I think there's some validity to this thought process. I'm of the opinion the books shouldn't be banned, but this point gives me pause. There's an obvious dif

I think there's some validity to this thought process. I'm of the opinion the books shouldn't be banned, but this point gives me pause. There's an obvious difference here via the 1st amendment, which doesn't regulate social issues, but that's more legal technicality than philosophy. My experience as a kid (after these crusades) was that religion wasn't forbidden as a topic, but that endorsement or derision of any particular religion was forbidden. E.g. it would be fine to ask what the difference in belief is between a Catholic and an Amish, but a teacher would probably refuse to answer if asked which one is better supported by historical fact. One of the history classes spent a week or two on the various common religions. If I'm recalling correctly, the school library had copies of at least the Bible, the Quran and a Hebrew Bible (I feel like there was a better term but I can't recall it). There wasn't an attempt to hide the information, the school just couldn't endorse a particular religion. Tolerance was generally encouraged to all religions (or lack thereof). This feels like it's going further than the religious issues. It's an attempt to suppress knowledge, rather than to suppress opinion.