I don't see how this makes sense (although I see your point in the rest of the post).

For example, if there is some kind of problem, a temporary law could be passed so the problem doesn't get worse, and the law would not apply once the situation is better.

I'm not saying that exact wording necessarily applies to Christianity, but it's just an example showing that an eternal God (or anyone in a position of power, really) could pass an temporary law.

In certain situations, god does give specific commands (For example in Samuel 15:3 Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys), but the mosaic laws are not situational.  The mosaic laws are god saying "this is the way you should live your lives".  So if this is what you *should* be doing in the eyes of an omniscient, perfect, omnipotent, and unchanging god, then this should not change at all.

You're comparing an eternal god to anyone else in a position of power, and that doesn't really work.  Like, in America we have a malleable constitution, and set of laws.  Slavery for example, was considered legal and moral by a majority in early America.  However, since we are not infallible, omniscient, or unchanging, it makes sense for us to change over time as new information emerges, new arguments are formed, and society in general progresses towards being more empathetic and smarter.  On the contrary, if god says slavery is ok (which he totally does in Leviticus), then there should be no reason that it should not be ok later.  Since god is omniscient, no argument could have changed his mind, and he could not receive any new information.  If there was some wacky circumstance that made slavery necessary, he could have instantly rectified it because omnipotent.  It is impossible that he was wrong on the issue because he is infallible. His morals by definition could not have changed. So, while humans can and should change laws, god should not have to.

Forcing a religion/no religion upon a child will do nothing but cause difficulty for them to think on their own.

This was the very question I was going to ask. This post answers my question, which was, are they only teaching islam? I'm assuming no. That this is just one of many religions they will be learning about. In that case, I'd be ok with it. But if that's the only one, when there are so many, I'd wonder why just that one? Being a world religion class, Islam, among many others, wouldn't bother me, being taught to my kids.

As a Christian, I would definitely have issues with my child writing that Muhammad is the messenger of God. Even if it's just a school assignment, words have meaning and a statement like this bears a great deal of importance whether you agree or disagree with Muhammad being God's messenger. This phrase is not something that should be written or spoken jestfully and I definitely think that there were better phrases to pick for a school writing assignment.

Ironically you support the teaching of Islam in American public schools in an effort to promote tolerance and understanding of other faiths and cultures, yet should a student decide to doodle caricatures of Mohammed on their notebook or homework assignment, he/she could be facing death threats by Muslims for it.

I never said I completely support the Muslim community. They do many stupid things as well

It should be optional: if they want to write it they can, if they don't want to they don't have to. If it was daily to have them write it then something is wrong.

Yea, you are right.  The world is a pretty fucked up place because of religion.

I don't think slavery is a good example there. Nowhere in the Bible does it say that slavery is wrong, and it's even treated as a normal thing in the New Testament, including complete obedience to the master (Which I'm not saying that I'm fully comfortable with that). The point I was making, is how the Old Testament states that you should not eat things like pork (Deuteronomy 14:8), while in the New Testament it's fine (1 Corinthians 10:27-33), which is an example of a temporal law in the Bible.

But I do understand your point on saying that God should not need to change any laws, I just think that you're misunderstanding the situation. It says in Colossians 2:16-17 "Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days: which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ."

Basically, some of the laws found in the Old Testament were made to be a shadow of what God's plan was. But they are no longer needed because the body casting the shadow has already come.