From another angle: Supposing people's increasing atheism is a problem, who are the right people to tell people of the good news of the Messiah, when is it the right time, and where is it appropriate as part of public discourse?

Salvation, eternal life. Everyone, any time.

So, when is too much Jesus talk too much? I'd imagine many listeners would start tuning out pretty fast.

Why frame it this way? Because the racial inequality stuff isn't THINKING. It isn't pondering about things, figuring out how things are or anything of the sort. It is the repetition of a narrow, formulaic dogma that's simply being slathered onto everything, and the conclusions are always miraculously the same, the cause the same (there is always only one cause), the prescriptions similar. The question is simply do we just say white people bad. Or do we start having fun and saying stuff like, idk:

> Whiteness is a condition one first acquires and then one has-a malignant, parasitic-like condition to which "white" people have a particular susceptibility. The condition is foundational, generating characteristic ways of being in one's body, in one's mind, and in one's world. Parasitic Whiteness renders its hosts' appetites voracious, insatiable, and perverse. These deformed appetites particularly target nonwhite peoples. Once established, these appetites are nearly impossible to eliminate.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34039063/

This person still has a job. If he wrote that about black people or Jews, say, today's school assignment would be calculating the arc his ass would fly in when he got fired from his job.

If we were actually doing THINKING about racism, it'd look a hell of a lot different than rainbow activism, and much more varied. Just to list some topics or questions:

Does the abolition of objective measures in school actually help underachieving (disproportionately minority) students, or is this a way for an underperforming teaching establishment to game their numbers while their actual performance at instilling useful skills and knowledge tanks?

We'd investigate whether inclusion and equity policies are covert methods of reducing Asian representation in higher education, while not really denting white liberals' standing that much.

We'd look at actual patterns of crime (and notice that a giant chunk of violent crime is by a small number of repeat offenders) and try to deal with them to provide the poorer areas with actual safety and stability. There would likely be some hard questions about stigma and whatnot, but those can and should be weighed against actual prosperity. Now they're just presumed to be the worst thing in the world to the point security guards don't arrest/check suspicious-looking people because they're afraid of appearing racist. Oh, oops, that guy really was a bomber. Sorry.

We'd seriously question minorities' hatreds of each other, and their racism against whites (and whites' racism against themselves) instead of plastering some black guy smearing shit on an Asian grandpa's face as an instance of white supremacy. We'd ask why the activists themselves are quick to sling racial epithets to minorities that don't toe the line.

There's a TON of very varied work to do, questions on what methods even work for reducing bad outcomes and so on, and the answers to many of them are not at all clear. There's years of genuine, engaging intellectual work and concrete organizing to do with a real possibility of achieving genuinely good things like literacy rates that don't suck.

Are the rainbow activists doing ANY of that? No. They're just hiring more DEI bureaucrats to lecture us about the same things over and over and over again.