Churches across America should teach it's historic role. It would be one step toward the youth learning its significant value. If the youth do not attend service the message can be relayed. On an additional note prophecy crushes atheistic theory, taught mostly by that old white leftist crowd at universities (as well as leftist racial dogma and now transgenderism). What happened with Israel? There is plenty of history. Besides, look what the favorite political party of most atheists has devolved into? To them Humans are accidents to be led by Governments. To the Church they are people to help, (too bad so many Republicans seem to forget). Too many young people also have to know not to fear hell when they should only fear God. It turns them away. The serenity prayer is appealing, and people must understand the society they live in has led them to become what they are. All can be forgiven. Human rights come from God; no human politician can ever provide the freedom that He does. That is why the founding fathers of the nation refused to give politicians any more than the absolute minimum. That means do not give them much taxes.
Those who support biblical law are nice people often allowed to be characterized as bigots for not believing in the "changing times". For example, during the Obama presidency, introducing boys going to girls bathrooms to respect "transsexual rights" emerged as a new thought in young minds. The word "transphobe" is used by Democrats to characterize opposition and rally that base. Give it time and witness 2030 if this continues. Those who oppose the next trend will be labeler bigots and in the name of civil rights they will exploit a new group. They will hand them "victories" they will celebrate that do not impact their life the way great leadership would. This is easy to do and does not take talent for a politician. It is my theory that a lot of this comes from a "revenge" mentality a fraction of Democrat veterans harbor after loses the true civil rights fight to the conservative Christians.
No wonder the young do not go to church. It is characterized as the "old" way of thinking by liberal leadership and that is tied to "bigotry". There were heroes who freed slaves then too. That was also "old" thinking. New and old have nothing to do with good and bad. In fact, this country's founding teaches to reject ALL politicians for a reason, yet most the young do not tie forfeiting taxes to government with trusting politicians. The more taxes paid the more trust placed in politicians. Many liberals strongly oppose the Democrat Party, but are quick to support funding the movement for free healthcare and the rest proposed by...Democrats.
Obama's Attorney General compared men / women bathrooms and locker-rooms to Selma Alabama victories, a historical time for black Americans during segregation. She was actually suggesting men and women are segregated in bathrooms (to a "trans" audience) which suggests how little Democrats feel about a portion of their bases' wisdom (it is lacking and they are taken advantage of). It is a leftist tactic that tries to compare todays "civil rights" with mid 1900's civil rights. Homosexual Americans and black Americans civil rights have nothing to do with one another, and there is no tie in any way. Remember the day when the Supreme Court under Obama decided to suddenly pass the right of a man to marry another man? It took no skill, and there was no street-fight. They compare a real struggle to nothing, but it feels great to the pawns. They also used this moment to pass something unrelated and controversial, remember? A media distraction. Did the benefiting group complain? Politician's motives are calculated. Never let a good opportunity go to waste. Exploitation.
The agnostic party implies in our society that there are more than two genders. It is in elementary school. Is their world fake or factual? Do not let them fool you by saying gender is a sociological term, that came into saying when those advancing these narratives started sounding stupid and the ridicule was too overwhelming (my theory). That is not the case, it is not what young children were being led to believe. They were led to believe that there is more than being male or female. Who led that narrative for the masses and decided it would be the new way of thinking? And they are teaching young children to entertain trans-gendering in the guise of "love and inclusion" while condemning what their leaders teach them is "hate". (It is exploitation by top leftists abusing another "group" to think a certain way and therefore vote for one political ideology or party over another that claims to support their civil rights fight, but they have a history of not sincerely caring about the rights they preach).
Now considering a supposed fraction of the political right really does "hate" them, does that make the love and inclusion teachers good by default? If you put on the clothes of the "love and inclusion" base, are you suddenly good enough for the base itself? Children wonder if they should get surgeries. Those that do grow up with high suicide rates. It is a result of being lied to about not being boys or girls. They then appropriate their lives and bodies to made up nonsense pushed on minors. Just like minorities, the various abused groups need to reflect on unique right leaning guilt and unique left leaning guilt. If we get them to reflect on the guilt of all sides we can lead them to realize leftist exploitation and worse.
Back to race and academia, one great method I ask honest liberals attending college and universities to participate in, is to "pretend they already know" about leftist racism and confront teachers. Open a discussion about guaranteeing future votes by further infliction. To hear admission of knowledge for them is lifechanging regarding who they give their trust to in life. During a Democrat debate earlier this year, all the nominees were asked the question whether this country should pay for the healthcare of all the undocumented citizens crossing our borders undetected. Every nominee at that debate raised their hand in support, including Joe Biden. The question the critical thinker asks would be "why are we not giving that money to support black communities already living in our country?". Again the theory (fact) is that the motive is exploitation of race to acquire votes and whether they sincerely care or not is something that is fair to debate. The black vote has been locked in. The dumbest on stage might not know if they are not kept in the loop. It does not take Einstein to run for president. Biden is stupid guy and he knows damn well of the racial "game".
Learning to challenge various indoctrination wins a lot of votes. One way to trap a global warming liberal in reflection is by not telling them it is a hoax, but instead saying that you are open to all ideas and you do not take a side. You then say that you saw Al Gore's movie from 2006 and how Florida was supposed to be underwater in 2012. You noticed it is in the same spot 8 years after, and all of these big mistakes from climate change scientists, who have been warning of a threat, it has you questioning their competence. It is one example and you can now highlight frequent incompetence by pretending you are hearing them in. You can lead the liberal to wonder why such 'smart' people are making such tremendous error in judgement by setting their predictions so high that they would destroy their own credibility if they are wrong. Too many people would find them to be full of (something invaluable) and then their plan to "save the world" would be thwarted due to poor execution.
See how not turning liberals away by taking sides suddenly gives a chance for them to wonder, "how will I come back to making that good point"? They think they are trying to win you, not challenge you.
Keep making your points for however many minutes or days it takes until you work your way up to the fact that (being vague here) in order to receive funding from the U.S. government, climate scientists had to claim a threat and support the leftist theory, helping advance a propaganda narrative that more scientists do support the theory. Often times they are simply old liberals who want law changes to take place within the nation, favoring one political ideology over another of course. How is global warming going to be exploited if your paid scientists say it is too minimal?