Topic: Teaching religious controversy?

[MisterMarc]

Religion classes, in any form that they may appear in a public school, do not teach religion as fact (or they shouldn't). The class should be structured as a study of the religion, it's beliefs and origins, how it relates to other religions and their origins, and it's impact on society/history. The validity of the beliefs shouldn't ever come into play. Because of this, there is no need to "teach the controversy," because there is no controversy where no truth claim has been made. Frankly, a properly structured religion curriculum, might instill more doubt in people than any science class ever would.

[Guillermo]

When schools say, lets teach religion, they obviously mean, lets teach our particular religion.

I am in agreement with MisterMarc.

[David E.]

Well structured religious studies classes are awesome.  One of my favorite classes from College was a class called Socrates, Jesus and Buddha.  It was taught by an Agnostic who in his life had been both Buddhist and a Franciscan Monk.  I owe that class and the teacher for really opening my eyes to religion in history and guiding me towards Atheism and Skepticism.  Oddly enough it was one of the teachings of Buddhism that turned me to Atheism.   

[Vincegamer]

To address the OP hypothetical, it lends legitimacy to their argument to try and turn it back on their pet topic.
The proper response to TTC on matters such as evolution is to say "What controversy? Show me a controversy among scientists in their specialty and I'm happy to teach it. You want to teach the political controversy over the scope of public education, then put civics classes back in the budget."