Truths should bother atheists much more than fiction should bother Christians.

Should Christians be bothered by movies about the presence of aliens, or other "what ifs"?
Meh. Come back to me when you have something real.
Better yet, when you're ready to discuss what is real...

The much bigger question is, should atheists be bothered by observable truths in the natural world that imply the Super-natural?
 
Here's 20 minutes at Mark Fairley's blog (Here on Youtube) about:
- Why Christians shouldn't be too bothered by the latest fiction movie, Disclosure Day.
- A reasonable skinny on what alien phenomena could really be.
- Why materialists/naturalists/atheists ought to be so much more bothered by actual realities in observable science. 

Labor MP Dave Kelly MLA has been publicly campaigning to remove the Lord's Prayer from the opening of WA Parliament – a tradition that dates back to 1558.
He has called it "outdated" and suggested it is incompatible with democratic government. 
Wrong on both counts and more...

Click here to make a Public Submission to the Inquiry into Legislative Assembly Standing Orders.

The Lord's Prayer in Parliament should be retained for the following reasons. 

1. It can not be "outdated" because there is and always will be a historic direct connection between Christianity and the values upon which Australian parliaments were designed in the first place. The Prayer recognises the Christianity behind the preamble to the Australian Constitution which says "humbly relying on the blessings of Almighty God." Australia's founders deliberately identified Christian values as the most conducive to produce a united Federation.
By contrast,  neither atheism, socialism, Islam, Indigenous animism, nor any other worldview has been able to match Christianity in producing the values necessary for Western freedoms and civic order. 

2. It can not be "incompatible with democracy" because of the causal link between Christianity and the values that produced democracy and the parliament itself.
The erosion of these values and freedoms the further we drift from those Christian roots, only confirms this causal link. 
It stands to reason that to fail to maintain that source of values would produce a cut-flowers parliament. 

3. ​If nothing else, the Prayer is an act of humility acknowledging that Parliament needs divine help. A reference point beyond Government is a humble preventative to tyranny. ​

4. The Prayer is not specific to any Christian church institution, thus represents no breach of separation of church and state. 

5. Atheists have nothing to lose by the prayer being said. If they think there is no god, to them it should not matter if the prayer is said or not. And they do not personally have to say it, so there is not breach of conscience.
Are they really so intolerant that they cannot abide the time it takes to say a prayer?

6. ​Christians lose something significant by its removal. ​For Christians, it matters that Parliament seeks God's help. We think God's help matters. James 4:2 warns, "You do not have because you do not ask God." So Christians in Parliament should be allowed, indeed encouraged, to ask God for help. 
Pascal's Wager is informative: if we pray, we have everything to gain and nothing to lose. 

7. Christians are still present in Parliament. The presence of other worldviews in Parliament does not negate the presence of Christians. 

8. To argue that The Lord's Prayer is a trigger for abuse survivors must be insulting to Christians (if not also to abuse survivors.) It is to say that any reference to Christianity, even such a noble one as The Lord's Prayer, must be seen through the worst actions ever committed by people who claimed their name. ​This assertion should be rejected for the following reasons:
​- It is an unworkable approach for referencing any worldview. ​What if any reference to Socialism were to be be seen through the worst atrocities ever committed by Socialists such as Mussolini, Hitler, Stalin, North Korea's Kim family. Is that the lens through which Labor Socialists expect to be seen? Should we never refer to Socialism lest the reference triggers survivors of Socialism's immeasurable record of abuse? Abuses which it should be said were committed as a feature of socialism at the time, not a bug. It would be impractical to reference any worldview that way, especially in Parliament where members must be free to say what must be said.
​- It is offensive to read any reference to a worldview through the most triggering lens.
​- It must be particularly offensive to the respectable name of Christianity, of which it must be said that any abuses committed in its name were a bug, not a feature.

Perhaps Kelly's move is ill-conceived, he just didn't think it through. If so, no harm, withdraw. 

Otherwise it is a conscious attempt to further obscure and disconnect parliament from its foundational, Christian values... to supplant it... With...? ​Hm. Why might a Labor MP push to further obscure the Christian foundations of Parliament? Do socialists want to base our democracy on socialism, as their Constitution declares? 

Now consider, what does history tell us about the success or otherwise of socialism as a source of democracy, freedoms, or civic order? 

Apprehend these reasons for retaining the Lord's Prayer, and reject the suspect reasoning behind moves to remove it.

Here, Jonathan Pageau, asks the most important questions.
--- What are humans for? ---
I'd say to bear God's image, to the whole earth. AI can never do this. 

Are we sacrificing our kids for the AI race?
Who does the race to AI serve? Who does AI serve? Who do I serve?
Watch and pray.

The Australian Christian Freedom Index has been released, based on over 10,000 Christian responses. Please notice:

• 92% said it is riskier to publicly affirm Christian beliefs than five years ago.
• 73% felt pressured to keep their Christian beliefs private.
• 42% experienced hostility, threats, or harassment for expressing a Christian worldview.
• 25% were denied opportunities in work, volunteering, or leadership because of their beliefs.
• 74 laws have been enacted over the past 25 years that have narrowed Christian freedom in Australia – with nearly half of those laws passed in the last 5 years.

Who is responsible for those 74 Acts? 
To prevent further restrictions on Christian Freedoms, we, the voting public, need to know who to resist. And if possible, the worldviews driving them. Learn to name them lest we give tacit approval to their restrictive actions (and all the social harm that ensues.) 

On pages 77-80 of the ACFI25 report, all 74 Acts are listed with the year of their enactment. So I cross-checked who was in government when each Act was passed. 
61 Acts were passed by Labor governments. 
7 Acts were passed by socially “moderate to progressive” Coalition governments: Turnbull, Berejiklian, Marshall, Gutwein. 
5 were passed by Coalition governments that were more “conservative”: Hodgman, Mandatory Reporting 2018; Marriage and Gender amendments 2018. Morrison, Online Safety 2021; Respect at Work 2021. Perrottet, Voluntary Assisted Dying 2022. Mostly, these were under federal constraints or also under pressure from progressives in their parties. 
(See which Acts and which governments here.)

What does this tell you about who is eroding our Christian Freedoms?

Labor openly (p4) declares itself to be Socialist, as a core objective of the party. 
And “progressives” move in that direction (see this Green's Human Rights Bill June 2026), toward whatever is right in secularists’ own eyes. 
Socialism. Note Doug Wilson’s critique of government overreach based on 1Sam 8:11-17. Deu 17:15-17. As a socialist, Karl Marx was quite open about excluding the church, along with nuclear families and personal property, as oppressive. Socialists inherently tend to restrict Christianity to the bounds of their own secularism - a totalitarian tendency. 

Australians all, learn to name the worldviews that inherently restrict Christian freedom: Islam, Ancestral animism, Secularism/atheism, and Socialism.
 
And for the love of Federation, don’t vote them into government.