You Can’t Have It Both Ways
You can't call one religion "evil" in a pluralist and multicultural society.
Western Sydney Women founding director, Amanda Rose, has faced a barrage of criticism following a recent segment on the Australian morning television program Sunrise in which she challenged NSW Premier Chris Minns after he condemned the mosques mourning the late Iranian Ayatollah.
Minns had described the services as “atrocious” and stated that “by any objective measure, the Ayatollah was evil.” Rose, however, argued that the Premier was overstepping by instructing religious communities on how they may express grief.
“It’s a bit arrogant of the Premier to say to a religious organisation, you can’t mourn your spiritual leader,” Rose said. “Whether you agree with what they stood for or not, is he going to do it to the Catholic Church, to Buddhists, to synagogues, and to other things if their leaders are doing something he doesn’t agree with?”
When asked about the Ayatollah’s record, including allegations of murdering tens of thousands of people, Rose responded by comparing global violence:
“But a tyrant is someone who bombs a school and kills 160 children, which is what happened in Iran recently when America and Israel bombed Iran, right? Or when the IDF flattened Gaza and 60,000 people were killed, that’s a tyrant activity.”
She continued: “So if you’re going to condemn one group for killing, condemn everyone for all killing around the world. Don’t just pick one religion or one group and say, I condemn what you’ve done and you can’t mourn the death of your spiritual leader when other countries and religions have killed also.”
“You can understand that when it comes to global leaders at the very top, they all essentially are tyrants. I’ve called Trump one. And I think he’s got a God complex because he just decides, ‘I’m going to bomb a country because I think I’ve got the moral superiority to do so.’”
She added that while she does not agree with the Ayatollah or his religion, she opposes politicians dictating how communities may mourn.
“The reality is I don’t have to agree with him and their religion, but I also don’t agree with a politician telling someone who they can or can’t mourn when it was their spiritual leader,” she said.
While social media has been quick to condemn Rose’s remarks, there’s also something profound at play here—something that is rarely acknowledged. I don’t know whether Rose is a relativist, but she is speaking entirely consistent with the moral and cultural framework currently being imposed on Australia. She is simply taking the logic of “multiculturalism” and “pluralism” to its logical conclusion.
Our state and federal governments have effectively rejected Christianity as the recognised national religion. In its place, they have embraced pluralism—the idea that all religions are fundamentally equal and that no single faith holds a greater claim to truth or morality than any other. Christianity is no more “true” than Islam, and Islam is no nearer to the truth than Hinduism or Judaism. Pluralism is, at its core, a system in which multiple groups, each with contradictory principles, moralities, and sources of authority, “coexist.”
Multiculturalism and pluralism are not merely matters of cultural preference, like which spices to use on your dinner or what music should play in the supermarket. These are foundational questions that shape morality itself: notions of right and wrong, good and evil.
Our laws flow from morality, and morality flows from one’s concept of God. Where there are many gods, there are many moralities—and where there are many moralities, conflict and disagreement is inevitable. People will act, observe, and mourn in ways that other moral systems may deem repugnant—even “evil.”
So, in a truly pluralist society committed to not elevating Christianity—or any religion—above another, what moral standard allows a politician to condemn the moral conclusions of a different faith? When a premier labels certain practices or beliefs as “evil” or “atrocious,” they are invoking a moral category—a religious category. Yet, in a pluralist society, the state cannot claim one moral system as objectively superior. By doing so, it abandons pluralism and enforces a monist perspective: the belief in a single, unified moral and, therefore, religious principle to which all others must conform. Monism says there is one truth and one acceptable way to live.
Intentionally or otherwise, Rose is highlighting this hypocrisy. If we claim to embrace pluralism, we cannot simultaneously and selectively condemn the moral systems of others according to our preferred standard. If each religion defines good and evil according to its own understanding of God, then moral definitions will naturally contradict. A state leader cannot legitimately declare another religion’s moral system “evil” without implicitly claiming that their own moral standard is superior and has a greater claim on truth and morality. That’s a claim that pluralism prohibits by its own definition.
Minns, by virtue of our so-called multicultural and pluralist society, is not allowed to elevate one religious morality above another—not if he wants to be consistent. Under the current system, as incoherent as it is, politicians are expected to treat all religions and cultural practices as equally valid. They ought to be, by necessity, moral relativists. Rose, by contrast, is the only one who is consistent here. She calls out the hypocrisy of our pluralist society in which leaders selectively condemn as “evil” what other religions consider “good.” She is right to point out this double standard.
Ultimately, pluralism, by reducing Christianity to one of many competing moral systems, inevitably hands the state the final say in moral and religious matters. The state becomes both judge and arbiter, selectively deciding which parts of which religions can be observed, and which parts cannot. In doing so, it conflates the separation of church and state, functioning as both legislator and religious moral authority.
So, either we truly embrace pluralism, accepting that we cannot label the moral frameworks or spiritual leaders of other religions as “evil,” or we acknowledge a superior religious and moral system, one to which all others must defer. You can’t have it both ways, and that is the incoherent nature of pluralism.
Today, our politicians demand that we live consistent with that morally chaotic system. We should demand that our politicians do the same.