Two questions about how central the question of origins is to your core beliefs

[heymike3]

It’s sometimes dizzying how the slightest turn of phrase can fall on either side of a narrow edge

[Dale (evolutionary providentialist)]

@RichardG

Or worse still indoctrinated knowedge.

Indoctrination is a good thing if the doctrine is true.

I certainly hope you were indoctrinated into the dogmatic rules of the road if you’ve ever driven a vehicle. Indoctrination in how to drive and maintain a nuclear submarine is kind of important too. (We are not talking about how gracious the teachers are, please note.)

[RichardG (Richard Gillett)]

@Dale

Indoctrination is a good thing if the doctrine is true.

True teaching helps you understand why the rules are there. Indoctrination is wrong.

Richard

[Dale (evolutionary providentialist)]

Sometimes you need to do the right thing before you understand all the whys.

[T_aquaticus]

@Dale

Indoctrination is a good thing if the doctrine is true.

I would agree that indoctrination is a normal and healthy part of teaching. It’s nothing more than passing on the accumulated knowledge of those who came before us. You can’t add to that knowledge until you understand how we got to where we are now. In the sciences, you can’t overturn the consensus until you learn what the consensus is. High school science classes are almost entirely indoctrination, and that’s a good thing.

[Dale (evolutionary providentialist)]

@T_aquaticus

…who came before us.

Of course Christians believe we have revelation, doctrine, from and about our ‘preexistent’ God, to frame it in temporal language as we must. I just ‘now’ seconds ago sent an email to my sons about the NOVA we were talking about over coffee before they had to leave, on the illusion of time and the varying ‘now’ spacetime slices.

[T_aquaticus]

@Dale

Of course Christians believe we have revelation, doctrine, from and about our ‘preexistent’ God, to frame it in temporal language as we must.

And I see nothing wrong with teaching those beliefs. It’s rather silly to expect each new seeker to figure out all of Christian theology on their own. The only caveat I would have is that we not use government resources to teach religious beliefs, the whole “separation of church and state” thing.

[T_aquaticus]

@Dale

There is a distinction to be made between teaching them as doctrine and ‘neutral’ teaching about them. The latter is certainly acceptable in a public setting.

I would fully agree that something like a “World Religions” course would really benefit high school students.

[heymike3]

@T_aquaticus

The only caveat I would have is that we not use government resources to teach religious beliefs, the whole “separation of church and state” thing.

In the U.S., most people don’t realize the 1st Amendment was meant to protect state established religions from the newly formed federal government. Kind of ironic something so simple would be distorted with the passage of a 100 or so years.

[T_aquaticus]

@heymike3

In the U.S., most.people don’t realize the 1st Amendment was meant to protect state established religions from the newly formed federal government.

One of the decisive battlegrounds for disestablishment was Jefferson’s colony of Virginia, where the Anglican Church had long been the established church.

Both Jefferson and fellow Virginian James Madison felt that state support for a particular religion or for any religion was improper. They argued that compelling citizens to support through taxation a faith they did not follow violated their natural right to religious liberty. The two were aided in their fight for disestablishment by the Baptists, Presbyterians, Quakers, and other “dissenting” faiths of Anglican Virginia.

During the debates surrounding both its writing and its ratification, many religious groups feared that the Constitution offered an insufficient guarantee of the civil and religious rights of citizens. To help win ratification, Madison proposed a bill of rights that would include religious liberty.
Establishment Clause (Separation of Church and State) - The Free Speech Center

From the very start the idea was that government resources should not be used for religious indoctrination.

The 14th Amendment applied the 1st Amendment to the states.

[heymike3]

Due process clause, right? If a state today wished to use state funds for schools of religious education it’d be perfectly constitutional as long as it does so in an equitable manner.

[heymike3]

@T_aquaticus

From the very start the idea was that government resources should not be used for religious indoctrination.

Congress shall make no law… very specifically and meaningfully the prohibition was with respect to the federal government

[T_aquaticus]

@heymike3

If a state wished to use state funds for schools of religious education it’d be perfectly constitutional as long as it does so in an equitable manner.

That has led to some interesting outcomes.

Group unveils Satan statue design for Oklahoma state Capitol

[T_aquaticus]

@heymike3

Congress shall make no law… very specifically and meaningfully the prohibition was with respect to the federal government

And the 14th Amendment very specifically and meaningfully applied these restrictions to the states.

[heymike3]

Yes and without restricting a state from funding religion in an equitable manner.

[heymike3]

Are you seeing something I don’t see: “no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law”

[T_aquaticus]

@heymike3

Are you seeing something I don’t see:

I’m seeing the rest of the amendment.

The Supreme Court has ruled that the 14th Amendment (ratified in 1868) requires states to guarantee fundamental rights such as the First Amendment’s prohibition against the establishment of religion. This means that states, like the federal government, can “make no law respecting an establishment of religion.”

In 1947, the Supreme Court attempted to define the “establishment of religion” clause of the First Amendment. Justice Hugo Black, writing for the court, held:

Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. . . . In the words of Thomas Jefferson, the clause against the establishment of religion by law was intended to erect a “wall of separation between Church and State.” [Everson v. Board of Education (1947).]
Teach Democracy

[heymike3]

Like I said, no restriction on a state funding religion in an equitable manner.

[heymike3]

@T_aquaticus

In the words of Thomas Jefferson, the clause against the establishment of religion by law was intended to erect a “wall of separation between Church and State.”

Again, this distorts the meaning of the 1st Amendment. If anything it was a wall of separation between church and federalism. And the due process clause protects an individual from having their rights taken away as the result of a religion.

If a state wished to fund schools of religious education in such a way that no religion would be excluded as long as it complied with the same basic requirements that private schools have to comply with now, then there would be no contradiction with the 1st or 14th Amendments.