Indeed, yes, you hit the nail. I see certain religious beliefs, including "creationism" and "vaccinophobia" as existential threats to a free and open society.
Well, first of all, 'vaccinophobia' isn't often directly related to religion. A lot of 'naturalists' reject vaccine science. Second, I find it sad that your solution to existential threats to 'free and open society' is fascism. Your logic applied to 'terrorism' results in where we are now.
Is that what you picked up from that comment? The OP was not suggesting teaching A) in an attempt to supplant B), he was saying that the existence of certain ideas is an 'existential threat' to a 'free society', i.e., thought-crime. To me, the existence of a free society comes along with a lot of baggage, including people who will not believe you no matter how logical you and your arguments are. They get to be citizens too.
Yes, because I didn't take the OP as saying that those were though-crimes. The way I took it was more that because those ideas are a hindrance and harmful to moving a society forwards.
I believe that people should be free to have those thoughts, but I also think they're detrimental to moving society forwards, which is how I read the OP's comment, it just uses a more absolute phrasing.
Funny thing is, I see certain political beliefs -- like contempt for religious freedom (and other freedoms centered around belief and conscience) -- as existential threats to a free and open society.
I think I have a good case that they're a far more direct threat as well, as well. I could even make the case that it's a fundamental contradiction, maybe even a lie, to pursue a "free" society by suppressing freedom. :P
I don't disagree that contempt for freedom of thought--which includes the freedom to think thoughts and believe things that are false--is a serious threat to a free and open society. But I would also point out that, taken to its logical conclusion, this is an argument against public education in general. Any system of public education will end up teaching children things that their parents disagree with on freedom of thought grounds (or indeed the children themselves--I was taught plenty of things in school that I disagreed with, but I still had to give the "correct" answers on tests if I wanted to get good grades). If freedom of thought is a fundamental right, then there is no justification for any system of public education.
To be clear, I haven't attempted to argue against public education existing. (If it seems that way, it's a failure of communication on my part.) The State is not a contaminant whose influence on small children should be avoided at all costs.
But they're not an unmitigated blessing whose opinions should supplant those of parents in all cases either. So I think that it's really good that people have the option to send their children somewhere that isn't a public school system (including a private school or homeschool, possibly even with vouchers). That's a simple, useful check on its power -- and explicitly seeking to remove that check with the goal of changing the way children think is Kinda Creepy or worse. We don't need no thought control...
I haven't attempted to argue against public education existing.
I know you haven't; that's why I took the trouble to point out the implications of taking freedom of thought to its logical conclusion. Most people (including you, it appears) don't like that conclusion; but that necessarily implies that freedom of thought must have limitations. Any system of public schooling must violate freedom of thought in some respects.
Personally, I would be fine with abolishing the existing system of public schooling altogether, and replacing it with something like this: take the money that used to be spent on public schools and divide up among parents as vouchers. The parents can use the vouchers to send their kids to private schools, religious schools, whatever, or they can use them to acquire the resources to enable home schooling. (For example, the voucher money could eliminate the need for both parents to work, so one of them could stay home to home school the children.) But I don't see any realistic chance of a system like this happening in the US.
Also, to be fair, there are arguments on the other side as well. For example, someone upthread pointed out that public schools can help to equalize opportunities for children whose parents simply don't care about whether they get a good education.
As my geologist friend pointed out, a century ago many laughed at the idea of plate tectonics, but it's now foundational to earth science. As commenters have pointed out here, we do ourselves a disservice if we do not allow the discussion of other ideas.
To some. Without getting too deeply into philosphy, I think you'll be very hard pressed to prove any kind of threat to anything from creationism itself.
I am an Atheist, yet I retain skepticism of pharmaceutical industry products, including vaccines (not the science of vaccines, but rather the quality, safety, efficacy).