when the federal government makes everything a state's rights issue we get fifty states doing whatever the hell they want
obvious at this point Biden has either lost the reins or is intentionally letting the nation slip
very coincidental that we lost women's rights and we have a huge surge of religious oppression at the same time a prolife religious right leaning conservative democrat gets at the helm
I don't know that there is much Biden can do. The Federal government can't just tell a state no, they have to take them to court and prove that they are violating federal law. And we now have gerrymandered-to-hell legislatures violating federal law right and left and there's only so much time and so many resources.
I'm not going to tout Biden as the greatest president ever or anything, but I can't blame him for this. He's not responsible for putting Ryan Walters in his position and he doesn't have the power to get rid of him.
Biden has been a career politician longer than been alive or you perhaps
definitely blame him and all Democrats and Republicans
don't wake up one day and magically become progressive
he always has been right leaning and his party could have been at least shouting to the rooftops about the injustices but instead just deafening silence
did he even mention this at the debates last night? how about cop city? or anything relevant?
when the place you reside in is currently being threatened as is your way of life do expect the leader and chief of said place to put in an effort to say something on any platform he could as if he is our side in all this
Yes, again, I understand that you want Biden to say something the second you learned about that something, but it's the weekend. That's just not how things work. If Biden doesn't say something next week, sure, criticize him. But expecting him to put out a press release or hold a press conference about a non-urgent issue over the weekend is silly.
I'm responding to your instant gratification comment. We've given these fossils to much time to change and for the most part they haven't and never will. But feel free to wait while the planet becomes one paved gas station, and your kids starve, will never own a house but you are thankful at least you are a lucky one and have a job at Walmart and continue to work into your 90s.
You done flew that squid into a cloud of reactionaries who get real uppity if their vision of things doesn't happen by 3 months ago. A story about what a political twat said MIGHT happen is suddenly priority #1 amongst all the other things the POTUS has to deal with on the daily.
Bro maybe just maybe. Those people who you are calling "reactionaries" have been told "change is coming, it will get better just keep waiting, these things don't happen overnight." For the last 4 or 5 decades?
And maybe they're ignoring things like the civil rights movement, the original implementation of Roe, the progress of the LGBT community and all the other society changes that have happened in that same time.
The civil rights act was 60 years ago. Roe was 51 years ago. They're saying we've had barely any progress in the last 40 or 50 years. Cops are still killing people. Racism, homophobia, and other kinds of hate are still alive and well.
Racism, homophobia, and the like are not a matter that can be solved politically. One can make all the affirmative action and equal rights rules you like but the issue at the root is society and culture based. Educational standards are being fought against in our most conservative states pushing for religious indoctrination and denying historical reality.
You have a wing that actively pushes the militarization of the police over community support and engagement, and those same people trying to turn society back to the 'traditional norms' as they existed before the civil rights movement.
Given the realities of the need to actually get votes through, just how would you suggest those things be fixed?
Because you can put in those equal rights laws and enforce them, along with all the various other things like building roads and schools and such. To think you can just outlaw racism and such is foolish though. You would be trying to literally tread into thought police territory there.
Don't recall where I indicated any of them where controversial, care to point it out? I simply pointed that this complaint of 'no progress' is ignoring some pretty major progress over the years.
So a teacher who is blacklisted and can't eat or pay bills does nothing to the economy? This is exactly obey or starve. But you know I can tell you aren't a big picture squid.
That kind of attitude lingers dangerously close to the everything-is-a-conspiracy-by-the-shadowy-cabal line of reasoning. Biden's a Catholic, but it's certainly not "obvious" that he's "intentionally letting the nation slip". You can scroll down barely a page on whitehouse.gov and watch the president commit to restoring the standard of Roe v Wade. It's under the statements in favor of Pride, committing to combating gun deaths, lowering housing costs, and protecting pensions. Joe Biden's executive orders have been the most progressive executive action since Roosevelt.
Here's something a lot of non-religious folks might not know: the evangelical right? They hate Catholics. The MAGAs hate them ideologically, but the ones running the show hate them because the Catholic Church is their competition when it comes to running private schools and otherwise lucrative community support institutions. Biden is absolutely not on their side, theologically or otherwise.
I live in Louisiana. It's not Joe Biden who is making this shit happen. It's Jeff Landry and the rubber stamp legislature that are making the place into a little Iranian theocracy.
Exactly! In many parts of the country Joe Biden and the federal government in general is the only thing standing between the people and Supply-side Jesus flavored fascist autocracy.
the Catholic Church is their competition when it comes to running private schools and otherwise lucrative community support institutions
I generally agree with what you've written, but I think you're assuming more pragmatism here than is actually present. Bitter hostility between Protestants and Catholics is as old as Protestantism (and much older than the institutions you mention).
Also, as a side note, there are plenty of Catholic Republicans. (37% vs 44% that identify as Democrats, according to Pew.)
You're going to blame Biden for the stance of conservatives? This is totally wrong. Right wing religious conservatives have been wanting to bring christianity back into schools for over 50 years and they have finally forced it to happen through state laws. Republicans want this and are making it happen.
After reading the rest of your comments, you could've just saved a lot of time by saying you don't know how the government works. And if anyone else happens to read this and think, "Hey that's a good point," no, it isn't. It's ignorant at best, actively malicious at worst. Sounds a whole lot like many of the comments trying to get people not to vote.
... religious right leaning conservative democrat ...
Um, no. Biden is pretty solidly in the center, his record is a mix of left and right positions, and his positions have evolved as he's aged. I do believe he's religious, but he is not trying to force his religious beliefs on us like some states are currently doing with the 10 commandments bullshit.
So I have friends in Texas who have lost their license for one reason or another. This has a wider range of effect than most realize. When applying for ANY other state licensing, in any other industry, the fact that your teaching license was revoked, no matter what the reason was (it won't say why on reports) it's a mark against you when applying for others. All they see is oh this person HAD a state license and it got revoked so, maybe we shouldn't grant this other one.
I think people are more afraid that this will function as successful brainwashing than they should be. As someone who went to grade school in OK, there is not a doubt in my mind that the kids won't stand for this. I fully expect those per-classroom bibles to be systematically stolen and destroyed on a daily basis. I'm honestly a little envious that this didn't happen while I was in school. It will be interesting to see the outcome, for sure. Don't underestimate a high-schooler's penchance for civil disobedience.
Then teach the parts of Isaiah which show clearly he held in contempt the people, of his day, who were doing what the "Jews" who convicted benJoseph, did, & what the "Christians" who identify as Republicans are doing now.
Teach how benJoseph called biblical-legalists "Hypocrites!" right in the bible.
Teach them all the things in their own bible which identify the "Christian" fascism as being the enemy of their own root-guru/Christ.
Here is Isaiah 1 from their bible, so you can see that what Moses fought against a couple millenia earlier ( if one happens to remember that stuff from other readings ), happens this time not within the people of Egypt, but within the Israelites..
& here is a phrase, right in their bible, of the whole "they call themselves Jews, but are gaslighting" sentiment,
which, as anybody with integrity would understand, is an accusation which can be placed on many of ANY human religion, including the Dharmic religions ( including my own beloved Vajrayana ), including the Abrahamic religions, including the people who claim Science but embody/enforce Scientism's gaslighting, etc..
It is a particular kind of dishonesty, and it isn't limited-to any tradition or culture, no matter how convenient to some ideologies that would be.
Find all the parts of the bible that contradict the gaslighters who call themselves "Christian", & teach only those bits.
WHEN teaching the now-legally-required-in-some-jurisdictions "10 Commandments", add this & discuss how this applies to the people who legislate in our countries:
What's the difference here between teaching the bible and teaching history? I recall getting through Hon and AP US History and Civics with and understanding of protestantism conflicts, Calvinism, and Deism. The law and mandate is bullshit, but what is the actual curriculum requirements. If you are teaching the historical content of the Bible that means you can also teach about atheists that took issue with it. Is there a lot of room for malicious compliance?
Malicious compliance is still compliance. If you concede this hill, the next one will be a requirement to teach the Bible as historical truth. And then it will be to prevent teaching actual science.
Well I think the Unions and government need to push back on this (the AG already is). I 100% believe that this should be reveresed. But reading the article it states that losing your teaching license is possible punishment. It's really easy to be high and mighty when it's not your livelihood and job on the line. If you need to wait it out while the courts settle it what do teachers need to do to protect their jobs, stay in compliance, and avoid retaliation until this gets settled? How many teachers already are in compliance just by teaching regular US history curriculum that says "yeah, protestants read the bible and disputes on interpretation of the bible with catholics is part of the history of America." I think it's important to note that the Gutenberg press published the first printed bible. With the increase of education and literacy lay people no longer had to get teachings directly from the literate Orthodoxy. This allowed to different interpretation and rise of different religions which led to conflict, etc...
Oh I completely agree with you, and I don't begrudge anyone who's willing to do what they have to do to keep their jobs. My point is just that fascists don't play fair. They won't put their hands on their hips and smirk disapprovingly at malicious compliance. They will keep stepping on your neck until you do exactly what they want without question. You know that when they say the Bible, they of course mean their interpretation of their version of a Bible of their choosing. They aren't going to permit debate on the topic.
Cool. Sorry, I'm accustomed to being flamed on this thread for not being as liberal as the base here. Sorry if I came off super defensive. I can't tell if the superintendent is just posturing or not. Without any curriculum definition, what does "teaching the bible" even mean. I agree his objective is probably hoping to teach christian fundametalism, but you can't make that happen with some batshit memo by itself. I actually wish schools could teach religion in a balanced way. In a pluralistic multicultural society, it probably helps to have some background to understand basics of other religions.
No worries about coming off as defensive, I completely understand how you would read my comment as an attack. It wasn't how I meant it, but I recognize that I was fired up about it.
The superintendent is absolutely posturing, and I don't think he believes he will win in court. But I believe there is a chance he wins in court, especially given the number of activist conservative justices we have on the bench.
I don't have any doubt about what he meant by "teaching the Bible," and I am certain it had nothing to do with providing a rounded and thorough depiction of various religious and cultural practices of a pluralistic multicultural society. The guy is a christo-fascist and a bigot. He belongs in prison for trying to abuse his position in government to subjugate his constituents.
The existence of the Bible is historical fact and artifact. There is historical merit in studying the various religious beliefs of historical peoples that factored into their values and thinking. Protestantism is factually a thing. Different colonies and denominational belief is a thing and a topic in American history. What made Quakers Quakers and how did that impact the Pennsylvania.
There's a difference between teaching the bible, teaching theology, and teaching histories of religion. There's definitely questions of what we are teaching and what is appropriate in public primary and secondary schools and in what subject, but I don't think there is anything in and of itself bad if the historical religious beliefs and impact on historical civic life are discussed.
The funny thing is that a basic understanding of the Bible is actually important for making sense of American history - the people making that history were strongly influenced by the Bible and so unless you know at least the major "plot points", their actions (and a lot of literature) won't make much sense.
With that said, I don't trust Oklahoma to teach about the Bible in a manner appropriate for historical analysis rather than religious dominance.
he people making that history were strongly influenced by the Bible
Depends what era you're talking about and what you mean by influence. I would say that the reason Thomas Paine's Age of Reason was so popular and that Jefferson made his own version of the New Testament, which removed the supernatural, suggest that the Bible was less of an influence in the founding of the nation than would be supposed here. The fact that Muhammad is in as venerated a place on the Supreme Court building as Moses also suggests they didn't think it was the source of all wisdom.
Really, you need to look no further than our legal system though to see how little influence the Bible and Christianity actually have. I don't just mean the First Amendment, I mean the fact that our whole system is basically a gradual evolution from the laws of Ancient Rome. They had trial by jury in Ancient Rome. It was a permanent jury, not a jury of one's peers, but you can see the skeleton of our legal system and how it came from those ancient heathens, not Jesus.
Thank you for that. Incidentally, I have never heard for a big push from Muslims to remove Muhammad from the building, or at least obscure his image. I'm not sure if that's because they aren't aware of it or just because it is too old to do anything about it at this point.
I think you are really glossing over the work of Thomas Aquinas. It's kind of hard to separate the Rome/Greek stuff from the historical Christianity stuff before modern day Evangelical Fundamentalism. Christian thought historically became very linked to Greek philosophy.
In what way was Thomas Aquinas an important influence on the founding of the United States and in what way would that be appropriate to teach elementary school kids?
It's not appropriate for an elementary school kids. Per the article, this applies to grades 5 through 12. So what, 1 year of elementary with the primary focus of impact on junior high and high school?
But if you are getting into questions of "what was more important to our founding fathers, rome or christianity?" I'd say that's pretty difficult to separate because of thinkers like Thomas Aquinas that married Greek Philosophy with Christianity. When you begin with a point that God is the source of reason, and build off of that, I think you can't easily separate that out.
No, I asked in what way Thomas Aquinas contributed to the founding of the U.S. It seems like your reasoning is pretty damn indirect and it's even more indirectly related to the Bible, so this law does not apply.
And it either isn't appropriate for elementary school or it should be taught in the fifth grade (also, sixth grade is still elementary school in many districts). Which is it?
Really, you need to look no further than our legal system though to see how little influence the Bible and Christianity actually have. I don’t just mean the First Amendment, I mean the fact that our whole system is basically a gradual evolution from the laws of Ancient Rome.
this statement says nothing about what should be taught in schools, it's a statement of history. my statement is simply stating it is very difficult to separate out the roman influence from the christian influence because of thomas aquinas linking christian tradition to greek thought. I would say that from a intellectual POV, founding fathers were probably equally or more influenced by greeks than romans, but at the end of the day we can just call it all classical thought. that's pretty apparent in our architecture of state houses. This is a tangential discussion where we are not discussing what should be taught in schools, but just historical thought in the USA. Please re-read your own to catch up on the conversation topic.
The statement was in response to another commenting not talking about the specific policy, but making a general comment that in order to understand US History and thought of early American Settlers you likely need to have some understanding of the bible. That has nothing to do with this specific teaching policy, and the comment you responded to calls out the commenter didn't trust the superintendent:
With that said, I don’t trust Oklahoma to teach about the Bible in a manner appropriate for historical analysis rather than religious dominance.
Well understanding for a 5rh grader is different than high schooler, or graduate student, or historian. But because protestantism is such a critical historical theme in early America it makes sense to understand to some degree what those religious beliefs are. I'm not saying a fifth grader needs to dive into it, but for high schooler and college students, it's a bit more important to have a general understanding of it. But I think that understanding also extends to learning about other religions.
Okay, but we're talking about grade schoolers and, again, it has never been necessary for public schools to teach about the Bible in the past to give kids an education in American history.
So why you're trying to justify Walters' decision I don't know.
Also, you can teach about Christianity without teaching about the Bible beyond generalities and without venerating it as a sacred document that was also primary founding document for the nation. Which it simply wasn't. I'm not sure why the First Amendment alone doesn't make that clear to you.
Not just American history, the Bible is the absolute cornerstone of our entire culture. As the one book that every household owned for much of recorded history, the amount of biblical references and reused stories is ridiculous.
I have absolutely no problem with the Bible being taught in schools as it's an incredibly important document. I find it odd that it isn't, because the separation of church and state shouldn't prohibit the study of old books in any way.
I was talking about this with my wife who came from Taiwan at 16 and was sort of second hand exposed to Western culture. She said everything can't be a bible story can it? I dug out a Bible off the shelf and flipped through, well you know David and Goliath, you know Samson, Jonah and the whale yeah these are classics right?
She says no, so I ask if she knows the story of Pinocchio or why her luggage was made by "Samsonite". And the truck that we saw yesterday with the "G0L1ATH" license plate?
For a long period which roughly coincided with the founding of America, English-speaking people only learned to read using the Bible, and often that was the only book they ever used for anything so it became a sort of de facto dictionary and Guiness Book of World Records and all kinds of things that it was never meant to be, plus a lot of new things it was never meant to be, and of course the things it was always meant to be.
Mandatory firearms training in school would be more Constitutional than teaching the Bible though. For a very important reason. Akin to a "prime directive" if you will. If you want kids to study it as an elective then fine, allow that, but forcing it on kids is wrong, wrong wrong.
Forcing it as a belief system is definitely wrong, but we were forced to study plenty of literature when I was in school, much of it far less relevant. I don't see the difference with the Bible, especially if presented as a historical document and prototypical collection of stories?
I'm not religious and wasn't raised in a religious family, but when I decided to pick up a Bible and read it as a teenager I couldn't believe how much context it gave me on our culture and its origins.
Having to read and study the whole thing would also help rein in overzealous religion IMO. The #1 reason I've heard from evangelicals who left their church was "I decided to read the Bible for myself"
Forcing it as a belief system is definitely wrong, . . . I don't see the difference with the Bible . . .
Make no mistake, that is absolutely the point of these - again, unconstitutional - laws. They’re hoping to parlay this illegitimate fascist court into making it constitutional while the iron is hot.
. . . especially if presented as a historical document and prototypical collection of stories?
It won’t be. They want this in elementary school. How much literature was in grades 1-3? Any inference that it will be treated as a “historical document” is an outright lie. (Edit: the article says teachers must teach it to “students in grades five through 12” but that’s different than Louisiana’s “10 commandments displayed in all classrooms” law. They all serve the same purpose: to promote “Christianity” in school.)
I'm not religious and wasn't raised in a religious family …
Then believe me when I tell you this is what it is for. These legislators are not history buffs. They are evangelical ‘Christian’ nationalists.
I couldn't believe how much context it gave me on our culture and its origins.
Having to read and study the whole thing would also help rein in overzealous religion IMO. The #1 reason I've heard from evangelicals who left their church was "I decided to read the Bible for myself"
Good points and I’m all in favor of unintended positive outcomes. Bible scholarship is interesting as an elective and if that was offered at my school I might have considered it. But that’s not what we’re talking about here.
We’re talking about criminal penalties for not promoting a specific religion. That’s the whole point of the law, and it is 100% wrong.
Thanks for the American context as I'm a Canadian and our systems are different here. I didn't realize the risks involved and the motivation behind it. I think this might be my least popular comment on Lemmy ever😅
The USA as a battleground between religion and atheism changes the context as I would shrug most of this off here in Canada as harmless. Like the 10 commandments? Most of them are good advice, basically just "don't be a piece of shit" and i wouldn't have a problem teaching them to kids... Unless the goal is to teach them actively as the word of God and marginalize non-believers as sinful, in which case this is absolutely criminal. That is church, not school.
We have a more robust separation of church and state to the point where when I read "teaching the Bible in school" I hear "robustly secular, historical and cultural study" which as I stated I believe would be a valuable learning experience. In Quebec there are even rules that public servants can't display any religious symbols at all, even as small as a cross on a bracelet. The leader of our Conservative party recently made a statement that both abortion and gay rights were "a closed issue" and he would not stand for any attacks on them.
So personally my wife and I made the hard decision this year to send our daughter to a Catholic school next year due to the rapidly declining quality of public education. However the Catholic school district here is publicly funded and staffed, with strict regulations that any religious content is optional and that respect must be given equally to those who choose it or do not choose it.
Many of her friends have already made the switch (regular school is quickly emptying out of smart kids and turning into a zoo as parents pull their kids) and stated this is exactly how it works, most of them being non-religious as well but impressed with the discipline and learning outcomes. My wife teaches college and said the difference is night and day with some kids even making it out of public highschool unable to read. Meanwhile my daughter's new school has won awards for the achievements of its graduates and their placement in top schools and in industry.
So you see I'm comfortable enough with our dedication to secularism here in Canada that I am willing to send my daughter to an actual Catholic school with no fear that she will be brainwashed... Obviously a bit of bible study doesn't scare me but in the context of the USA culture war it's clearly a much bigger deal.
Oh! Oh, yes, it’s a whole thing here since the “Moral Majority” group in the 80’s that packaged well-meaning people into hateful ignorant political cheerleaders.
And I appreciate your perspective because it highlights a different aspect of the right-wing agenda: part of their process is to build in a “reasonable interpretation” of laws that they actually have no interest in whatsoever.
As an example, there was a big push in many states to enact “voter i.d.” laws. We used to just walk into the polling station, give our name and address, they’d look it up, put a checkmark next to it to show we’ve been counted, and we’d go vote.
Well the right wing media in concert with the republiQans and propaganda mills, i mean, “think tanks” started complaining this was a system ripe for abuse. “SO MANY people just vote multiple times under different names!”
That absolutely never happened in any even-close-to significant amount. Never. There were individual cases - we still see them once in awhile, and it’s always the republiQans doing it. Anyway, they kept this lie up for years.
While that was going on, republiQan legislators, united by ALEC, passed laws saying everyone had to show a valid government ID to vote. I had several conversations with friends and family about these, and either due to parroting the fox news talking points or genuine well-meaning concern, they said, “but doesn’t it make sense to know someone is who they SAY they are, before they vote?” And it does. It does make sense.
But that’s not why they did it. They did it because people without government ID are largely older minority voters, who mostly vote Democratic. This was just to prevent them from voting. They had all sorts of made up lies about “oh they can just go down to the DMV and get a free ID”, yeah if someone takes them and walks them through it and they brought the right paperwork, yeah. It was a big burden for a lot of people who just stopped voting (mission accomplished).
Secondarily, anyone with outstanding parking tickets or who suspects there’s a warrant out for them (or is in general targeted by the cops, like black men) will see lots of ads and mailers before the election that when they show their ID to vote they’ll be arrested and taken away. They won’t, it’s just scare tactics but it works well and voting went down for a lot of Democratic-leaning voters.
To this day they stand by the now long-discredited idea that people are using false identities to vote - trump even clings to this as one of his Big Lies of how he “mysteriously” didn’t get enough votes in 2020, still. It was always bullshit; it was always designed to keep Democrats from voting, and it worked.
lots of ads and mailers before the election that when they show their ID to vote they’ll be arrested and taken away
I've seen a mailer providing false information that a certain very liberal group (out-of-state college students) wasn't allowed to vote, but I've never seen something like this. Do you have a link to an example of it?
If you go back further though, translation of the text to a language the "people" could understand was illegal. Anyone caught with such texts was imprisoned or worse. Those in charge and using religion to control the masses (it's true intention IMHO) didn't want everyone to be able to read it, they wanted people depending on the "chosen" to teach and judge them (what today we may call a cult).
True, but that was a fair bit before the founding of America. Although to your point I doubt they’ll be forced to teach that history. More likely they’ll be forbidden from teaching that history.
Right, only the modern interpretation of an original text that very few people in the world has even seen, let alone able to read. And then all the MANY offshoots of Christianity because each had something people didn't like, a "leader" made a new "version" for them. Forced indoctrination like this is very similar to starting a cult, as almost all of those start with someone that needs to interpret the text or "God's" word.
I think it would be an interesting exercise for everyone pushing this to have to compare and contrast with say David Koresh, or Joseph Smith, and explain how their version of God's word isn't a cult.
I have a lot of friends who, like me grew, up going to church. Some went to catholic high schools, some went to liberal arts colleges with required religions classes in the core curriculum, or had other exposure. None of us go to church in our adulthood and have no intention starting when we have kids. But we all want our kids to have an understanding of what Christianity is because it's important for understanding American history, origins of non profit institutions, and contemporary political and cultural climate. Also want to ensure there's exposure and understanding of Judaism, Islam, and other predominant religions. Not sure how kids are supposed to get that these days without growing up in a religious house hold.
Growing up in the Pacific Northwest I remember in school we studied Native American cultures which included some exposure to myth and religion. I wish there was a way schools could touch on modern religions in a more neutral way, perhaps more similar to how we teach classics/greek mythology.
Not sure how kids are supposed to get that these days without growing up in a religious house hold.
The same way I did in my public middle school in the 90s and the same way my daughter did in her social studies class last year- by teaching comparative religion and attempting to do so without bias. And at no point was I or was she taught that the Bible was one of the important founding documents for our nation, since it wasn't and that's not true.
If we read any passages from the Bible or the Quran during that class, I don't remember them. My daughter's class did not have them. And yet we now both have enough understanding of those religions to be able to put them within a historical framework.
Reading the Memorandum, it doesn't specify what Bible is to be used. Perhaps malicious compliance uses a "alternative" version?
Also found this from the Satanic Temple (who hopefully is on top of this) -
If a public school permits the distribution of religious materials to the student body, they have opened a limited public forum and are obligated to allow religious materials from other faiths. This principle applies to other forms of school-sponsored religious expression as well.
Also funny how these hypocrites go on and on about indoctrination, and then want to indoctrinate every kid in the state by law.
I'd love to see parents flabbergasted by their children refusing the shellfish daddy worked hard to buy, and making sure their clothes don't use mixed fabrics.
Surely this could backfire in so many hilarious ways?
Teach the parts that conservatives don't do, and teach your class to call out injustice everywhere.
Teach the bible in Aramaic or Ancient Hebrew, and give the kids 30 mins of study time to learn whatever they want from it.
Use it as an exercise to teach that many parts were written thousands of years ago, and doesn't have current medical or societal advancements, so that many parts might be up to interpretation.
Compare it to Islam, Judaism, and other sects of Christianity - and teach that they're basically the same thing and that everyone should get along.
Reference that the pope said years ago that even nonbelievers that led a good life would be offered a seat in heaven, so be nice and it'll all be fine.
You forgot "this is what hard-core Christians believe, this is where it contradicts itself, here are the 10 commandments including love thy neighbor and don't worship false idols".
Oh I don't know that I would make the claim that major world religions are all about people getting along. I'd say we can find some parts that are much less friendly than that.
Why don't we go back to Genesis. Lot is an exciting character, and tells us a lot about God's character. And then it gets creepy too.
