You Can’t Build Social Harmony on Competing Moralities

"Why should we think people with fundamentally different religious convictions will accept the doctrine that all religions and moral systems are equally valid?"

According to a recent report, more than half of Australians have lost confidence that people of all faiths and backgrounds can live safely together in the wake of the Bondi Beach terror attack.

The new finding comes from research conducted on behalf of the Combat Antisemitism Movement. It found that 52 per cent of Australians said they were less confident in social harmony, while just 15 per cent said they were more confident that people of different faiths and backgrounds could live safely together following the December 2025 attack.

To be honest, the fact that the figure is only 52 per cent is surprising. You would think it would be much higher.

How can Australians be so naïve as to believe that people of fundamentally different faiths can simply live together harmoniously? It sounds nice in theory, but to believe that religious differences are irrelevant to social cohesion requires abandoning any meaningful understanding of what it actually means to have a different faith.

We are not talking about different denominations of Christianity disagreeing over infant baptism, hymn books or whether women should hold a church office. We are talking about different religions—in other words, different gods and fundamentally different understandings of ultimate reality.

Think about the implications of that for a moment.

Different gods mean different understandings of what is true and false, right and wrong, good and evil. Different religions make different claims about how truth is discovered, what man is obligated to do and what constitutes moral behaviour.

One religion may consider a particular practice sacred while another considers it morally evil. One may permit a form of marriage that another prohibits. One may regard conversion as essential while another considers apostasy a crime deserving death. One may impose religious laws concerning food, sexuality, family or punishment that another completely rejects.

These are not insignificant differences.

They are contradictory moral claims.

So, which god takes precedence? Which moral law governs when two religions make contradictory demands?

There must inevitably be some religious hierarchy of authority. Whenever moral laws are applied to an entire society, someone must ultimately determine which standards are binding.

This is one reason the Christian conception of God is so significant to Western civilisation. Christianity does not present morality as merely tribal or factional. It teaches that there is one God who created all mankind and whose moral authority stands above every tribe, nation, ruler and political faction.

The same moral law applies to the king and the commoner, to friend and enemy, to the powerful and powerless.

That provides the conceptual basis for universal morality.

Polytheism, by contrast, fragments ultimate authority. If different groups appeal to different gods, each with different powers, commands, interests and moral expectations, then there is no universally recognised divine authority above them.

One deity may permit what another forbids.

Different groups can therefore appeal to different gods to justify competing understandings of marriage, sexuality, warfare, sacrifice, justice and social obligation. Religious factions can become political factions, with people identifying more strongly with their god, temple, tribe or religious community than with the society as a whole.

Polytheism creates social disunity because it decentralises ultimate authority.

And without a recognised religious authority above competing gods, there is no common ultimate standard to resolve fundamental moral disagreements.

This is precisely the problem with the modern assumption that multiculturalism and religious pluralism will automatically produce harmony. They often demand that we accept radically contradictory belief systems as equally legitimate without ever explaining how their contradictions are to be resolved.

But harmony requires something people have in common.

So what is it?

It is not their heritage, culture, customs, religion, morality, ethics or understanding of human purpose. And yet we are told that all these differences can somehow be overcome through a shared commitment to multiculturalism, relativism and pluralism.

But on what basis?

Why should we think people with fundamentally different religious convictions will accept the doctrine that all religions and moral systems are equally valid? Why should we think them willing to suspend the exclusive claims of their own faith in order to participate in a pluralistic society that effectively treats competing gods as equally legitimate?

In practice, this is little more than a return to polytheism—a society in which competing conceptions of ultimate authority coexist without any universally acknowledged authority above them.

And that is why belief is not some irrelevant secondary factor when it comes to social harmony. It is one of the most fundamental factors determining whether a society can establish a coherent moral order.

The West did not develop its understanding of universal human dignity, moral accountability and the limits of political authority in a religious vacuum. These ideas were profoundly shaped by Christianity.

But peaceful coexistence is not the same thing as genuine social unity.

A nation needs more than people living beside one another. It needs some common understanding of truth, morality, justice, authority and human purpose.

So when 52 per cent of Australians say they have become less confident that people of different faiths can live safely together, perhaps the answer is not simply to demand more multiculturalism.

Perhaps we should start asking the question multiculturalism has largely avoided:

What, exactly, is supposed to unite people who disagree about the most fundamental questions of reality, morality and human purpose?

If we have no shared understanding of what is true and what is good, what ultimately binds us together?

A passport?

A geographical border?

A vague commitment to “diversity”?

These things can create a fragmented population. They cannot, by themselves, create a unified society.

If there is no moral authority above competing religions, cultures and factions, then social harmony ultimately depends upon everyone voluntarily restraining themselves—and that becomes increasingly difficult when people disagree about what they are morally obligated to do.

You cannot build a stable society by declaring contradictory moral systems equally authoritative and simply hoping they will never collide. If there is no higher standard to which everyone is accountable, then there is no genuine foundation for social harmony—only a fragile truce between competing gods, competing moralities, and competing expectations of what society ought to be.