One of the great lies of modern secularism is that removing Christianity from public life will produce a society in which everyone is free to live according to their own beliefs.

We’re told that religion is merely a private matter, that morality is subjective, and that the government ought to remain neutral on matters of morality.

“You can’t legislate morality,” they say.

But the problem here is that there is no such thing as morally neutral legislation.

Every law is an expression of morality. Every prohibition declares that some things ought not be done. Every punishment presupposes that some action deserves condemnation.

As such, the question has never been whether morality should be legislated. The question is whose morality will be legislated.

Writing in his book Law and Liberty, theologian R.J. Rushdoony exposed the contradiction at the heart of secular political thinking:

“Our increasingly humanistic laws, courts and legislators are giving us a new morality. They tell us, as they strike down laws resting upon biblical foundations, that morality cannot be legislated, but what they offer is not only legislated morality, but salvation by law.”

Rushdoony understood what many today have forgotten. Removing biblical morality from civil government doesn’t remove morality (or religion) from civil government. It merely replaces one moral authority with another.

When the state rejects Christian standards on marriage, family, sexuality, and justice, it’s not becoming morally neutral. It’s establishing an alternative moral order—a moral order that is not accountable to or limited by the Christian foundation upon which Western civilisation was built.

The secularist who condemns Christian legislation as an imposition of religious values is therefore guilty of the very thing he accuses Christians of doing.

He simply believes his own morality ought to prevail.

But Rushdoony’s argument goes further.

Humanistic government doesn’t merely legislate a different morality. It increasingly assumes a responsibility that belongs to God alone: the salvation of mankind.

Modern politics is built upon the promise that humanity can be perfected through legislation, education, regulation, and social engineering.

Perhaps nowhere is this more obvious than in once-Christian nations such as Australia.

When Australians face difficulties or challenges of almost any kind, their first instinct is often to turn to the government for a solution. When someone has a baby, the government owes them money. When someone doesn’t want to work, the government owes them money. When someone falls ill, the government owes them money.

Whatever the problem, the assumption is increasingly the same: the government is responsible for solving it.

And so, our government becomes increasingly preoccupied with eliminating inequality. Eliminating prejudice. Eliminating hatred. Eliminating social injustice, and on and on.

Having removed Christianity from public life, we have stripped society not only of its Saviour, but of its greatest agent of social reform: the Christian faith, which transforms bad men into better men.

With nothing equivalent to offer, and no means of effecting genuine change in the human heart, the government is left with the only instrument it can wield: the sword. Laws backed by the threat of force.

The assumption is that evil principally arises from defective social arrangements rather than the sinful heart of man. Correct society with law upon law, and humanity will supposedly be corrected along with it.

But the Bible assigns civil government a far more limited responsibility.

Romans 13:3-4 describes the magistrate as God’s servant, appointed to punish wrongdoing. Government can restrain evil, but it cannot regenerate the sinner. It can punish theft, but it cannot make a thief honest. It can prohibit murder, but it cannot remove hatred from the heart.

Indeed, one of the central lessons of the Old Testament is that while external laws can restrain evil, they cannot change the hearts of men. A society that lacks internal moral restraint will inevitably require ever-increasing external restraint. Where men will not govern themselves, they must increasingly be governed by others, through an expanding system of laws, regulations and police enforcement.

And herein lies the danger of humanistic government. Once the state assumes responsibility for perfecting mankind, there is scarcely any aspect of human existence that cannot be brought under its supervision.

In the name of liberating mankind from the commandments of God, secularism increasingly subjects mankind to the commandments of men.

The issue, then, is not whether morality will be legislated. It inevitably will be.

The issue is whether the law will acknowledge an authority higher than the state, or whether men devoid of any inner restraint will claim that authority for themselves.

Earlier this week, The Gospel Coalition Australia published an article by Dave Moore titled Spouses, Please Stop Sitting Together, encouraging husbands and wives to sit separately during church services.

Understandably, the article attracted considerable ridicule worldwide and even prompted The Gospel Coalition to publish more than one critique in response.

But that’s not what I want to do here. I’m not going to point out the obvious. You don’t need me to do that. Instead, I want to offer something of a defence of Moore. His conclusion is hardly sensible, but he follows a theological error common in modern evangelicalism to its logical conclusion more consistently than many of his critics do.

Of everything Moore said in his article, this error came through most clearly in a single question he put to his readers:

“And this raises a bigger question; if church is meant to be a gathering of our spiritual family, why are we sitting in our earthly families in the first place?”

Why indeed? That’s not an absurd question to ask, not if we accept the evangelical assumptions of our day.

After all, if our spiritual relationships supersede our earthly relationships, why should Christian husbands prefer their own wives? We belong to God’s family. We are members of the household of God. We have a heavenly Father. We are brothers and sisters in Christ. The Church itself is the Bride of Christ.

What possible significance could our temporal, earthly marriages retain in light of these glorious and eternal, heavenly realities?

Of course, I’m being facetious. But that’s entirely the point.

For years, we’ve heard this same line of reasoning applied beyond the immediate family. It comes up whenever the subject turns to extended family and local community, and especially when we speak of nationhood and our obligations as Christians to our own kin and countrymen.

We are citizens of heaven, we are told. Our kingdom is not of this world. We belong to a spiritual nation that transcends earthly distinctions. One race, the human race. Therefore, earthly nationhood and particular loyalties are supposedly of little Christian significance.

Yet when Moore applies this argument to marriage and immediate family, suddenly everyone loses their minds.

Apparently, heavenly citizenship can relativise earthly nationhood and belonging to the point of insignificance, but heavenly family membership mustn’t do the same to earthly families.

Why not, exactly?

In the end, all Moore has done is take the logic behind evangelicalism’s rejection of Christian nationalism and apply it consistently to Christian marriages.

If belonging to God’s heavenly kingdom dissolves our particular obligations to our earthly nations, why shouldn’t belonging to God’s heavenly household dissolve our particular obligations to our earthly households?

You can’t invoke heavenly realities to erase earthly distinctions selectively, preserving those you personally like while dismissing those you don’t.

The problem here is not that Moore has taken his reasoning too far. It’s that he has inadvertently exposed what happens when spiritual realities are treated as replacements for the natural order.

The historic Christian understanding is that grace does not destroy nature, but perfects it.

Our union with Christ doesn’t abolish marriage. Rather, marriage itself reveals something greater about that heavenly union (Eph. 5:31-32). God’s fatherhood doesn’t abolish earthly fatherhood, but establishes its proper pattern (Eph. 3:14-15). Likewise, our heavenly citizenship doesn’t abolish our earthly obligations.

In fact, the Bible repeatedly employs earthly realities to highlight spiritual truths, precisely because these earthly realities possess genuine significance within God’s purpose.

As such, Christians are not called to escape creation or the natural order, but to see these things redeemed and brought into obedience to Christ.

Moore’s critics are right to reject the idea that belonging to a spiritual family somehow diminishes our earthly family ties. But those who dismiss earthly nationhood on the very same theological grounds only expose how little they’ve thought through their own position when they chide Moore for applying that logic more consistently than they’re willing to do so themselves.

After all, if heavenly realities make earthly loyalties and preferences irrelevant, why stop at nations?

So, perhaps, at this point, Moore deserves less ridicule and more thanks. He’s unwittingly offered modern evangelicalism a remarkably useful reductio ad absurdum of the theology it so often peddles.

What good is rejecting Moore’s conclusion if you still accept the faulty premise that led him to it?

On 1 November, Pastor Tim Grant entered into glory, leaving behind his wife and their three young daughters. He served at Tenthill and Mount Isa Baptist churches before joining Cairns South Baptist Church as an associate pastor in 2024.

Tim was senior pastor at Mount Isa when he joined Matthew Littlefield and Warren McKenzie in writing the Ezekiel Declaration. In August 2021, the three pastors wrote to Prime Minister Scott Morrison urging him to oppose COVID vaccine passports. They warned that making vaccination a condition of ordinary public life would divide Australians and put pressure on churches to turn people away from worship.

More than 3,000 church leaders and 26,000 church members and attendees signed. The declaration gave thousands of Australians a way to voice their objections together. It also brought a neglected Christian conviction into public debate. Christ is Lord of the conscience, and pastors answer to him for how they receive the people who come through their doors.

In August 2022, one year after the Ezekiel Declaration's publication, Tim and the other co-authors appeared on the Caldron Pool Show. You can watch that episode here:

Tim kept making that case. In 2022, he and Littlefield also published Defending Conscience, tracing how Baptists helped defend religious liberty. Earlier this year, Tim wrote for Caldron Pool about how deeply it had discouraged him to hear Sydney Anglican ministers criticise the declaration. He was glad to see the diocese examine its own pandemic response, and he said so.

Tim loved the Lord deeply and impacted the lives of many people both at the national scale, but also in his personal ministry. He served in many roles in his life and helped people greatly in all of them. He had a keen mind for the things of the Lord, history, law and justice, and many people are mourning his death.

His friends remember him as a man who stood for the Lord, defied tyranny, advocated for the truth and did it without receiving acclaim.

Please pray for his family.

We thank God for Tim’s life and ministry. We pray that Christ, whose welcome Tim was so concerned to defend, will comfort his wife and their girls in the days ahead.

British MP Rupert Lowe has tabled a parliamentary motion calling for the formal recognition and protection of English, Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish ethnic identities, amid growing efforts to redefine the meaning of Englishness and challenge the historical identity of Britain’s native peoples.

The Restore Britain leader announced on Thursday that he had invited MPs from across Parliament to support the motion, which calls on the Government to recognise the four peoples as distinct historic ethnic populations, rooted in generations of shared ancestry, culture and heritage.

“We should never be ashamed to defend who we are,” Lowe declared.

The motion, titled Recognition and Preservation of English, Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish Ethnic Identities, insists that citizenship and ethnicity are not interchangeable concepts.

It argues that while citizenship establishes legal membership of a state, it cannot manufacture ancestral continuity or erase the distinction between historic populations and the wider national community.

The proposal comes at a particularly significant moment, just days after Liberal Democrat MP Josh Babarinde introduced legislation seeking to expand the definition of English ethnicity in the national census.

Babarinde’s proposal would introduce categories including Black English, Asian English and Mixed English, arguing that Englishness must not be defined by ancestry or skin colour.

During his parliamentary address on Tuesday, Babarinde acknowledged that English ethnicity exists, but rejected the suggestion that it is determined by a common ancestral lineage.

His argument reflects a broader ideological shift in which the distinction between a historic people and a modern national population is increasingly being challenged.

The English, it seems, are permitted to exist as a political or cultural identity, but their existence as a distinct ancestral people is becoming an increasingly controversial proposition.

Even the Anglo-Saxons, whose settlement and development helped shape the foundations of the English nation, have become the subject of efforts to reconsider their historical identity.

In recent years, historians and academic institutions have questioned the appropriateness of the term Anglo-Saxon, arguing that it can falsely suggest a single, homogeneous people.

The International Society of Anglo-Saxonists changed its name in 2019, while Cambridge University’s journal Anglo-Saxon England was subsequently renamed Early Medieval England and its Neighbours.

Yet, as historian Rory Naismith acknowledges in his examination of the term, Anglo-Saxon terminology has genuine medieval origins, even if its meaning has changed over the centuries.

Historical terminology can certainly be debated. But to suggest that the complexity of early English ethnogenesis renders the existence of historic English ancestry meaningless is another matter entirely.

The Angles, Saxons and other peoples who contributed to the formation of England were real. Their descendants developed a common language, inherited institutions, established kingdoms and ultimately formed a recognisable English national identity.

That history does not cease to exist because modern political preferences find certain aspects of it inconvenient.

Indeed, Britain’s historic peoples have undergone centuries of migration, intermarriage and cultural development. None of this means their ethnic identities are imaginary, any more than centuries of historical change invalidate the identity of any other people.

There is also a considerable difference between welcoming newcomers into a national community and insisting that doing so requires the historic population to relinquish its own ancestral identity.

The former has occurred throughout history. The latter amounts to demanding that a people abandon an inheritance that others are routinely encouraged to celebrate.

The English, Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish have every right to cherish their ancestry, preserve their cultural inheritance and seek the continuation of their historic communities.

Their heritage is not merely an assortment of customs that can be detached from the generations who cultivated them. It is the accumulated inheritance of peoples who built institutions, established traditions, defended their homelands and helped shape Western Christian civilisation.

Lowe’s motion raises a fundamental question for Parliament. If every people has a legitimate interest in preserving its ethnic heritage, why should the English, Scottish, Welsh and Irish be expected to surrender theirs?

Their existence predates the present political establishment. Their identities were not invented by Parliament, and they should not be subject to abolition by parliamentary process.

Redefining English identity so broadly that it encompasses anyone who happens to live in England or was born there effectively strips the term of its historical and ethnic meaning. It erases the distinction between those whose ancestors spent centuries building the nation, establishing its institutions, cultivating its traditions, and shaping its civilisation, and those who arrived only yesterday.

If both are considered equally English in every sense of the word, regardless of ancestry, then what exactly does English ethnicity mean? What remains of the distinct people whose language, culture, customs, and institutions gave England its very identity?

This is more than an argument over terminology. It is a form of ethnic erasure. It reduces Englishness to little more than a geographical designation, something that can be acquired simply by crossing a border or being born within it. It implies that there is nothing inherently distinctive about the English as a historic people, nothing particular to their ancestry or inherited identity that distinguishes them from any other ethnic group.

A person might become English in a civic or cultural sense without sharing that ancestry. But to insist that civic belonging and ethnic identity are interchangeable is to deny that the English exist as a distinct ancestral people at all.

In an age when the preservation of ethnic identity is celebrated as a fundamental right for peoples around the world, the English are increasingly expected to accept a definition of their own identity so broad that their distinct existence disappears within it.

For decades, Westerners have been told they have a lot to apologise for. Their ancestors, their history, their culture, even the civilisation they inherited have all been portrayed as things to be ashamed of rather than grateful for.

And perhaps the most remarkable thing is how many people went along with it.

We’ve reached the absurd point where a Westerner is expected to accept responsibility for his ancestors’ sins while being discouraged from taking any pride in their achievements. Apparently, the guilt is hereditary, but the glory isn’t.

This nonsense has done enormous damage to the West. What sort of people can be expected to defend a civilisation they’ve spent their lives being told was built on nothing but oppression and injustice? Why preserve something you’ve been taught the world would be better off without?

But something is changing, and you can see it particularly among younger generations.

There’s a renewed interest in ancestry, heritage, and the old homelands. People are digging into their family histories, learning about their ancestors, rediscovering old customs, and developing an affection for the places and peoples from which they came.

For many of Anglo-Celtic and European descent, it’s a rediscovery of something previous generations took for granted: that they belong to a people with a history, a homeland, and an inheritance worth preserving.

And there’s nothing remotely shameful about that.

We can acknowledge the wrongs of the past without pretending there was nothing good about the people who came before us. And there was an extraordinary amount of good.

Our ancestors built churches, universities, institutions, towns, and nations. They produced great works of art, literature, architecture, and music. They handed down laws, liberties, traditions, and customs that helped shape the world we live in.

Were they perfect? Obviously not. But why on earth should perfection be the condition for gratitude?

What’s particularly telling is the hostility this renewed interest in European heritage attracts. We’re forever being told to respect other peoples’ cultures, celebrate their traditions, and recognise the importance of their ancestral ties. Yet when Westerners express the same affection for their own, we’re suddenly warned about the dangers of nationalism, racism, and the far right.

Well, people are getting tired of it.

And I suspect the harder they’re pushed to disown their heritage, the more determined they’ll become to rediscover it.

White guilt has had its decades in the sun. It has taught generations to look at their inheritance with contempt and mistake that contempt for moral virtue.

But you cannot build a future on an endless apology for the past. We owe it to those who come after us to know what we inherited, cherish what was good in it, and pass it on.

Smith was once the most common surname registered among newborn babies in Victoria. Today, it ranks fourth, behind Singh, Nguyen and Kaur.

According to Victorian birth registration figures reported in March 2025, the five most common surnames among babies born in 2024 were:

1. Singh (628)

2. Nguyen (502)

3. Kaur (452)

4. Smith (407)

5. Williams (249)

Smith held first place as recently as 2014. Singh, associated particularly with India’s Sikh community, has held the top position every year since 2019.

The figures concern newborn registrations, not the surnames of Victoria’s entire population. Nevertheless, they illustrate a broader transformation in the composition of Australia’s younger generations.

The same pattern is evident in national migration statistics.

One-third of Australia’s population was born overseas

According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, 32% of Australia’s population was born overseas in 2025, equivalent to approximately 8.8 million people.

In 2005, the figure was 24.2%.

What’s more, the change is not merely in the number of migrants but in where they originate.

In 2025, India overtook England as Australia’s largest overseas country of birth for the first time on record.

The Indian-born population reached 971,020, compared with 970,950 born in England. Australia’s Chinese-born population numbered approximately 732,000.

Over the preceding decade, the Indian-born population increased by 522,000, while the English-born population declined by approximately 36,000.

Australia’s traditional European migrant populations are ageing, while immigration from Asian and South Asian countries accounts for an increasingly significant share of new arrivals.

The result is a substantial transformation in Australia’s demographic composition, driven by immigration policy rather than natural population growth alone.

Birth rates are collapsing while immigration sustains population growth

The latest ABS birth statistics, released on 6 November 2026, recorded a fertility rate of just 1.497 children per woman in 2025, compared with 1.796 a decade earlier.

The replacement rate is approximately 2.1 children per woman.

Australia’s fertility has remained below replacement level since 1976.

Meanwhile, the ABS reports that Australia’s population increased by 392,700 in the year ending March 2026.

Of that increase:

• 292,100 came from net overseas migration.

• 100,600 came from natural increase, meaning births exceeded deaths.

Put simply, 74.4% of Australia’s population growth came from net overseas migration.

But rather than addressing the structural problems discouraging marriage and family formation among Australians, successive governments have relied heavily on immigration to sustain population growth.

The consequence is that Australia’s population continues expanding while its ancestral and ethnic composition changes.

What will Australia look like in 2050 or 2075?

The overseas-born share of Australia’s population increased by 7.8 percentage points between 2005 and 2025.

If that average rate of increase continued, the trajectory would be:

• Year - Overseas-born share

• 2025 - 32.0%

• 2036 - 36.3%

• 2046 - 40.2%

• 2056 - 44.1%

• 2076 - 51.9%

On this simple extrapolation, overseas-born residents would become a majority around 2072.

Importantly, that calculation excludes second- and subsequent-generation descendants of migrants, who are counted as Australian-born.

It therefore cannot measure the changing proportion of Australians of Anglo-Celtic or broader European ancestry.

The 2021 Census recorded English ancestry among 33% of Australians, Australian ancestry among 29.9%, Irish ancestry among 9.5% and Scottish ancestry among 8.6%. These categories overlap because respondents can nominate multiple ancestries.

Although no reliable “official” projection identifies precisely when Australians of European ancestry might become a minority, the direction of demographic change is clear, as is the decisive role immigration policy plays in determining its pace.

A nation has a right to preserve its inheritance

Australia was not established as an interchangeable economic zone, existing merely to accommodate an indefinitely expanding population or foreigners.

Its national institutions, parliamentary traditions, common law, religion, language and much of its cultural character were inherited from its predominantly British and Irish founders and settlers.

Yet political discussion increasingly treats immigration primarily as a means of addressing labour shortages, economic growth and an ageing population, while giving comparatively little consideration to its cumulative effects on national identity, cultural continuity and social cohesion.

In fact, on Monday, 9 November, NSW Premier Chris Minns condemned One Nation candidate Stuart Bonds as “frankly outrageous and racist” after Bonds warned that Australians were being “demographically replaced inside our own nation” through mass immigration. Minns dismissed the claim as an imported conspiracy theory.

The figures, however, seem to tell a very different story.

In truth, there is nothing “inevitable” about present immigration levels. They are determined by government policy and can be changed. Nor does a declining fertility rate oblige a nation to pursue perpetual population growth through immigration.

A genuinely national government would regard the prosperity, family formation, and generational continuity of its existing population as central political priorities. It would consider the long-term consequences of immigration rather than treating population growth as an unquestionable good.

But here’s the reality we’re faced with: Australia’s fertility rate is below replacement level. Immigration supplies nearly three-quarters of population growth. One-third of residents were born overseas. The sources of immigration have shifted substantially away from the Christian European countries that shaped modern Australia to India and other Asian countries.

These are measurable realities, not speculative predictions.

The question is not whether Australia’s demographic composition is changing. It is whether Australians want that transformation to continue, at what pace, and whether their elected representatives have any intention of preserving the nation’s historical identity for future Australians.

A people who surrender the right to determine the future composition and character of their nation surrender the very principle of national self-government.

It’s becoming increasingly obvious that our governments can justify almost any intrusion into our lives once the public accepts that it’s necessary to prevent harm. Once that premise is granted, the debate becomes much easier for those seeking greater power. All they need to do is identify a supposed “harm,” promise to address it with new policy, and then characterise all opposition as indifference towards those harmed.

It’s now become the standard approach when seeking to put forward unpopular legislation. Highlight the problem. Emphasise the hurt. Present your particular policy not only as the best response, but the only response any decent person could support. Then portray criticism as dangerous opposition from those who wish to prolong the problem for selfish reasons.

In a better world, a government that merely proposes a solution would still be expected to put forward an argument. It has to explain why its policy will work, why other approaches will not, and why the powers it seeks are entirely justified.

Today, however, the politician knows that if they can convince the public that supporting the policy is a test of compassion, those questions can be immediately dismissed without being answered. In fact, even raising such questions is problematic.

Opponents are selfish. They’re heartless. They don’t care about the vulnerable. And who in their right mind is going to defend being selfish, heartless, and cruel?

Of course, that is not what the opponent is defending. He may recognise the problem perfectly well while rejecting the proposed response. He may think the policy will do more damage than good, or that it gives the state authority it should never possess. But these distinctions become difficult to explain once the public has accepted that there are only two positions available: support the government’s policy or support the harm.

It’s low-bar politics, but the unfortunate thing is, it works.

It works because people can be persuaded to accept the moral pronouncements without properly examining the arguments. Tell them a particular position is unkind, unloving, or unfair, and they’ll lean towards whatever those in authority have told them is the opposite of those things. Not a whole lot of manipulation is required when the labels themselves are enough to settle any and all questions.

But framing a policy as the compassionate response tells us nothing about whether it is just or good. Neither does pointing to a genuine problem establish that the government’s preferred solution is necessary.

Even the word “harm” requires a moral judgment. A truthful accusation may damage a person’s reputation. A just punishment may cause considerable distress. A parent may upset a child by refusing to give him something he wants. In each case, the unpleasant consequence alone cannot tell us whether a wrong has been committed. We have to consider what the person deserves, what is actually good for him, and what duties others owe him.

This is why an appeal to harm cannot and should not replace a sound, moral argument. It already assumes one.

The fact is, the state does not acquire the right to define good and evil simply because it has the power to enforce its own definitions. Might does not make right. In Romans 13, the ruler is described as God’s servant for good, charged with punishing wrongdoing. His office is therefore accountable to a standard above his own preferences.

Nor does the existence of a wrong automatically make it the government’s responsibility to correct. This is something Australians find particularly hard to swallow. “More government” is not the answer to every problem in life. Families and churches have duties of their own. Unless we properly distinguish those responsibilities, the promise to prevent harm can become a claim to govern everything. It’s why we have governments intruding into every sphere, dictating what our children must eat, watch, and believe.

There’s also a rather obvious problem with allowing the government to decide how much freedom we must surrender for our own protection. The power being expanded is its own. So, we should hardly treat its own assessment as beyond question, particularly when the proposed protection comes at the expense of those rights it’s supposed to uphold.

A government may have a sound case for a particular measure. If so, let it make that case. Let it explain why the policy is necessary, why its powers are legitimate, and why the consequences are justified.

What it can’t reasonably demand is that we accept its every policy as an act of compassion and then treat every objection or criticism as evidence of cruelty or apathy. Concern for people who suffer does not oblige us to accept whatever “solutions” politicians propose in their name.

In a fallen world, wherever there is power to be gained, someone can find a pretext for taking it.

O Lord, the great and awesome God, who keeps covenant and steadfast love with those who love Him and keep His commandments,

We have sinned and done wrong and acted wickedly and rebelled, turning aside from Your commandments and Your righteous judgments.

We have not listened to Your servants, who proclaimed Your Word to our fathers, our kings, our rulers, and our people throughout the British Isles and the lands to which our forefathers went.

To You, O Lord, belongs righteousness, but to us open shame, as at this day: to the English, the Scots, the Welsh, and the peoples of Britain and Ireland; to those scattered throughout Australia, New Zealand, Canada, America, and the other nations that sprang from these shores, because of the unfaithfulness we have committed against You.

To us belongs open shame, O Lord, to our rulers, our fathers, and our people, because we have sinned against You.

To the Lord our God belong mercy and forgiveness, for we have rebelled against Him.

We have not obeyed the voice of the Lord our God, to walk in His laws, which He has set before us in His Holy Scriptures.

Our nations have turned aside from Your law and refused to obey Your voice. We have cast off Your commandments, despised Your Word, corrupted justice, dishonoured marriage, destroyed the innocent, and called evil good and good evil.

We have inherited a great Christian witness, yet squandered it. Our fathers built churches, translated the Scriptures, sent missionaries across the earth, and established institutions shaped by Your truth. Yet we, their descendants, have despised that inheritance, abandoned their faith, and taught our children to forget Your name.

And now calamity has come upon us, yet we have not humbled ourselves before You. We seek prosperity without righteousness, peace without repentance, freedom without obedience, and blessing without the God from whom all blessings flow.

Therefore You are righteous, O Lord, in all that You have permitted to come upon us, for You have acted faithfully, but we have not obeyed Your voice.

And now, O Lord our God, who rules over the nations and directs the course of history, who raised up kingdoms and brought them low, who bestowed upon our forefathers privileges and responsibilities beyond measure, we confess that we have sinned and acted wickedly.

O Lord, according to all Your righteous acts, let Your anger and Your wrath turn away from our lands. Look upon the British Isles and the nations that sprang from them. Look upon our broken homes, our empty churches, our corrupted institutions, and our children who no longer know You. We have become a reproach among the nations, and the name of Christ, once honoured among us, is now openly mocked.

Now therefore, O our God, listen to the prayer of Your servants and to our pleas for mercy. For Your own sake, O Lord, cause Your face to shine again upon Your churches, now neglected and desolate.

O my God, incline Your ear and hear. Open Your eyes and behold the condition of our peoples and the lands in which Your name was once proclaimed. For we do not present our pleas before You because of our righteousness, nor because of the greatness of our ancestors, nor because of the achievements of our civilisation, but because of Your great mercy.

O Lord, hear! O Lord, forgive! O Lord, pay attention and act! Do not delay, for Your own sake, O my God. Bring our peoples to repentance, restore the fear of God to our homes, raise up faithful rulers, turn the hearts of fathers to their children and children to their fathers, and cause the Gospel of Jesus Christ to flourish once more throughout our lands.

For Your name’s sake, O Lord, remember mercy in the midst of judgment.

Amen.

Remember when rumours first began circulating about the possibility of another war in the Middle East?

Israel was lobbying and pressuring Donald Trump to intervene against Iran, warning that its neighbour posed an imminent threat not only to Israel, but to Western civilisation itself.

We were told that if Trump failed to act immediately, the consequences would be catastrophic. The world as we knew it would change, and Western civilisation would find itself living under the constant threat of nuclear attack.

But not everyone was buying it.

Trump had been elected, in large part, on the promise of no new wars. Americans were tired of fighting endless conflicts in the Middle East, and now he faced the almost impossible task of convincing the very people who had elected him on that promise that another war was, in fact, both good and necessary.

Read more

Written by Pastor Zach Dotson

The Story of Virginia is the story of the United States of America.

In 1607, Virginia was founded when a group of settlers landed and established Jamestown; it was the first of the original 13 Colonies that formed the fledgling United States after the Revolution. Virginia has been the birthplace of 8 Presidents, more than any other U.S. state, earning it the nickname “The Mother of Presidents”. Land carved out of Virginia eventually became the States of Kentucky, Ohio, and, later, more painfully, West Virginia.

Virginia was where the British were defeated at Yorktown, and Cornwallis surrendered to Washington, the last major battle of the American Revolution. The “Old Dominion” saw more battles in the War Between the States than any other state. Virginia was home to George Washington, James Maddison, Patrick Henry, George Mason, Robert E. Lee, Stonewall Jackson, and the infamous Marine Corps General Chesty Puller, to name a few prominent Virginians. I suppose, as the author of the article, I should declare myself to be a son of Virginia, whose ancestors landed at Jamestown in 1607.

Just yesterday in Virginia, it was election day. All the virtue of the past, all her former glory, was eclipsed by the debased political cycle and, in Virginia’s case, the utterly debased Constitutional Amendments in referendum form on the ballot. There were three specific initiatives:

1. The Constitutional Right to Abortion.

2. The legalising of Same-Sex Marriage (though technically already legal by Supreme Court fiat, they wanted to make it official by removing the amendment prohibiting it from the state constitution).

3. Allowing convicted felons the vote.

These three measures are progressive goals and achievements—the cause d’jour of Virginia’s new class of political leaders. And in passing them we see the chickens of Virginia’s past coming home to roost—even 240 years later. Virginia is a sad tale of a state forsaking her Godly heritage in exchange for the pottage of the Enlightenment.

It all began in 1607 at Virginia’s founding. The Virginia Colony’s first chaplain, Rev. Robert Hunt, and the initial settlers landed at Cape Henry, Virginia. They covenanted before God to dedicate Virginia to the Glory of God, stating:

“We do hereby dedicate this Land, and ourselves, to reach the People within these shores with the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and to raise up Godly generations after us, and with these generations take the Kingdom of God to all the earth. May this Covenant of Dedication remain to all generations, as long as this earth remains, and may this Land, along with England, be Evangelist to the World. May all who see this Cross remember what we have done here, and may those who come here to inhabit join us in this Covenant and in this most noble work that the Holy Scriptures may be fulfilled.”

They also erected a cross at the site, and the first Protestant Sermon was preached in what would become the United States.

From this Covenant, Virginia was founded with a distinctly Christian identity. Virginia was a Christian colony. Her roots were tied to the Christian heritage of mother England. Virginia was a Christian Commonwealth, and this identity would persist until late in the next century.

Now, let us go from 1607 to the year 1777.

In 1777, one year after the Declaration of Independence, Jefferson drafted what would become the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom. Thomas Jefferson was no friend of established Christianity, or Christianity at all, and he embraced Enlightenment ideas. Later in his life, then—President Thomas Jefferson wrote to the Danbury Baptist Association that he considered it vital that “a wall of separation between church and State” be erected.

Further, Jefferson in the same letter stated that the government should permit religious freedom to “restore to man all his natural rights”—he doesn’t see that true “natural rights” oblige man to worship God as his creator and Lord. He has stripped the concept of Natural Rights, or what Christian theologians call “Natural Law” or God’s law. Here Jefferson proudly showed his true Enlightenment colours, but back to Jefferson’s attempt at legislating in the Enlightenment.

In 1786, Jefferson’s draft of the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom finally came before the legislature. Though it was Thomas Jefferson’s brainchild, it was largely forgotten until Patrick Henry wanted the State to support clergy from denominations other than the Anglican Church — Virginia’s established church was the Anglican Church.

This led James Madison to introduce Jefferson’s legislation to counter Henry, and Madison skillfully managed to pass it. Other states at this point had some level of religious freedom, but their laws essentially allowed different Christian denominations to function in society and government.

In contrast, Virginia went all the way—it allowed for the open practice of any faith, and further, no restrictions on elected officials’ religious beliefs, so that infidels and atheists could hold public office. The Virginia Legislature, with one law, separated Church and State and broke the bond between Christ and Commonwealth, made all the way back in 1607. This statute later inspired the US Constitution’s First Amendment and became a primary source of the ubiquitous Western idea of Separation of Church and State.

Jefferson considered the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom one of his crowning achievements, along with the Declaration of Independence. He was proud of what he accomplished, furthering Enlightenment autonomy against Christendom and the godly heritage of his forefathers in Virginia.

Fast forward to today, the “Right to Abortion” was just enshrined in Virginia’s Constitution. The right to worship false gods, the public acceptance of idolatry, and allowing men of profane and unbelieving religious persuasions or no persuasion at all to hold public office have been allowed for 240 years.

Perhaps loath to admit it, but Thomas Jefferson, the Enlightenment deist, wed Virginia to liberal Enlightenment and divorced her from her Christian founding. The disestablishment of Christianity and the Separation of Church and state have led to the ungodly, degenerate, and debauched state the Commonwealth of Virginia is in now.

Psalm 33:12 states, “Blessed is the nation whose God is the Lord”. The Commonwealth of Virginia could have claimed this at her founding, but Enlightenment ideas took over. Virginia ran off with her lover, the Enlightenment, and when you run off with the Enlightenment, you end with constitutionally enshrined child sacrifice.

Let Virginia be a warning to the whole West: the Disestablishment of the Christian Religion and allowing Religious Freedom is sowing to the wind, and now Virginia will reap the whirlwind (Hosea 8:7).

If only Virginia could declare with Godly zeal “Sic Semper Tyrannis” to the Enlightenment and all the supposed progress it wrought!

A fundraiser has raised more than $250,000 for a Victorian father left hospitalised with serious head injuries after he was allegedly attacked with a baseball bat outside his Torquay home.

The 60-year-old One Nation volunteer reportedly confronted people damaging campaign signs on his property before the alleged assault on Sunday evening.

According to reports, the father suffered multiple facial fractures and bleeding on the brain. His identity is being withheld over concerns for his family’s safety.

The appeal says he faces a lengthy recovery, leaving his family without their only source of income. He operates his own business, and his work vehicle was also badly damaged during the attack.

Donations will go directly to the family to help cover lost income, medical costs and everyday expenses while he recovers, according to the organisers.

Senator Pauline Hanson has also shared the GoFundMe appeal, encouraging supporters to assist the injured man and his family.

News24 reported that the alleged attack occurred after a 14-year-old boy began damaging One Nation signs at the property. The volunteer was allegedly assaulted by the teenager and his father after coming outside.

The outlet reported that the victim’s wife and children witnessed the incident and called police.

In a statement provided to News24, Victoria Police said officers were told two males allegedly assaulted a man with a baseball bat at the property about 7.45pm.

Police arrested a 14-year-old boy from the Casey area and a 37-year-old Hampton Park man. The victim was taken to hospital with injuries police described as non-life-threatening.

According to News24, the adult was charged with intentionally causing injury and other assault-related offences. He was remanded to appear again at Geelong Magistrates’ Court on November 10. The teenager received a caution.

One Nation said it was seeking further information about the incident and expressed concern for the volunteer and his family.

“Political violence of any kind is unacceptable,” a party spokesperson said.

The fundraising organisers have encouraged anyone able to help to contribute, with supporters also urged to share the appeal.

There’s a broader issue here. What do we expect to happen when people are continually encouraged to see their political neighbours as dangerous extremists and Nazis?

The public is coaxed into believing their political opponents threaten their freedom, their families and perhaps even their lives. Stopping them begins to look like a moral obligation. And once you’ve accepted that premise, it becomes much easier to excuse how they’re treated. Who’s going to defend a Nazi?

The alleged attackers’ motives in Torquay have not been established. But we don’t need to know their motives to question rhetoric that makes abuse easier to justify.

Too often, those in positions of power and influence have demonised their political opponents as Nazis while accusing them of hatred. They branded them dangerous extremists while accusing them of intolerance. They accused them of inciting violence while turning a blind eye to those who assaulted and abused them.

Of course, it was projection. They accused their opponents of the very behaviour they excused on their own side, then used those accusations to justify more of it against them. Their accusations weren’t just hypocritical. They helped disguise their own hatred as righteousness.

Politicians and journalists who tell everyone else to “bring the temperature down” should consider what they’re doing when they describe their opponents as extremists and “right-wing terror threats”.

You can oppose One Nation without treating its supporters as enemies. You can argue against a man’s politics without making his family afraid to display a sign outside their home.

A father is now in hospital, and his family faces the loss of their only income while he recovers. They need support. And those in positions of power need to take seriously the responsibility that comes with telling the public whom to fear and hate.

Because it’s increasingly obvious to many that the Left have demonised their political opponents to the point where, to some, violence against the Right seems not only justified but necessary.

If you would like to donate, you can do so here.

The family of murdered British teenager Henry Nowak say police repeatedly misled them about the circumstances of their son’s death, raising fears that authorities were more concerned with protecting their own reputation than telling the truth.

Nowak, 18, was stabbed five times by Vickrum Digwa in Southampton on 3 December 2025. Despite repeatedly telling responding officers that he had been stabbed and could not breathe, the teenager was handcuffed and arrested as he lay dying.

His attacker, meanwhile, had falsely claimed that Nowak racially abused and assaulted him.

In a new interview with ITV News, Nowak’s family accused police of providing misleading and changing accounts of what happened that night.

His father, Mark Nowak, said officers initially claimed they had immediately administered first aid. The family subsequently learned that Henry had instead been detained, handcuffed and arrested.

“The story was evolving every time we had an interaction,” he said.

“We felt we were being hoodwinked. We felt we were being not told the truth.”

His stepmother, Katie Nowak, said she feared police had deliberately concealed information.

“I fear that we may have been manipulated in our darkest hours,” she said.

“And I fear that some decisions were made to try and protect the police and their reputation rather than help us as a family.”

The family also revealed that officers questioned them about Henry’s political views, as well as their own, shortly after his murder.

According to ITV, police initially portrayed Henry as the aggressor, apparently accepting his killer’s false allegations of a racially motivated attack.

The family were not shown the police body-camera footage until the first day of Digwa’s murder trial, despite receiving a letter from the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) in April stating that no concerns had been identified regarding the officers’ actions.

The footage showed Henry repeatedly pleading for assistance, telling officers he had been stabbed.

“I don’t think you have, mate,” one officer responded.

His final recorded words were: “Please, brother. I can’t breathe.”

Officers did not discover the fatal wound to his chest until eight minutes after arriving. The court nevertheless heard that Henry would not have survived his injuries even if first aid had been administered sooner.

Hampshire and Isle of Wight Chief Constable Alexis Boon has publicly apologised, acknowledging that officers failed the teenager in his final moments.

“I am incredibly sorry that in his final moments, when he needed us most, we failed him,” Boon said.

Two officers are now under investigation for potential gross misconduct, while the British government has announced an independent review of the case, including the conduct of the police watchdog.

The Crown Prosecution Service said the body-camera footage could not be shared with the family until the case was trial-ready because of concerns about prejudicing court proceedings.

Digwa was sentenced to life imprisonment with a minimum term of 21 years for Henry’s murder.

An Australian mother is facing up to five years in prison after being charged by the Australian Federal Police (AFP) for allegedly sharing videos and images containing Nazi symbols on social media.

The 45-year-old woman, identified as Holly by supporters, was charged following an AFP search of her home in Point Frederick, on the NSW Central Coast, on 22 October.

According to an AFP statement, officers from its National Security Investigations (NSI) team searched the property and seized her mobile phone for forensic examination.

She was charged with six counts of publicly displaying a prohibited Nazi symbol under section 80.2H of the Commonwealth Criminal Code.

The charges reportedly relate to videos and images reposted on X between 12 August and 21 September, including historical footage of Nazi rallies and military parades.

The Noticer, citing police documents, reported that one video contained footage of Nazi flags, while another included a swastika alongside the words “we are everywhere”.

Other alleged posts included an image bearing the words “love your race” alongside a swastika and a Black Sun symbol, and an infographic that police say promoted ideas associated with National Socialism, including labour camps, book burning and the removal of foreigners.

The AFP said its investigation began in August after authorities received a report about an account allegedly publishing Nazi symbols and antisemitic material.

Under Commonwealth law, publicly displaying prohibited Nazi symbols can attract a maximum penalty of five years’ imprisonment. The legislation applies to online content as well as physical displays.

The offence also carries a mandatory minimum sentence of 12 months’ imprisonment upon conviction, subject to statutory exceptions and sentencing provisions.

The law provides defences for certain legitimate uses of prohibited symbols, including educational, academic, artistic and religious purposes, as well as public-interest news reporting. Such uses are not automatically exempt, however, and must satisfy the relevant legal requirements.

The case raises questions about the reach of Australia’s prohibited-symbol laws, particularly where the alleged offending involves reposting material created by other people.

The woman has been issued a court attendance notice and is scheduled to appear before Gosford Local Court on 3 December.

A fundraising campaign organised by supporters says Holly is raising a 14-year-old daughter while navigating a separation. The campaign is seeking assistance with her legal defence.

Her prosecution follows the establishment of the AFP’s National Security Investigations teams in October 2025, which were created to investigate conduct authorities consider harmful to Australia’s social cohesion, including antisemitic activity.

Just two days earlier, a 73-year-old man from Sydney’s north was also charged with allegedly publishing Nazi symbols and antisemitic comments online.

Neither case has been determined by a court, and the allegations remain unproven.

US President Donald Trump has issued a presidential statement marking Reformation Day, while reaffirming his administration’s commitment to restoring America’s Christian foundations and defending the place of faith in public life.

Reformation Day is observed annually on October 31 to commemorate the beginning of the Protestant Reformation in 1517, when German theologian Martin Luther challenged practices and teachings of the Roman Catholic Church.

In his October 31 statement, Trump recognised the Protestant Reformation’s emphasis on salvation through faith in Jesus Christ and the influence of Scripture on America’s founding principles.

The President also pledged to defend religious freedom and the role of Christianity in American society, declaring that his administration was working to restore the moral and religious foundations of the nation.

The statement follows several recent public affirmations of America’s Christian heritage by the Trump administration.

Earlier in the week, the United States Department of State celebrated America’s Christian heritage in a social media video marking International Religious Freedom Day on October 27.

“America, more than any other nation in world history, was shaped by the Christian tradition of spreading the gospel unto all nations,” the department said.

Trump’s Reformation Day statement reads in full:

Presidential Message on Reformation Day

The White House, October 31, 2026

From the earliest days of our Republic, prayer and faith in Almighty God have stood as the foundation of our strength, the source of our unity, and the fount of our greatness. This Reformation Day, I send my best wishes to the countless Christians across our country commemorating the Protestant Reformation and its enduring message of salvation by God’s grace through faith in Jesus Christ.

Five hundred years ago, William Tyndale—inspired by the work of Martin Luther—advanced the Protestant Reformation’s devotion to Holy Scripture through the publication of the first New Testament printed in English, shaping the language of the Bibles that would fortify the faith and resolve of America’s founding generation. The Sacred Scriptures helped form the religious convictions that formed our young Nation’s founding ideals of God-given rights and individual liberty, a spiritual inheritance we honor as we continue to reflect on 250 glorious years of American Independence. The Bible remains a cornerstone of our Nation’s character and upholds our steadfast devotion to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Guided by an unwavering faith in Jesus Christ, my Administration is working to restore the moral and religious foundations that have sustained our Republic for generations. As President, I will always support citizens of faith and defend their place in the public square, honoring the enduring role of our churches in strengthening families, serving communities, and preserving the core values that have anchored us across the centuries.

As Christians across our country unite in faith and fellowship this Reformation Day, I send my heartfelt prayers for a meaningful celebration and encourage each of you to draw renewed strength from God’s Word as we carry forward the blessings of faith and freedom throughout our beloved Nation.

Earlier this month, C.S. Lewis’ family issued a statement in support of Netflix’s new Narnia adaptation.

The Greshams corrected speculation that the family was concerned about the project destroying the brand.

Republished by Narniaweb, a statement from the family indicated that the Lewis estate was carefully watching the director, Greta Gerwig’s artistic process.

This seems to be the case since Douglas Gresham and Melvin Adams from the Lewis estate are mentioned as Executive Producers in a 16 October Netflix media release.

The Lewis Family’s official statement said,

“From our ongoing conversations with Greta Gerwig, we have personally witnessed her sincere passion for the Narnia series. Her lifelong love of C.S. Lewis is apparent to everyone involved with this film. We saw this enthusiasm during our visit to the set in London. We are thrilled to be working with such a talented and accomplished director and production team, and are keen to continue working with them on future projects. Our vision is for this movie to be enormously successful and for this calibre of talent to be applied to all of the Chronicles of Narnia.”

Official support for the Gerwig era hasn’t eased an anxious audience, who rallied after being told Meryl Streep was to be the voice of as Aslan.

Of the two Change.org petitions expressing those concerns, Chaz Migliacci’s petition should be Netflix’s biggest concern.

With over 11,500 signatures since creating the page just over a month ago, Migliacci is clearly not alone.

This is, he wrote, “not merely a matter of preference but of preserving the deep-seated values that C.S. Lewis wove into his narratives. By refusing to attend, view, or otherwise support the new adaptations, we send a clear message to Netflix.”

Migliacci’s petition is both a boycott declaration and a demand that Netflix find a new director for the remaining six Chronicles of Narnia film adaptations.

As the petition goes on to state, “We demand a director who understands the importance of staying true to Lewis’s vision, thus preserving the series as the beacon of hope and guidance it has always been. This is a call for action to protect the legacy of Narnia and ensure that it remains a source of inspiration for future generations.”

The core of concern here is Hollywoke’s pattern of ripping Christian theology out of inherently Christian content.

One major example of the ideology remaking Christian art in its own image was the 2006 Alfonso Cuarón adaptation of PD James’s brilliant dystopian work Children of Men.

Separating the story from its core Christian content destroyed James’ narrative. It broke the film because it betrayed James’ central idea.

This revisionism from the radical left, who’ve captured the arts as well as academia, is why Caldron Pool expressed its own concerns about what looks like transing of Aslan:

“There is a difference between adapting a classic and appropriating it. An adaptation asks: How can we faithfully bring this story to a new medium?

“An appropriation asks: How can we take this beloved story and make it serve our own artistic and cultural vision?

“The former respects the author’s work. The latter defaces it. And Gerwig’s Narnia looks like defacement.”

Hopefully we’re all wrong, and Hollywood wins out over the Marxian Woke radicalism it’s now become known for.

The Greshams assuring fans of their commitment to integrity is comforting.

While their commitment is good news, Caldron Pool’s 19 September warning still stands: “Lewis did not merely sprinkle minor Christian themes throughout Narnia. He built the story around them. As he himself explained, the children were brought to Narnia so that, by knowing Aslan, they might know Christ better.

“Strip Christ from Narnia, and you’re not simply tweaking the story; you are gutting it of the very purpose for which Lewis wrote it.”

The most effective form of censorship doesn’t necessarily involve the government banning what you say. It involves making everyone else afraid to let you say it.

That’s the danger in the Albanese Government’s Online Safety Amendment (Digital Duty of Care) Bill 2026, which passed the House of Representatives on Wednesday and now goes to the Senate.

The bill would force online platforms to take reasonable steps to protect users from a list of harmful material and conduct. Fall short and the penalty can reach $109.2 million.

Canberra says it’s about protecting Australians, kids especially, and at the core of it that’s fair enough. Keeping children away from pornography, exploitation and abuse is a proper job for government. But a real problem doesn’t make every proposed fix a good one.

This bill has a catch. It also reaches material that promotes hostility towards women or gender equality. Who decides what counts as hostility? If you reject contemporary gender ideology, is that hostility to gender equality? What about a pastor posting Christian teaching on the different roles of men and women? Would a platform’s compliance team see that as a risk?

Those questions aren’t far-fetched. Genuinely harmful material and opinions the powerful find distasteful have never been easy to tell apart, and this bill hands the sorting to someone else.

Now look at it from the platform’s side. Miss an obligation, and you face a nine-figure penalty. Pull down something perfectly lawful and nothing comparable happens under this duty. So which way does a cautious business lean? Delete the post. Lock the account. Nobody has broken the law; it’s just cheaper.

That’s censorship with no ban in sight. Ministers get to say they’ve never outlawed an opinion. Platforms get to say they’re only following the law. Meanwhile ordinary Australians find that their place in public debate depends on the judgment of moderators and regulators they never chose.

For Christians, this goes beyond free speech in the abstract. Christ’s authority doesn’t stop at the church door. It covers public morality, government and the family, and believers are called to speak truthfully even when the culture finds it uncomfortable. A law that makes that riskier every year isn’t just regulating technology. It’s leaning on religious and moral dissent.

Government has a real duty to punish wrongdoing. It doesn’t get to decide which lawful convictions are allowed an airing.

Silence shouldn’t be the safe option whenever people disagree. Under the Digital Duty of Care, it could be.

The United States Department of State has celebrated America’s Christian heritage in a social media post marking International Religious Freedom Day.

“America, more than any other nation in world history, was shaped by the Christian tradition of spreading the gospel unto all nations,” the department wrote.

The post was accompanied by a video of Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who said:

Our faith calls us outwards into the limitless darkness of the unknown. It tells us to go forth and preach the gospel to the world as a witness unto all nations unto the ends of the earth.

From that command came America. Our nation, more than any other in history, was shaped by this Christian idea. This is who we are.

And from the beginning, we have carried the belief that our country represents something new in the world. But the soul of our nation has always been rooted in an ancient faith.

For all its faults, the United States stands as a remarkable testament to Gospel truth. Its early leaders understood that the nation’s well-being and future depended upon the preservation of its religious and moral foundations.

On September 17, 1796, in his Farewell Address, George Washington described the Christian religion and morality as the “indispensable supports” of national prosperity.

For Washington, the Constitution alone was insufficient. Its stability depended upon two essential pillars: Religion and Morality.

He said:

Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports.

In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens.

The mere Politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and cherish them.

A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity…

Washington went on to warn against the assumption that morality could be maintained without religion.

Let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.

Topple the nation’s religious foundations, and its morality falters. Topple both, and the very basis for liberty, human rights and prosperity begins to collapse.

There’s little wonder why Washington’s fellow Founding Father, John Adams, similarly warned in 1798:

Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious People. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.

Both men understood that a free society required a morally restrained people. Without that restraint, no constitution, however carefully written, could prevent its eventual decay.

The Christian religion and its moral framework were absolutely vital.

No doubt Washington would see little coincidence in the fact that America’s present disorder was preceded by decades of anti-Christian propaganda, which steadily infiltrated its institutions and public square under the guise of “secularism,” “diversity,” and “pluralism.”

For generations, Christianity has been pushed out of public life while the nation has continued to expect the benefits of the civilisation it produced.

We have been told that religion is a private matter, that morality can be maintained independently of God, and that a nation can abandon its Christian foundations without consequence.

Washington warned against precisely this delusion.

And while modern secularists insist that government must remain religiously neutral, Washington understood that the acknowledgement of God was not merely a private obligation.

In his Thanksgiving Proclamation of October 3, 1789, he declared:

Whereas it is the duty of all Nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey his will, to be grateful for his benefits, and humbly to implore his protection and favor.

Notice that Washington described this as the duty of all nations, not merely the United States.

This was no peculiar American obligation. Nations do not exist independently of God, nor are their rulers exempt from his moral authority.

Scripture makes this explicit. The kings and rulers of the earth are commanded to serve the Lord (Psalm 2:10–12), and Christ himself declared that all authority in heaven and on earth belongs to him (Matthew 28:18).

The state may refuse to acknowledge that authority, but it cannot escape it.

Surely, much of the moral and political chaos we are witnessing today is the inevitable consequence of neglecting this essential duty.

And it’s for that reason that the State Department’s proclamation is rightly being welcomed by Christians who have grown accustomed to seeing their nation’s religious heritage either neglected, ridiculed, or undermined.

It is an encouraging acknowledgement of something America’s founders understood, but successive generations have increasingly forgotten.

Christianity is not merely one cultural influence among many. It supplied the moral framework upon which American civilisation was built.

As disillusioned young Europeans turn to the pagan gods of their ancestors, they are embracing the very religion their forefathers abandoned, and often remaking its gods in the image of the Christ they reject.

There’s a growing temptation among young European men to look beyond their Christian heritage and return to the pagan religions that preceded it.

In an age of mass immigration, militant multiculturalism, and growing hostility towards Europe’s historic identity, the appeal is understandable. Many young Europeans are rediscovering an appreciation for their ancestry, their people, and the civilisation their forefathers built.

But some are looking in precisely the wrong direction.

Rather than recovering the faith that shaped European civilisation, they’re retreating into the mythology their ancestors rejected. In their attempt to reclaim their European identity, they’re abandoning one of the very things that made Europe what it became.

They’re exchanging Christ for Odin.

And the irony is that, to make these pagan gods worthy of admiration, they often have to remake them in the image of the very Christ they reject.

Pagan gods with Christian virtues

Spend any time observing the modern fascination with Norse mythology, particularly in nationalist and neo-pagan circles, and you’ll encounter a romanticised picture of the ancient gods.

Odin is presented as the wise, benevolent All-Father, a courageous protector willing to sacrifice himself for others. Thor is portrayed as the honourable defender of mankind, a selfless warrior who risks everything to protect the weak.

But anyone who’s read the Poetic Edda or Prose Edda knows these aren’t consistently the characters described in the surviving mythology.

The Norse gods certainly possess some admirable qualities, including courage, loyalty, and endurance. But they’re also frequently deceitful, selfish, treacherous, vindictive, and cruel. They’re driven by power, reputation, vengeance, and personal advantage.

These aren’t merely Christian criticisms of pagan mythology. They’re observations made by scholars who’ve studied the original texts.

In his book Gods and Humans in Medieval Scandinavia, historian Jonas Wellendorf writes:

“The Norse gods as we know them are not consistently perceived as good or just.”

He describes them as:

“…occasionally opportunistic, selfish, irrational, unjust”

And concludes:

“…judged by Abrahamic standards, the Norse gods are not at all godly.”

Likewise, scholars Ben Raffield, Neil Price, and Mark Collard, in their study Religious Belief and Cooperation, describe the Norse gods as morally inconsistent, sometimes concerned with morality while behaving immorally themselves.

Kevin J. Wanner, writing in History of Religions, observes:

“if Loki is the most disparaged of the gods, Ódinn runs a close second.”

Indeed, even Odin’s famous self-sacrifice upon the world tree, described in Hávamál 138–141, wasn’t performed to save mankind. He suffered to acquire knowledge of the runes and their supernatural power.

Compare that with Jesus Christ, who voluntarily suffered not to obtain something for himself, but to give salvation to others.

Odin sacrifices himself to gain. Christ sacrifices himself to give.

One seeks power. The other lays down his life for his people.

Even Odin’s title All-Father doesn’t make him a benevolent heavenly father. The mythology repeatedly depicts him as manipulative, deceptive, and willing to sacrifice others to accomplish his purposes.

Christ, by contrast, declares:

“Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends” (John 15:13).

The distinction couldn’t be clearer.

Hollywood’s Christianised paganism

Perhaps nowhere is this contradiction more obvious than in Hollywood.

Marvel’s Thor is portrayed as a noble hero who learns humility, compassion, and self-sacrifice. Odin becomes a wise father who teaches his son the virtues of restraint, responsibility, and sacrificial leadership.

But these characters are often closer to the Christian heroic ideal than to the gods described in the Eddas.

To make Thor admirable, Hollywood gives him virtues Christians recognise in Christ. To make Odin a better father, it softens the characteristics that distinguish him in the mythology.

In other words, they make the pagan gods more Christian and less pagan.

The irony is extraordinary.

Some men reject Christianity because they believe it has weakened European masculinity, only to celebrate fictionalised pagan gods whose most admirable qualities resemble those of Jesus Christ.

They want Thor’s strength, but Christ’s character.

They want Odin’s authority, but the heavenly Father’s benevolence.

They’re borrowing Christianity’s moral capital while rejecting its source.

The religion their ancestors rejected

There’s another irony that’s often overlooked.

Much of what we know about Norse mythology survives because Christians preserved it after Scandinavia’s conversion.

The Poetic Edda contains older traditions, but its principal surviving manuscript was produced in Christian Iceland during the thirteenth century.

The Prose Edda was compiled around 1220 by Snorri Sturluson, himself a Christian, to explain the mythology and poetic traditions of earlier generations.

These weren’t pagan scriptures preserved by a continuous pagan priesthood. They were medieval literary works recording traditions from a religious world their Christian compilers no longer believed in.

That doesn’t mean Christians invented Norse mythology. Its traditions are considerably older. But the texts modern neo-pagans rely upon owe much of their preservation to Christians.

Think about that.

Modern neo-pagans reject Christianity to recover the religion of their ancestors, yet much of what they know about that religion survives because their Christian ancestors recorded it.

They’re trying to revive a religion through texts preserved by men who didn’t believe its gods were divine.

And why did their ancestors abandon Odin?

Because they came to believe that Jesus Christ was greater than the gods they’d previously worshipped.

They exchanged gods who could deceive and betray for the God who cannot lie (Titus 1:2).

They exchanged gods who feared their own destruction for the eternal God who rules over creation.

They exchanged morally inconsistent deities for the God who demonstrated his love by dying for sinners (Romans 5:8).

The conversion of Europe wasn’t instantaneous, nor was it free from political pressure. But over the centuries, European peoples increasingly embraced Christianity and abandoned their former gods.

And today’s neo-pagans are now reversing that decision in the name of honouring their ancestors.

Christianity isn’t foreign to Europe

One of the more common arguments among European neo-pagans is that Christianity is a Jewish or Middle Eastern religion and therefore has no place among Europeans.

However, Christianity never claimed to belong exclusively to one ethnic group. Its claim is that the God who created all nations has revealed himself in Jesus Christ, and that every nation owes him allegiance.

Christ didn’t command his disciples to convert only the Jews. He commanded them to make disciples of all nations (Matthew 28:19).

Nor were Europe’s ancient pagan religions entirely isolated from the wider world. Germanic mythology belongs to a broader Indo-European religious heritage, with parallels to traditions beyond northern Europe. In fact, much of Norse mythology reflects the pantheon worshipped in Mesopotamia, Greece, ancient Iran, and possibly India.

But there’s a deeper irony here.

In rejecting Jesus on account of his Judahite identity, these neo-pagans find themselves agreeing with those who rejected his claim to be the Messiah, while rejecting the testimony of their own Christian ancestors who embraced him.

They claim to honour their forefathers while dismissing the very faith those forefathers passed down for generations.

For more than a thousand years, Christianity has been inseparable from Europe’s identity.

A European who abandons Christ for Odin isn’t returning to the religion of his fathers. He’s abandoning the religion of his fathers for an error his fathers long rejected.

The civilisation Christianity built

Christianity didn’t merely replace Europe’s religious ceremonies. It transformed the continent’s moral awareness, institutions, education, laws, and understanding of human responsibility.

Monasteries became centres of literacy, scholarship, agriculture, and manuscript preservation. Churches established schools, supported hospitals, developed universities, and commissioned some of Europe’s greatest architectural achievements.

Christianity also supplied a shared moral framework across peoples who’d previously belonged to competing tribes, kingdoms, and religious traditions.

It taught that kings, no less than their subjects, stood beneath God’s authority. Civil power wasn’t ultimate. Rulers were accountable to a moral law they hadn’t invented and couldn’t legitimately redefine.

And it transformed the meaning of greatness.

In the ancient heroic world, greatness was often measured by conquest, reputation, strength, and the ability to impose one’s will upon others.

Christ declared that greatness was demonstrated through service.

“Whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant” (Matthew 20:27).

Christianity didn’t abolish courage, honour, loyalty, or the natural bonds of family and nation. It placed them under a higher moral authority.

It gave Europeans something greater than the worship of their own strength.

It gave them a standard by which strength itself could be judged.

None of this means pre-Christian Europeans lacked civilisation or virtue, or that every Christian ruler acted righteously. But Christianity profoundly shaped the civilisation that emerged from the medieval world.

Europe didn’t flourish because its people ceased to be European. It developed, in substantial part, because European peoples built upon their inherited cultures within a Christian understanding of reality.

They didn’t have to abandon their ancestry, languages, homelands, or national traditions.

They had to recognise that these things weren’t ultimate.

Christ was.

The wrong answer to a real problem

There’s nothing wrong with young European men rediscovering their ancestors, preserving their heritage, studying their mythology, or defending the historical continuity of their nations.

But preserving one’s heritage and reviving its ancient gods are two very different things.

The growing disillusionment with secular liberalism and multiculturalism raises legitimate questions about national identity, cultural continuity, and the responsibilities owed to future generations.

But paganism isn’t the answer.

Indeed, much of Europe’s present crisis stems from its rejection of the Christian moral framework that helped sustain its civilisation.

Abandoning Christianity even further won’t reverse that decline.

There’s something profoundly contradictory about young European men denouncing Christianity as a foreign influence while venerating pagan gods whose most admirable modern portrayals have been Christianised.

They reject Christ, then praise Odin for resembling him.

They mock Christian humility, then admire Thor when he demonstrates it.

They denounce Christian self-sacrifice as weakness, then celebrate it as pagan heroism.

They reject the religion of their Christian ancestors in the name of honouring their ancestors.

And they recover their supposedly forgotten gods through literature preserved by Christians.

The qualities they’re searching for in Odin and Thor are already present, in their highest form, in Jesus Christ.

Europe doesn’t need to resurrect the gods its forefathers abandoned. It needs to remember why they abandoned them in the first place.

Feminist and progressive advocacy groups are demanding the Albanese Government remove legal protections that allow Christian schools to uphold biblical standards of morality, arguing that religious convictions should not take precedence over anti-discrimination laws.

In an open letter released on Tuesday, women’s organisations, legal experts and LGBTQ activists urged Prime Minister Anthony Albanese to abolish exemptions that permit religious schools to make employment decisions based on their beliefs.

The campaign, backed by organisations including the National Foundation for Australian Women and Fair Agenda, follows independent MP Allegra Spender’s introduction of legislation seeking to restrict religious schools’ ability to make decisions based on sexuality, gender identity, marital status and pregnancy.

The groups argue that women should not risk losing their jobs for becoming pregnant outside marriage, entering relationships or divorcing their spouses.

Equality Australia Legal Director Heather Corkhill declared that religious freedom should not be a licence to discriminate, insisting that publicly funded institutions must uphold the standards expected by Australian society.

But whose moral standards should govern Christian institutions?

The activists appear to regard their own progressive convictions as sufficiently authoritative to dictate how Christian schools must operate, while denying those same schools the freedom to uphold their religious convictions.

It is a familiar trick: demanding tolerance for lifestyles that conflict with biblical morality while seeking to restrict institutions that refuse to endorse them.

Christian schools are not merely secular schools with chapel services sprinkled on top. They exist because Christian parents believe education must be grounded in the authority of God’s Word, including its teachings on marriage, sexuality, family and personal conduct.

Scripture places the responsibility for raising and instructing children principally upon parents, commanding them to teach God’s law diligently to their children (Deut. 6:6–7).

The state has no God-given authority to assume that responsibility or dictate that Christian institutions must set aside biblical teaching to accommodate contemporary political preferences.

Senior Christian leaders have warned the Prime Minister that Spender’s bill would significantly weaken existing protections, restricting schools’ ability to employ staff who share their faith and maintain their distinctive religious character.

Supporters of the legislation insist it is about protecting individuals from discrimination. But that overlooks the rights of Christian parents, teachers and communities to establish institutions governed by their own religious convictions.

There is nothing inherently intolerant about expecting those who voluntarily seek employment at a Christian institution to respect the beliefs it was established to uphold.

The underlying dispute is not simply about employment law. It is about moral authority.

The feminist organisations behind this campaign want the state to impose their preferred moral standards upon Christian institutions. Yet Christian education, by its very nature, recognises a higher authority than the changing political and moral fashions of the day.

Increasingly in Australia, Christianity is treated as acceptable only so long as Christian convictions are not permitted to shape the institutions established to practise it.

These groups aren’t demanding freedom from religion. They are demanding the authority to impose their own religious convictions upon institutions, organisations, and individuals who disagree with them. Their “secular” morality is no less a system of belief simply because they refuse to call it a religion. What they cannot tolerate is the existence of an institution that recognises a moral authority higher than their own.

It’s like demanding membership in a political party whose principles you reject, then insisting the entire party abandon its founding convictions to accommodate your membership.

At that point, you’re not asking for inclusion. You are demanding the institution’s surrender. And that is precisely what these organisations seek from Christian schools: not the freedom to live according to their own convictions, but the power to prevent Christians from living according to theirs.

The following speech was delivered by Evelyn Rae on October 17, 2026, at BACPAC 2026, hosted by the British Australian Community.

I don’t think I have to convince anyone in this room that we have a problem. Not just Australia, but the Anglo-world. And not just the Anglo-world, but the European people as a whole and the civilisation we have collectively inherited.

It’s a problem that has impacted virtually every Western nation. It’s both a disease and a wickedness. It’s a disease because it’s highly infectious. The problem has spread through our nations, our institutions, our churches, and our schools. It has taken over the minds of many of our own people.

It’s wickedness because, in many respects, the disease is self-inflicted—to our own hurt, to our own harm, and worse: to the destruction of our own children. What am I referring to? It’s the suicidal notion that there is something uniquely evil about being “White.” We are told that our ancestors are guilty of crimes so heinous, so abhorrent that a lifetime of grovelling, and the total forfeiting of our own homelands cannot come close to atoning for the sins that we inherited from them.

It’s the suicidal ideation that says there is something immoral about meetings like this, because a collective of “Whites” is a dangerous problem in need of fixing. We heard it last year, and there’s no doubt, we’ll hear it again this year. Through never-ending racial quotas and DEI programs, we are relentlessly told that the workplace, the community, the nation, indeed, the world is a better place when White people are diluted, when their power is limited, when their voice is drowned out—and increasingly, when they’re not visibly present at all. Some are already stating it openly: Fewer Whites is the goal today. No Whites is the goal tomorrow.

Of course, the irony here is that this is the only sense in which we are permitted to think of ourselves as a collective. Our ancestors are ours, and we are the inheritors of their actions, but only when their actions are sinful. Their achievements belong to the world, and everyone from everywhere has a right to the civilisation they built—but their supposed crimes, they alone belong to us. So, we are told, the only thing we inherit from our ancestors is the guilt, the shame, and the debt.

And so, as a result, we are told to step aside, to stay silent, and to not question the narrative—even if it’s obviously rigged against us. And it is rigged against us. On a national level, we’re told our identity doesn’t matter because we have to prioritise the voices of ethnic minorities. On a global level, we’re told our identity doesn’t matter because we have to prioritise the voices of so-called “global majorities.” 

Wherever we are, we are told that we don’t matter, we need to be silent, we need to be diluted, we need to be watered down and marginalised—and the remarkable thing is that those who openly discriminate in this sense are wholeheartedly convinced they’re morally virtuous in doing so—why? Because they have been convinced that all of the world’s problems can be traced back to White men, and especially White men in positions of power and influence.

In their minds, this is now the great evil that needs to be conquered. And so, every White man striving for power is “literally Hitler”, and any collective of White men who support that are demonised as “literal Nazis. If you want a disturbing glimpse at how widespread this dangerous mindset is, simply take a look at how people reacted to the public murder of Charlie Kirk.

But recognising the symptoms of this problem is not enough. You might know you’re sick, you might even know why you’re sick, but unless you understand the cause, unless you understand the remedy, the diagnosis itself is not enough to save you.

We’re here today to discuss our pathway to victory. But that discussion will be meaningless unless we first identify what we are trying to preserve—and why it’s worth preserving. 

Now, many will agree that there is something very wrong with the current state of our nation. An increasing number of Australians believe the country is on the wrong track, and they will even admit that this is largely due to the government’s immigration policies. They’ll acknowledge multiculturalism has divided our communities into nations within nations, that diversity has undermined national unity, and that the Australia we all know and love is at risk of being lost for good.

But when it comes to offering a solution to that very visible problem, all we are given are meaningless platitudes and a lot of talk about some vague and arbitrary concept of “Aussie values.” Today we have just about everyone on the right of Labor talking tough about immigration reforms, but whenever they’re asked what they mean and what it will look like, it always comes back to a “values” test.

Now, aside from the fact that no one is really able to define what these “Aussie values” are, or where these “values” originate, what we are effectively being told through their imagined “solution” is that the Anglo-Celtic people of Australia are inconsequential. We are being told that the descendants of Australia’s founding stock are unnecessary—that it doesn’t matter who inherits the house, provided they like Rugby, barbecues, and waving the Aussie flag. That is to say, we’re being told that Anglo-Celtic Australians are interchangeable.

In other words, what they are saying is that if every Anglo-Celtic Australian were to be replaced by foreigners, the nation itself would remain the same, provided the new imports subscribed to “Aussie values.”

Of course, this is an absurd assertion, and its implications are untenable. Follow it to its logical conclusion, and you arrive at a definition of “Australian” in which foreigners living in foreign nations can be considered more Australian than the descendants of Australia’s first settlers. Why? Because being Australian is no longer a matter of ancestry, heritage, or belonging, but of subscribing to whatever vague collection of “Aussie values” happens to be fashionable at the time.

Consequently, under this novel definition, being Australian is no longer an ethnic designation but an ideological one. It tells us something about what a person believes, or how they live, but not necessarily where they were born, to whom they were born, or where they belong. It strips the term “Australian” of its historic Anglo-Celtic identity and reduces it to little more than a geographic or civic label—one that, at best, signifies a shallow commitment to some vague, ill-defined notion of “Aussie values,” whatever those might be.

Now, this is more than just semantics. We’re talking about the intellectual erasure of Anglo-Celtic Australians. The historic people are being gradually removed from the definition. Their identity has become a collection of transferable attributes. And their heritage has become the property of the world. Even those on the so-called “Right” have bought this redefinition. They’re too embarrassed to define us the way we have always been defined—the way every other people group on earth is permitted to define themselves.

As such, it has rightly been labelled as “inheritance theft.”

But our ancestors did not build this nation through blood, sweat, and tears — they did not fight two World Wars — just for their descendants to forfeit their homelands for fear of being called bad names by bad people. 

But neither did they endure everything they did for us to fall off the other side of the horse—a danger I fear many on our side are increasingly at risk of doing.

We might all agree that the propositional nationhood is absurd. We might all reject the notion that values alone make an Australian. But we would also be just as wrong to imagine that values did not make Australia. We know that the people are not interchangeable, but neither is the ideology the people hold to—or the value system that shaped the way our ancestors thought, acted, and behaved.

We might all agree that if the Australian people were replaced by foreigners, Australia would no longer be Australian. But what would happen if the religion, the ideology, were replaced? What would happen if Hinduism, Judaism, Islam, or Atheistic Secularism were to replace the faith that our ancestors embraced, the faith our ancestors were shaped by for centuries? 

You see, the people are an essential ingredient—but so are their values. So are their convictions. So is their religion. Because the nation we build, or maintain, is going to be determined by the culture, the law systems, and the morals of the people. Even if Australia consisted only of Anglo-Celtic people, Australia would not remain Australia if every one of them rejected their Christian heritage for another religion, for another law system, for another set of values.

What good is protecting the nation from foreign influences, if we are indifferent to the influences of foreign gods?

And so, I would argue that at the heart of this discussion, there are two opposing mistakes.

On one side are those who argue that Australia is simply a collection of propositions. Accept the approved values, and you become whatever we are.

On the other side are those who argue that ethnic identity is all that matters, and that ideology or religion are inconsequential to the heritage we’ve been entrusted. 

But this is not an either/or situation. The greatness of the Western world, the greatness of the British people, is not people disconnected from their faith, or values disconnected from a people. The greatness of the Western world and British people is an exceptional people embracing an exceptional faith. It is that combination that has proved to be so potent—which is why the Straight, White, Christian, Male has been marked as enemy number one.

The civilisation we inherited was neither the product of ancestry alone nor a collection of values that appeared from nowhere.

It emerged through particular peoples being formed, over centuries, by a particular faith.

In the Anglo-Celtic world, we are speaking of roughly fifteen hundred years of Christianity working through generations: reshaping how people understood God, justice, family, authority, conscience, and responsibility.

Christianity did not create these peoples out of nothing.

They were already there. They possessed languages, traditions, craftsmanship, poetry, loyalties, and institutions.

They knew how to build, govern, fight, and create beauty before their conversion.

But the Gospel called them to account.

It restrained what needed restraining. It strengthened what was good. It redirected what was misdirected.

Courage acquired duties towards the weak. Loyalty stood beneath a higher obligation. Wealth brought responsibilities towards those who could not repay it.

Law and power were placed beneath the judgement of God.

The hands that built pagan temples learned to build cathedrals. Communities established places of learning, healing, and charity. The poor, the widow, and the orphan became objects of enduring moral responsibility.

Christianity worked upon the whole civilisation.

And nowhere was its significance clearer than in the limits it placed upon government.

The confession that Jesus Christ is Lord means the magistrate is not supreme.

King Alfred was great precisely because he understood that he was a king under higher authority—not a law unto himself.

Magna Carta rested upon the same principle: even the king was subject to law. His authority was not absolute, and his subjects possessed rights that he could not simply disregard.

The king possesses authority, but that authority is delegated and bounded. He cannot make falsehood true by decree. He cannot make evil good by legislation. He cannot claim ownership of the conscience because he possesses the power to punish dissent.

There is a law above the legislature.

There is a King above the government.

Britain transmitted to Australia its language, common law, parliamentary institutions, literature, customs, and habits of public life. Those things came through a people formed by centuries of Christianity.

“Australian values” did not fall from the sky.

They came through families, churches, schools, and generations of moral formation.

We now want the fruits while neglecting the roots. Strong families without fidelity. Freedom without restraint. Honest institutions without people taught that truth binds the conscience.

We want government held accountable while dismissing the authority before which rulers themselves stand accountable.

That cannot sustain our inheritance.

We have cast off the greatest restraint on the power of the state over its citizens, and today we are suffering the consequences.

We were told that Australia would be better, and Australians freer, if we embraced not only a diversity of foreign peoples, but a diversity of foreign gods.

But the result has been the opposite. A people divided over fundamental questions of right and wrong becomes increasingly dependent on the state to settle those differences. Where there are competing gods, there are competing moral standards. And where there are competing moral standards, the state inevitably assumes the role of final arbiter.

With the introduction of multiculturalism and religious pluralism into the West, the highest court of appeal effectively shifted from heaven to the state.

In casting off God’s authority, we did not free ourselves from authority. We merely exchanged a government under God for a government increasingly inclined to act as god.

What does this have to do with the subject at hand? Everything.

We are talking about our heritage—our people, our homeland, and the civilisation our ancestors built. A living inheritance passed down from one generation to the next.

Previous generations understood this inheritance as a gift, entrusted to their care, to be preserved and passed on to their children.

But what happens when the state increasingly assumes the place of a God?

It begins to regard that inheritance as its own—as something it has the right to give away, to whomever it pleases.

What was once understood as a sacred inheritance to be preserved becomes a political possession to be distributed for political gain and economic goals. 

And this is the problem we face. Right across the Western world—right across Christendom—governments are assuming the place of Christ, and as a result, gaining more and more power over the people to squander their inheritance and undermine the greatest force for good the world has known. 

They’re able to do this because we’ve not only forgotten who we are, we’ve forgotten why we are.

It’s not enough to just complain about the problem. Now, more than ever, we need to remember who we are, and why we are.

It is no mere coincidence that a century of relentless efforts to strip the Anglo-Celtic people of their Christian heritage was immediately followed by the erosion of their physical and cultural inheritance. Because it’s not either/or/, it’s both/and.

The people matter. Their faith matters. Those two things side by side are what made us so great and what makes the wickedness tremble at the knees. As King Alfred the Great wisely said: “In prosperity a man often destroys the good he has done; amidst difficulties he often repairs what he long since did in the way of wickedness.”

This is our opportunity to repair the inheritance for our children and to restore our people.

WATCH: