Christians Will No Longer Be Tolerated
Our culture celebrates diversity—then punishes Christian men for saying Christian things.
The South Australian Liberal Party has confirmed that state election candidate Carston Woodhouse will no longer run under the party banner after “controversial” remarks resurfaced.
Woodhouse had been contesting the northern Adelaide seat of Wright before comments from a July 2025 appearance on the US-based Elijahfire podcast drew criticism.
During the interview, he criticised feminism and homosexuality from a Christian perspective and questioned the legitimacy of same-sex marriage.
“Who knows what demonic realms we’ve opened up to the world, to ourselves on the earth, when you forsake it by accepting homosexuality,” he said on the podcast.
He also rejected the idea of same-sex marriage.
“There is this whole reality that pretends same-sex marriage is real,” he said. “It’s not, and it ignores decades of conventions between a man and a woman.”
During the discussion, he also opposed abortion in cases involving rape or incest.
“Even the whole rape, incest thing, I would agree with Charlie Kirk’s take on that, if I had a crowd of people and one of those people was conceived in rape, could you tell me who it was? The answer is no”, Woodhouse said.
“Because that doesn’t define a person’s rights, I realise that’s horrific, to experience those things ... but even then, you’re still talking about a life.”
South Australian Opposition leader Ashton Hurn confirmed on Thursday that Woodhouse would no longer contest the election as a Liberal candidate.
“I stood here yesterday and made myself clear that I did not support the comments made by a particular candidate, that remains true today, and that person is no longer a candidate for the next election,” Ms Hurn said.
She declined to clarify whether he resigned or was removed.
“Now I’m telling you, that he’s no longer the candidate,” she said.
Regardless of whether Woodhouse walked out or was pushed out, the media firestorm sparked by his resurfaced remarks demonstrates just how intolerant public life has become toward Christian convictions.
But whatever one thinks of his views, the political response reveals something painfully obvious: our “progressive” culture claims to be tolerant of all beliefs—except those grounded in historic Christianity.
The modern progressivism that dominates our culture presents itself as radically inclusive. It prides itself on embracing diversity of identity, culture, religion, and opinion. We are constantly told that pluralism is a virtue and that society must make room for a wide range of perspectives—because, apparently, that’s the source of our strength.
Yet when Christian moral convictions enter the public square, that supposed inclusivity quickly disappears.
Woodhouse spoke from a moral framework shaped by the Bible. His critics condemned him from an entirely different moral framework shaped by contemporary progressive trends, coupled with their own arbitrary opinions.
Both sides have convictions. Both sides believe they are defending what is right. Both sides believe the other side is morally wrong. And that highlights the basic truth that everyone draws moral lines somewhere.
The question is not whether society will demonise, shun, or restrict what it considers “immoral.” The question is whose moral standard will determine those restrictions for everybody else.
Everyone draws a moral line in the sand. What matters is why we draw it where we do, and whether that position can be coherently defended.
For Christians, that line is informed by the moral standards revealed in Scripture. For progressives, the line is typically drawn according to the prevailing moral consensus of contemporary culture—basically, whatever’s on trend.
Unlike Christianity, progressivism rejects the notion that morality is unchanging and objective. True to its fundamentally incoherent nature, it simultaneously insists that morality is socially constructed and culturally relative, while it condemns Christianity as immoral.
But if morality is merely a social construct, then moral differences, such as these, should simply be the clash of personal or cultural preferences. There would be no objective standard by which one side could claim moral superiority over another.
But that is not how these sorts of progressives think or behave.
They don’t merely disagree with traditional Christian views on issues like sexuality or marriage. They denounce them as immoral, harmful, and unacceptable in public life. They seek to exclude those views from politics, media, and institutions.
But it’s behaviour that’s entirely inconsistent with its own premise.
If there is no real and enduring objective standard to appeal to, moral outrage over Woodhouse’s remarks amounts to little more than indignation that someone prefers chocolate ice cream over strawberry.
The treatment of Woodhouse is just the latest example of the stupidity that the Australian mainstream now wallows in.
Despite its rhetoric of tolerance, Australian politics and media routinely treat Christian moral convictions as uniquely illegitimate. Other belief systems may be accommodated, protected, or even celebrated—even those that are barbaric and cruel—but historic Christian teaching is singled out as something that must be condemned and marginalised.
Clearly, the progressivism that has infected the minds of so many in Australia is neither morally nor religiously neutral. It has its own moral framework, its own boundaries, its own laws, and its own heresies.
And like the fanatical religion it is, it demands absolute conformity.
The difference is that while Christianity openly grounds its ethics in the life and teachings of Jesus Christ and divine revelation, progressivism typically presents its moral judgments as if they were self-evident truths. Yet those judgements ultimately rest on little more than the shifting moral consensus of the present moment—or more specifically, the convenient moral consensus of those in power.
In the end, we are left with an inquisitorial system that claims to champion diversity by elevating every religious belief system except one: Christianity. We all know that if a Muslim made similar comments, any sort of backlash or media firestorm would be promptly shut down as “Islamophobic.”
In the name of “inclusion,” this sort of progressivism has become one of the most anti-Christian ideologies in modern public life. Of course, we’re not going to convince these sorts to change their ways now, but we can, and should, be equally intolerant towards anyone and any ideology that is so hostile towards Christianity that it cannot endure Christians participating in public life.