of right and wrong. We constantly cite "separate the church and state". But honestly, Atheism is as much a church as the Catholics and the Buddhists these days (because everyone knows them Buddhists persecute everyone in a ten mile radius :p). So, in many ways, we are just uniting the state with a different church, and persecuting against other beliefs in the process. We can't avoid boning at least one group, but it is still something to consider.
As for this: I am not sure where everyone is getting the idea that this is an evil plan to god-up the schools. Pretty much everyone here has acknowledged that religion should be taught as part of history. And, like it or not, the USA was founded on religion. As a product of public schooling, it is actually pretty funny how that gets avoided.
Student: "Teacher, why did the Pilgrims leave England?"
Teacher: "Because they were being religiously persecuted."
Student: "Why?"
And this is where it varies. If you are in elementary school, teacher responds: "That isn't important. Let's all talk about The First Thanksgiving!"
If you are past elementary school: "That isn't important. Guess how many plague blankets we gave Squanto during The First Christmas?"
Regardless of age, people like me then squeal and giggle.
Now, I would be very interested in how exactly this gets handled. I sincerely doubt it will be unbiased. But it wouldn't be the first insanely biased thing taught in history classrooms.
But if we have to decide between covering yet another founding father (and we already skip everyone but George, Bill, and Tommy) and actually covering some of the founding principles of the country (that are actually VERY relevant in today's day and age), I am not going to complain too much.

Much ado about nothing?