We should distinguish one's views about a given topic and how one holds them. Theism and atheism are rival views about the existence of God or gods. One can hold either view dogmatically or in an open-minded way. So neither theists nor atheists, as such, need be dogmatic. Typically, being open-minded is linked with a recognition of one's own fallibility -- the possibility of being mistaken. Recognition of fallibility does not requires suspending belief. But it does mean accepting beliefs defeasibly and being prepared to revise one's beliefs in light of undermining evidence. Being a fallibilist means being willing to question one's beliefs. While one might be willing and able to question any given belief, it's probably not possible to questions all of one's beliefs simultaneously. One must rely on some beliefs, albeit defeasibly, while questioning other beliefs. To borrow a metaphor from Otto Neurath and popularized by Quine, as believers we are like sailors on a ship at sea who must overhaul the...

It probably depends on what you have in mind as "teaching religion". You might have in mind teaching comparative religions or the study of a particular religion as a cultural and/or historical phenomenon. If so, then I don't see why teaching religion, in this sense, is or need be wrong, at least if it is offered as an elective, rather than a requirement. However, you might mean teaching religion as involving representing theistic claims as true and/or advocating some religious doctrines, rather than others. It seems to me that this is probably wrong in multiple ways. First, it is legally wrong because it violates the anti-establishment clause of the First Amendment, requiring a separation of church and state. But there seem to be good moral reasons for this constitutional guarantee, so it seems likely to be morally wrong as well. Whether to believe religious claims at all and, if so, which ones seem to be matters of conscience and are subject to persistent, intractable debate that is...