I agree that religion has its place in history and needs to be taught. From the silliness of the crusades to modern day effects.
But to me and how these excerpts are taken seems inappropriate. But as we learn more we will know more.
From what I read and what I understand about teaching methods [not a lot] he is teaching critical thinking. Making the kids see stark differences from their norms and pushing them to think for themselves.
What I am interested in is the writing of the examples. At this point we really don't know how much of what was said in the lectures and what was written in the complaint matches. The writing is broken, as if it is very after the fact deposition of various lectures. And if the depositions are coming from the "offended" snowflakes it is entirely possible that there is some embellishment to a couple of those examples.
But whether it is a verbatim translation or a colorful interpretation, the examples seem to me to push the kids to think, to look at the world through critical eyes.
From childhood we are always taught that religion is supposed to be good, that religion is supposed to be for the benefit of humankind. But once we start to really look at religion from a honest perspective we realize that, while much of religion IS GOOD, there is much of it that is NOT. And everyone needs to be able to think for themselves and make those decisions on their own, not cloistered within a religious community to make those decisions.
So when you study European History you see both the good and the bad that religion played in the formation of the civilization that has become modern Europe.
My impressions are that this guy is not saying religion is bad, my impression from reading this is that he demanded that his students THINK and a few didn't like the concept of critically thinking about their religion.