I take it you also oppose education of any form?
That was uncalled for, but I'll entertain it with a response. Please forgive me if i get off on a tangent, but I believe the context is necessary.
What is and is not acceptable is relative and subject to an individual's perspective. With most subjects, this doesn't come in to play so much. With something like math, pretty much everyone agrees that it's straight facts/information, and there is very little to no emotional or moral aspect involved with it. But certain subjects, in order to mean anything, have to take on a perspective, and that is where is becomes controversial. History in particular comes to mind. To me, history means nothing without stories. Stories give context and meaning to what would otherwise just be memorization of dates and names (which is how it's taught in the U.S.). But if you are going to tell these stories, how do you decide which stories to tell? There are the near-universally accepted bad guys like the Nazis, but at the same time, aren't the victors the ones who get to write most of the history? If the Nazis had won, they would have probably painted their opposition as barbaric, as we have painted them. Should students be exposed to the diary of a hardcore Nazi soldier, who would glorify their goals and methods of creating a better world (in their eyes, at least. I want to make it very clear that I am not a Nazi). Or would that just put "corrupt ideas" into their impressionable minds?
I believe it is important to understand the opposition, even if you disagree with them. A lot of people feel that attempting to understand leads to corruption. Sometimes, with some people, it
does, because they are very impressionable, and will believe anything that anybody tells them.
I'm willing to bet that nearly everyone on this forum in in the minority on at least some of their beliefs. Should your ideas and perspectives be repressed like the Nazis, or are yours somehow not as bad or corrupting? Who gets to decide this? You? Of course you would champion your own cause. If you were in a position to do so, would you force people to learn your way of doing things?
At the same time, a society without anything to bind it is not a society at all. With no common morals or ideas, people have no way to relate to each other, and so there is no cohesion. Some standards have to be in place for people to conform too. But when is the cohesion worth suppressing an opposing idea?
This isn't about what you believe. It's about why you believe.
edit: Ninjas, man. I was concocting this response for a good half hour, so I should have expected it.