Therein lies your error. They are not the same thing. Not even close.
Public education by law is obligated to allow theistic viewpoints a hearing in a scientific context.
No it isn't. The Dover decision lays out the current state of the law quite clearly, if you need to get up to speed. Science is to be tought in science class.
If you equate this with "forcing" your children to hearing something from which their virgin ears ought to be protected, then you expect way too much of the federal government.
Nope, I just expect them to abide by the establishment clause and the principle of individual freedom it represents. And part of that entails respecting my sole right to determine the content of the religious education my children receive. Neither you, a church congregation, a imam, nor some half-wit IDer who was able get himself elected to a school board has the right to interfere in that decision. And telling my children that wholly natural occurances, such as the diversity of life through the evolutionary process, "just might" be the work of Allah, Thor, Shiva or whoever, is interference in that decision.
Public schools mean just that. All religious viewpoints are welcome, including that of atheism, non.theism, untheism, etc. and may not be prohibted by law.
Depends on the context. In the context of a comparative religion class, sure. You can teach about religion. You can't teach religion; can't proselytize. That is for parents and churches to do, if you're into that sort of thing.