Nationalists need to be much more specific about the VALUES they want to maintain in Australia
“Australia first,” on its own, is an exclusive standard because only we can adopt it. Therefore, it seems a racist /prejudiced kind of nationalism - it excludes based on things that can’t be chosen.
​However, if we champion our critical values, anyone can choose those regardless of nationality, ethnicity or even religion (in many cases). Values become an invitational standard.
Q: Which values set creates social cohesion in Australia? 
A: Those consistent with:
- an originalist reading of the Australian Constitution;
- a Judaeo-Christian reading of upholding ‘natural/common law’, freedom to do the right thing;
- servant leadership (ie ministries not departments);
- seeking the blessing of Almighty God (to prevent tyrannical rulers who imagine themselves answerable to no-one);
- secular government with no religious test; 
- Menzies' We Believe statement(s). 
These values make for uniquely civil societies. They’re the only values that make space for freedom of conscience. That’s why they were chosen for the foundations of Australian society at Federation. Around those values, we can gather people from any background, even people not committed to the Bible that underpins them. 
For example, the value of the separation of state and church in our Constitution:  
Section 116. Commonwealth not to legislate in respect of religion
The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth.
This value ultimately came from a Biblical heritage: people being equally valuable because we’re made in the image of God (Genesis 1); so we all should be respected, not forced against conscience (Romans 14); yet we know humans are fallen (Genesis 3) and will try to exploit others for self-interest (repeatedly throughout history). Therefore, a person’s religion (which at the time largely meant Anglican or Catholic) should not prevent people from participating in the decision-making processes that affect the whole civic body. This value safeguards the participation of everyone, non-believers included.

Therefore, such values must be protected. 
​- How should we respond when, for example, Sharia Law seeks to take over some Australian land? We protect the VALUE of open civic participation, and the law of this land. Sharia does violate the VALUE, by making a religious test for civic involvement.
- What if Socialist governments declare that private, religious institutions or citizens must teach and adhere to new, non-Biblical State moralities? We protect our VALUE against imposing any religious observance, which is what the State is doing in that instance - imposing its neo-religious morality and prohibiting the free exercise of others. We defend the relevant VALUE of freedom to uphold 'natural law.' (Claims that socialism is "a-religious" are merely semantic distractions from the main point of Section 116. The fact that for socialism the state IS its religion, tells us that socialism is incompatible with the kind of democratic state established at Federation.) 
- When state schools impose transgender education on minors? We should be able to make the case for the higher VALUE of truth: gender is about biological reality, not fluid, mis-identities, and to teach otherwise does more harm than good. Defend the relevant Aussie VALUE.

There are many such values. Here are perhaps the main contested value-laden topics of our time:

• Supernaturalism vs Naturalism - inclusion, not reductionism. 
• A-political unions vs Union partisanship with criminal associations - persuasion, not pressure. 
• Limited Government vs Big Government - responsibility & assistance, not state dependence. 
• Defence vs Pro-CCP - defend freedoms, not atheistic statism. 
• Privacy vs Surveillance - reasonable public security, not totalitarian monitoring. 
• Conserve-&-adapt economy vs Renewables economy - unbiased science, not fund-contingent activism. (Too much manipulating statistics by activism.)
• Family support vs State childcare - parental responsibility, over state care. 
• Truthful definitions of marriage, parenthood, babies’ rights, palliative care - human sanctity, not reductionist materialism. 
• One people vs Dual sovereignty - unity & forgiveness, not oppression/vengeance.
• Property ownership vs Neo-Marxist land-rights - responsibility, not dependence.  
• Merit vs DEI - responsibility, not handout or lowering standards.
• Natural justice vs Social justice - equal opportunity, not rigged outcomes.
• Anti-terror vs Pro-terror activism - defend, not destroy.
• Sustainable & values-compatible immigration vs unsustainable immigration - sustainability, not unsustainability.
• Citizen freedoms vs State control - freedom, not tyranny. Responsibility, not oppression.

Australians should invite others to join our protected values set.
1) defend the values we already know we need to uphold, from being overrun;
2) resolve how to forgive and live peaceably with people of different value-sets. (Such civility is also from our Judeo-Christian heritage.) 
​
Make a list: 
1) What do you mean? - Which values are we to defend? 
2) How do we know they're true? How are they defended? 
3) What differences do they make to our society? These differences can build up over time. 

Then invite people to gather around those socially cohesive, Aussie values. (Aussie in the sense that Australia federated around them, but they’re not exclusive to Australia; they should be universal.) Even though we may have to resist people who violate them, they constitute the good standard by which anyone could join us, the critical difference being not race or nationality, but whether they accept such protected values. 

PS - A better way
I confess that trying to identify the core values from scratch can be hard - indeed, it's impossible without a worthy reference point. A much simpler way exists - go to the worthy reference point.
​The better way to learn the values is directly from their Source. “Seek first the kingdom of God and his righteousness, and all these things will be added unto you.” 
This involves the Person of Jesus. And "persons can forgive you, whereas values cannot - values can only judge you,” (Glen Scrivener, The Air We Breathe.) ​The impersonal/unforgiving nature of values is why, when people reject the Person of Jesus, they tend to redefine the values in ever more self-serving ways. We must be vigilant about lowering the values bar... 
Meanwhile, for people not yet willing to seek Jesus, we can still meet around our values critical to respecting our shared humanity and community. 

In the most important article I've read this election so far, Greg Sheridan (The Australian 5/4/23) clarifies the problem with Big Government (vs responsible citizenship.) Big Government is what Socialism creates - Labor calls itself a socialist party and accordingly works for a bigger state (with the unions of course.) We suck ourselves deeper into this socialist quicksand every time we say, "the government ought to..."
This article itself is a vote decider because it exposes the real-world economic & social consequences of socialism. Greg shows how big welfare makes us irresponsible and lazy while increasing the social problems it claims to fix.
​Read the stark facts:

How about this record of Albanese's term.
This is Australia's 8% decline in disposable income per capita 2022-24 compared to the rest of the developed world.
He doesn't admit it much less apologise for it.
This is not by mistake but by policy.

​
​Australian Christians How to Vote cards here.

Further topics are covered here:
THIS IS THE ELECTION THAT WILL MAKE OR BREAK OUR AUSTRALIA. Peta Credlin - The Sunday Telegraph, March 29, 2025
...Peter Dutton is right: This election is a sliding doors moment. Re-elect Anthony Albanese and his green-left government and we will be poorer, weaker, and more divided: de-industrialised, thanks to an uncertain and expensive energy supply; increasingly estranged from our traditional allies; socially fractured thanks to the uncontrolled migration of people who aren’t expected to share our values; and saddled with deficits and a trillion dollars of debt.
Change the government and we still have serious challenges: How does a small economy like ours maintain resilience in a much less globalised world; how does a multiethnic society maintain social cohesion; and how do we defend ourselves as America retreats? But at least the Liberal-National Coalition has largely avoided falling under the spell of the climate cult, identity politics and the strange notion that communist China is our friend....
...Nuclear, not renewables; one flag, not three; education, not indoctrination; much lower immigration; 40,000 fewer bureaucrats; superannuation for homes; a defence of biological sex to protect women and girls; cracking down on foreign criminals; and more real support for defence. As Dutton made clear in his budget reply, countries can’t tax their way to prosperity or subsidise their way to success.
Under Dutton, Australians could expect something like Howard 2.0: Steady, predictable, incremental government; without the climate indoctrination and the energy madness that refuses to use here the coal and gas we still export to others (but won’t if Labor is re-elected with Greens support).
...Unlike Anthony Albanes ...who has overturned 70 years of bipartisan support for Israel at the UN, we could expect the former Queensland cop to be strong and sensible in a crisis. 

And australiavotes.org.au - is where to read parties' policy responses on the following matters:

1. Protection of Faith-Based Schools
2. Freedom of Speech
3. Competing rights for women
4. National Student Wellbeing Program (formerly National School Chaplaincy Program)
5. Consent Education
6. National Curriculum
7. Diversity, Equity & Inclusion in the Australian Public Service
8. Puberty Blockers
9. Online Gambling
10. Age Verification to Protect Children from Pornography Exposure
11. Family, Women and Children
12. Homelessness
13. Sex Trafficking
14. Indigenous Issues
15. Euthanasia by Telehealth
16. Legalisation of illicit drugs
17. Parental Rights
18. Foreign Aid
    

Click for the christianvalues.org.au checklist for WA in the Federal Election.

REMEMBER:
Vote 1 for your preferred minor party, then vote for your preferred major later in your preferences. Then your preferences will be counted as votes down to the final winner.
Here's a 9 minute video on the importance of preference voting.

Post-election comment: Uh-oh. 

Elections coming up.
Top Tip:
Vote 1 for your preferred minor parties, then later for your preferred major.
If the minor does not get in, your vote transfers to your next preference. It's like voting twice.
So vote 1, then preferences.
There's a financial benefit for your first minor party in that if they get enough primary votes, they receive funding as a legitimate party according to how many primary votes they receive.

Party Foundations - Reference Points for Policies:
Ask each party what document / values-set they refer to when making their policy decisions. Because those values will determine their policies, current & future.
In WA, the Australian Christians party answers openly that it’s the Judaeo-Christian tradition as found in the Bible.
For the Liberal Party, it's the "We Believe" statement of the Menzies era, which in turn was founded on Judaeo-Christian principles.
But when I asked WA Labor, I was told to "go look at the website," so I did:
Their current 2023 platform openly states that Labor is a “democratic socialist” party (p3p2. i.e. Platform page 3, paragraph 2.) Labor's reference point is socialism, and unsurprisingly, woke ideologies flow from such self-referencing - i.e., permitting whatever is right in their own eyes - the words of people. [vs Bible on Socialism.]
What do I mean by socialism? A commitment to overthrow capitalism, private property rights, nuclear families, and church, which are viewed as obstacles to a utopia in which the "society" distributes the wealth (p3p4c. p5p16.). The core of socialism is atheistic, espoused by Karl Marx, and in turn Antonio Gramsci's long march through the institutions. [More on Socialism.]
Yep, that's WA Labor. They did start from different foundations, but gone are the days of Labor being Catholic unionists fighting for workers' rights. Now the unionists are a power block underwriting Labor's socialist program, and their political candidates are almost all professional politicians & lawyers with no other work experience - they are the elites. That's the way socialism goes, history supports Orwell's thesis in Animal Farm. "Christians" in the party are likely to be only nominally so, and WA Labor no longer engage with Christians or churches, claiming (a false understanding of) separation of church and state. Indeed our local Labor candidate preferenced Australian Christians last, and was often overheard ridiculing Christians to her team.
You can see Socialism throughout WA Labor's Platform:
- The platform often promotes State-controlled early childcare, within months of birth. (p10p11. p189p3.) [vs Bible on children.]
- Uses childcare, state schooling, public libraries & media to impose Labor's woke views of gender & sexual orientation upon kids to their confusion - and grooming (p39p126 &134.) [vs Bible on gender.]
Promotes more sex-change therapies even for children. (p41p136. p209p112,117,119,121.)
There are threats to parents who disagree with these ideologies, and religions are specified as a particular challenge to overcome (p39p128.) Funds will be withdrawn from non-compliant institutions, with threats of litigation. (p35p110. &p40p131? &132.)
- Promotes & funds abortion whilst denying the babies' lives, and the reality of post-abortion trauma. (p215p3.) [vs Bible on abortion.]
- “Co-sovereignty” in the Uluru Statement is lauded despite being intrinsically divisive (p12p13.).
Policy coerces welcome to countries and acknowledgements upon every meeting. (p13p31&32. p193p10.)
Other race-based solutions will reinforce racial differences, rather than simply needs-based solutions. (eg p14p36. p17p47&48.) Critical Race Theory is obvious. [vs Bible on CRT.]
- Imposes Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion over meritorious appointments. (p3p3. p5p18. p22p77c? p40p135. p41p140.) [vs Bible on DEI.]
- Labor's changes to the Equal Opportunity Act 1984 will increasingly impose these socialist values onto society, excluding Biblical morals & subjecting them to discrimination litigation. (p35p110.)
For this election, WA Labor were also specifically asked about, and came out strongly in support of, biological men in women's sports & safe spaces, euthanasia, enforcing vaccinations, removing religious protections for faith-based schools, & private rehab facilities.
Since the so-called “Enduring Values of Labor” include recent woke concepts such as DEI and CRT, it's clear that Labor’s values are not enduring, but drifting with the currents of human constructs, in this case Socialism. Labor is disconnected from the timeless foundation of God’s Word. This is not progressive but regressive. Labor is imposing its novel morality upon the public to the exclusion of Biblical views.
Greens are more communist - they don't tell you their reference point or worldview. It's not in their charter or constitution, you find it in the campaigns they are proud of: Big State - free state childcare, schooling, university, state-paid student work, state-paid ABC, bigger Centrelink incomes, public property developer, 4-day work week, bigger NDIS & Medicare (add dental, mental, gender-change, abortion, euthanasia.) Remove religious exemptions so only the State worldview sets the moral agenda: promote abortion, euthanasia, gender propaganda, co-sovereignty, anti-Israel pro-Palestine, anti-Murdoch, pro cannabis, 16yo voting. So of course, confessed communists and socialists are found working for the Greens.

Look into it.
Ask all parties for their policies' reference point. Look for their foundations: God's Word? Or man's words? Then vote for The Firm Foundation.

[Update after polling closed (8/3/25):
At the polling location today, I spoke with quite a few WA Labor volunteers who seemed unaware of the socialism, who lamented the drift away from Christian foundations, and talked against wokeness. Many had no idea of their party's platform, let alone its foundations. How can this be? How common is this? An opportunity for the opposition? How we need an educated population!]

[Post script on Energy & Environment:
In WA Labor's Platform, there are also paragraphs about Energy and Environment. Devotion to CO2 alarmism despite consistent over-estimation by their sources, and apparent ignorance of the materials' life-cycles associated with solar, wind, and batteries. (p51ff. p69ff. p94ff.) But since these are less directly related to Socialism, they are for another blog another day.]

Q: How Christian should our participation in politics and government be?
A: As with any other part of life. (How Christianly should we do business, play footy, do our work!)
And we care about policies because policies impact people - they help, hurt, or harm.
And increasingly, policies are impacting people's moral-spiritual-religious lives, as well as their secular lives, creating increasing harm to both. The more government intervenes outside its mandate, and into the totality of people's worldviews, the more it is our civic and Christian duty to be informed and influential.

Q: But some say, since Australia is a "Secular Democracy," shouldn’t Christians stay out of it?
A: I say no, every citizen is allowed to participate, including us.
And in fact, with a Christian moral reference point, we especially should be involved.

Alert: If you think “Secular Democracy” excludes religions, you've swallowed the wrong definition…

Q: What do we mean by, "Secular Democracy"?
Atheist activism? Or, a general Biblical reference point?

A1: What some mean by Secular Democracy...
Some say that Secular means to allow no worldviews that include God, which only leaves atheism as the remaining worldview. They say that Democracy means that the people decide according to the numbers, whether by better organising or tactics to get those numbers of power. In sum, government participation should be exclusively for practical atheists, elected according to the weight of numbers.

Those who use this meaning include secular humanists, communists/socialists, various victim-identity-political activists. They misuse words about "separation of church and state," and falsely say government schools & agencies are "not allowed to talk about religion." For them God’s ways are repressive. For them freedom means permission to do whatever the self wants whether it harms people or not. They outlaw views they disagree with, eject dissenters, and advance policy by pressure, not persuasion. Lip-service is given to debating the facts, but in practice when they gain power they tend to push their policies through using ridicule, and avoid rational debate, preferring Kirk & Madsen’s approach of “Desensitise, Jam, Convert.” It is power by activism, which is why such worldviews are so big on taking over unions and lobbying.

A2: What our Constitution means by "Secular Democracy"...
At Federation in 1901, Australia’s founders had an inclusive concept of "secular" that meant anyone could participate, and that government is not to be connected to a particular religious institution, which basically meant you could participate whether Catholic or Anglican, and no church institution was to govern. Democracy meant a morally literate public deciding within the parameters of a Biblical reference point. In sum, government participation is inclusively open to anyone, elected according to good reasons within the moral bounds of a Biblical reference point.

A Biblical reference point was seen as a good safeguard against the social decline that could occur without it. This safeguard was not by institutional totalitarianism, but by appealing for personal responsibility to God and one’s fellow man. And it was widely understood that a personal relationship with God through Christ was the most effective way to become such a responsible & moral person.
But also, Christianity itself maintained that this faith is to be free, not forced. Therefore the Biblical reference point also safeguarded freedom itself within democracy. Forced conversions are prevented by Biblical Christianity. So fears of a Christian takeover are unfounded and actually best allayed by Christianity itself.
Further, governments identified their particular limited authority under God, for law and order, protection, fair organisation and services. Churches saw their different scope of authority under God in the spiritual and Biblical compass they enable people to find. Business bosses were limited to the scope of their businesses. Parents had the responsibilities for their families. And individuals for their beliefs and lifestyles. Doesn’t this sound much more sane, than the chaotic government over-reach we have now!

Unsurprisingly the Biblical worldview so often represents the sensible centre because it seeks to align with reality - natural law, the Creator’s manual. It separates powers, safeguards freedoms, and is utterly worthy of our collective agreement as our common, good reference point.

Everyone should be able to get behind this kind of Secular Democracy. Remember, this is not some wishful interpretation, it's the view of the founders of Australian Federation. This is the intent of the Constitution. Not the twisted redefinition of atheist activists. So we should learn to articulate and advocate for this founding definition. 

Q: So which definition of Secular Democracy should we use?
A: Inclusive participation in Biblically literate, reasoned, decision-making, with separated powers.

• Geoff's talk establishes the need for a Biblical foundation for all our decisions.
• Peter exposes activist ideologies that have been deliberately undermining Biblical foundations.
• James exposes the spreading damage by activist grooming of minors in public schools & libraries.
• Maryka explains legislative domino-effects reducing our freedom to uphold Biblical truths.

And Momentum offers ways that Christians can make positive differences to peoples’ lives and livelihoods, with open speech and participation as citizens wherever we are.

If you have not been before, come suss out a Momentum. And if you have been before, you’ll want your friends to hear this info. Ask to be on the mailing list for dates, or check my diary here.

You can arrange to host a Momentum near you. That’s how we hope to build, well, momentum.

Next March's WA elections, equip yourself to vote Christianly - for Biblical values.
Two tips you should know:

1. Vote 1 for your preferred minor party and 2 for your major. If the minor does not get in, your vote transfers to your 2nd preference. It's like voting twice. So vote 1, then 2. It also means that your minor party is supported financially if they get enough primary votes. And it's the only way a minor party can ever get in.
2. Changes to voting that you should know about. This actually make it plausible that Australian Christians could get in this election, to have a regular say in the Upper House (Legislative Council):

Christianity without Christ is just "Ianity" - and who the heck is "Ian" compared with Jesus?!
Or more to the point, who am "I" compared with Jesus!

In February I'll attend the ARC Forum (Alliance of Responsible Citizenship). I fully agree with ARC that cross-disciplinary cooperatives are necessary to find solutions to Western decline. And that we need to re-inspire Western citizens with Judaeo-Christian values such as personal responsibility, reward for effort, and community.

But ARC will ultimately only be successful in restoring human flourishing to the degree that citizens actually submit to the Christ who in-Spires those values into practice. 

1. We need Jesus, not self.
The Bible warns about "those having a form of godliness but denying its power" (2Tim3:5). Because such would be a counterfeit Christianity - it may look like Christianity but if it ignores Christ it is not. It's really just "I-anity" inevitably devolving into self-righteousness (legalistic or licentious), as our fallen self decides how to apply Christ's values. Without Christ, self rules under Christian terminology. We've already had too much of that in the West. Such hypocrisy obscures the Church and derails Western civilization with it.

I confess I can see the danger of such nominal Christianity or I-anity in my circles, where we teach (rightly!) that Judaeo-Christian values, even the Bible itself, is the best values-set on which to build civilization. I teach world-views-from-a-Biblical-foundation. But I must also teach that people need the Person of Jesus even more than the values of Jesus.

That's because the Person inspires the values. Jesus transforms the heart of a person to seek God's righteousness not self-righteousness.

In fact if we truly had His values, we would know there's a spiritual dimension into which we must be reborn - consider Jesus' conversation with Nicodemus (John 3. All of John for that matter.) We know we can't have that Spiritual Life without Jesus!

We need to listen to Christ Himself who prompts & empowers us to follow His values His way in our particular contexts. We need to be in-Spired by Christ's Spirit-in-us, His spiritual life in us. That's when we may we see His fruit in our lives.

2. We need Jesus in all sectors.
Furthermore, to counteract the self corroding everything we do, we need Christ's inSpiration in all other spheres of life as well. Christ gives the Spirit necessary to flourish. Life is spiritual, so the spiritual aspect should not be ignored but integrated throughout all disciplines.

For example, law-enforcer Jamie Winship sought the LORD's inspiration to solve his caseload of crimes. His rate of solving cases soon stood out, because apparently Jesus knows a fair bit about what's really going on in the world!

Likewise, whatever our sector, we must humble our selves, die to self. "And if the Spirit of Him who raised Jesus from the dead is living in you, he who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through his Spirit who lives in you." (Rom8:12). Then we can listen to Jesus and do what He says. Be led by the Spirit (Galatians 5.)

That's what, or Who, led to the best, the most Christ-like, of Western Civilization. The secret to Western flourishing was (& still is) Christ. A spiritual blessing was at play. And now the West is declining as Western leaders and people have rejected Christ for I-anity.

Someone once said, "everybody wants our ponies, but nobody wants our Stud."

It is Christ who can again inSpire real response-able citizenship - where leaders and citizens are able-to-respond to Jesus' inSpiration towards Christlikeness. Only He knows the big picture, He knows how to weave together the good and bad intentions into a whole history. And how to raise the governments constituents deserve (Romans 13.)

Yes, we must engage rigorously & cooperatively in & across all sectors. Work is part of the Garden of Eden. Indeed such work is also part of Jesus' values - He mandated his followers to "go into all the world." And all the world includes all the spheres:

• Family
• Charity / Not-for-profits / Health / Science & tech
• Church / Religion / Worldview / Philosophy / Culture
• Education / Media
• Arts & Cultural expression / Entertainment / Sport & Rec.
• Business / Economy
• Government / Law / Justice / Military

But also, within our rigorous involvement in all the world, we are to have a particular spiritual influence: "make disciples..." That is, help others become Jesus-followers, with His Life in them too.

In all the world's spheres there are people, and people need the spiritual life that only Jesus gives. As we go in all these spheres, we are not only to influence with Jesus' values, but to introduce people to Jesus Himself! And whenever they come to that new spiritual life, connecting directly with Jesus, that's what ultimately makes for truly response-able citizens - people led by Jesus to influence the world in ways that fruit in Christ-ianity, not mere I-anity.

So don't restrict Jesus to the "Religious sphere." The Life is needed in every sphere. Ignoring this will only frustrate our own efforts to flourish. Anyone, anywhere, in any sphere, turn from self to Him, Who is the Way, the Truth, and the Life (John 14:6). 

May everyone submit to Jesus, and grow in Christlike influence - as He leads and empowers. Such awakening and submission will bring blessing, flourishing, in more of the world's many spheres... until He comes.

PS. After ARC reflection:
Being at this conference in person, I could see how Jesus is at work through the Alliance for Responsible Citizenship.
When I was praying about speakers referring to the values of Christianity rather than the Christ of Christianity, the Lord reassured me that many hearers were identifying The Cornerstone anyway. This was confirmed immediately when I met a man who told me he was at ARC because a year ago Jordan Peterson spoke about the Bible, after which the man continued to read it, and then put his faith in Jesus.
I prayed with a lot of people. I met others who, like me, had simply felt called to come there but were unsure why. A direct ongoing involvement didn't come out of it for me, but rather a sense of a foundation laid for something later perhaps.
I also saw that ARC is like “Community Organising” in that (like a giant Clapham Sect) it seeks to gather people around Bible-based social projects. The 12 in the office are Christians, the main people behind it are too, and I can see how Jesus is working through the Christians as well as those who aren't yet, to bring about various expressions of the Kingdom of God. May it be so.

I visited Israel in May 2024, yes during the current war. We visited the Nova festival site, and Kfar Aza, a kibbutz attacked on October 7. I could have kicked a footy into no-man's land from where we stood. And yes we heard live rounds, rockets & rumbles. We saw and heard evidences of what happened. It's bad, evil. And I slept in earshot of jets & rockets in the north. But to understand that day, and this war requires more context than most news reports supply. The context is bigger than Oct7, includes centuries before 1948, and is literally of Biblical proportions.

I'm still digesting what to say theologically and pragmatically. But meanwhile I can offer these reflections:

1) Here's a good list addressing many of the common myths & memes about Israel & Palestine.

2) Here's a good way to consider the ideologies at play. Compare, "what would happen the next day if Hamas surrendered?" with, "what would happen the next day if Israel surrendered?" The obvious answers tell us who is responsible for the war, and its drawn out outcomes.

3) Christians really care about Gazans' suffering from the many evils attacking them, most especially the spiritual and ideological powers driving Hamas. Radical Islam has been the aggressor/colonizer since the 8th century, asserting that any land that has ever been under Muslim rule can never be given back (hence 'river to the sea'), colonizing Palestinia from Israelis living there after the fall of the Roman empire. Then after the fall of the Ottoman empire, the land was contested again, until post-WW2 when it was legally returned to the reconstituted Israel via multiple international laws. And boundaries were further adjusted legally through multiple defensive wars. 'Occupied territories' is Islamic nomenclature since Palestine is not a country, and Israel is the only actual country willing & able to claim or run it, even offering a two state solution to do so. So for Gazans, ultimately only grace, the Way, Work & Person of Jesus, can fix radical Islam and bring peace in the middle east, both spiritually & practically. A change of heart is needed, from Mohamed to The Messiah. It's not so unrealistic, since Jesus is a key figure within both Judaism and Islam, and considered rightly could fulfil both religions in a unifying way.

4) Christians also care about Jews, and about Jerusalem coming to faith in The Messiah. Just as Israel has blessed us Gentiles with the knowledge of God, the Law, & the Messiah, so we are to return the favour - that they may receive the Messiah. Only when Jerusalem welcomes Jesus will He return to them, as He said, "For I tell you [Jerusalem], you will not see me again until you say, ‘Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.’" (Mt23:39)

5) So there is no reason to hate a race, Palestinians or Jews, because this is not a racial battle (we are all one race anyway, and Palestinian blood is largely Jewish since the 8th century muslim colonization!) Many Palestinians, including millions of Arab Christians, disagree with Hamas.

So there is no reason to hate "Palestinians" or "Arabs." The problem is the spiritual worldview of radical Islam held by Hamas - Hezbollah, Al Qaeda, ISIS, Taliban, Boko Haram, Muslim Brotherhood, and Islamic Revolution in Iran. Israel is warranted to disarm such continuous clear & present attackers.
But also we pray for Palestinian Christians to win over their brothers to a better worldview, and to new spiritual life in the True Isa.

6) Likewise there is no reason to hate Israelis for now trying to disarm their attackers. Race-based anti-Semitism is to be guarded against. Rather we pray for a change of worldview, towards recognising Jesus their Messiah.

7) Jesus is key to peace in the Middle East. He is a key figure in the traditions of all three Abrahamic faiths. But conversion is unlikely because most of the traditions in the Middle East are legalistic, from Hasidic Jews, to Orthodox Christian traditions, to Islam. Even if the traditions themselves are not meant to be so legalistic, most adherents hold to them unquestioningly, because to question is to defy not only the tradition but their own families, their ancestors, tribal allegiances, histories, and very nations. It would be seen as a whole-of-life betrayal, a treason. And yet Jesus' way can resolve all of this because He is the Way and means of mercy and grace, to forgive and to give new life, to break down the walls of partition and give all of us unity in Himself.  This may only happen sufficiently when He reveals Himself at the end of the Age, but even so it can still happen on the daily, personal and inter-personal level, for those with ears to hear. May God give such grace to people from all sides.

Update Oct 7 2024:
Greg Sheridan's brief article names realities not commonly reported. Part 1 and Part 2.
Konstantin Kisin's comparisons with any other country is 11 minutes well considered, also.

A great worldview article from James Macpherson:
https://jamesmacpherson.substack.com/p/news-senator-payman-seeks-allahs 

​Muslim Senator Fatima Payman has put religion back on the front page after revealing she asked Allah for guidance on what to do in the Senate.
The 29-year-old old West Australian broke ranks with her Labor colleagues this week to vote with the Greens in favour of Palestinian statehood.
She was disciplined by the party (for breaking ranks, not for praying to Allah) and has since quit Labor to move to the crossbench.
But the very idea that Payman sought wisdom from Allah before voting on policy issues has surprised many Australians who rarely give a second thought to religion.
The fact is that no-one arrives at any issue values free. And we all have a religion - whether we believe in God or not. 
Your religion, or if you prefer your worldview, is in essence your answer to these five big questions …

1. Where did we come from? That’s a question of origin.
2. Who am I? That’s a question of identity.
3. What is the purpose of life? That’s a question of meaning.
4. How do I determine right from wrong? That’s a question of morality.
5. What happens when we die? That’s a question of destiny.

Your answer to those questions becomes the worldview, or lens, that informs all of your decisions.
A Christian, for instance, believes people are created in God’s image. With that worldview, it is impossible to agree that abortion is okay.
An atheist, on the other hand, insists that human life is entirely accidental and no more imbued with the divine than a banana. Someone with that worldview might find abortion distasteful, but has no grounds to argue against it.
In both instances, religion informs the policy position.
So it’s redundant to ask whether politicians ought seek guidance from religion since they are already being guided by their religion, whether they realise it or not.
The better question is which religion we would prefer our politicians to take their cues from.
Senator Payman is a devout Muslim and so of course she would be taking her cues from Mohammad. Just as a Christian politician would seek wisdom from Jesus.
So the question is whether you’d prefer your nation’s leaders getting their marching orders from Jesus or from Mohammad.
On that question you don’t need a masters in comparative religion to work it out. Just take a quick look at the globe.
Western nations - like the UK, the USA and Australia - are overwhelmingly built on a Judeo-Christian worldview. 
Middle Easter nations - like Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia - have been built on an Islamic worldview.
Which would you prefer? 
As Jesus said, by their fruits you shall know them.
And let’s not forget our atheist friends who, consciously or not, take their cues from Nietzsche. Think Communist China or the former Soviet Union.
So you can build a nation on the the law of love (Christianity), Sharia Law (Islam), or the law of the jungle (Atheism).
Which would you be happiest with?
Australia’s founders never imagined a country in which politicians were so arrogant that they made decisions without seeking wisdom from above.
The preamble to the Constitution - written in 1901 - declares that Australia would be a nation “humbly relying on the blessing of Almighty God”.
Notice it doesn’t say “humbly rely on the blessing of Almighty Allah”. If it did, we’d be more like Somalia than Australia. Fun times!
Our forefathers envisaged political leaders who would be humble enough to acknowledge a power higher than themselves and to ask for wisdom. And they assumed the higher power would be the Christian God since, in 1901, there was virtually zero disagreement.
A lot of people complain that our country is not what it used to be, that it has changed, and not for the better.
I don’t disagree.
A lot of people are also waking up to the fact that the chance in our nation is not just economic and not just social. Even non-church going people are starting to be open to the idea that we may in fact have a spiritual problem.
Again, I don’t disagree.
Our politicians stopped seeking wisdom from almighty God and instead - like a sailor who stopped believing in the stars and so tied a lamp to the mast of his boat and navigated by that - have done what is right in their own eyes.
The results have been disastrous. 
There is only one way for Australia to regain its prosperity and its freedom. We need Prime Ministers, business leaders, educators and parents to once more humbly rely on the blessings of Almighty God. And I don’t mean Allah.

I wrote this response to articles in The Weekend Australian (2/3/2024) addressing the problem of Australia’s lack of a common reference point.

Well done, Paul Kelly and Greg Sheridan for raising this core issue - which Australian public discourse has been avoiding since WW2 - What is Australia’s agreed reference point, for legislation and politics, public life, and private enterprise? They wrote that our lack of this reference point results in fragmentation, culture wars, victim-entitlement, and a lack of investment confidence. I agree.

But let’s take the next step and identify the most obvious solution. Somebody has to say it: let’s officially nominate the Bible as Australia‘s reference point for national policy. Make it our moral compass when deciding laws, values, government processes.

Morality is what societies’ laws are all about - what’s good & bad, allowable & not. But which moral set are we using? And why that set?

There is a stronger case for the Bible than for any other moral code.

1. The Bible was the assumed reference point at Federation.
   Federal founder Henry Parkes said, “Our laws, our whole system of jurisprudence, our Constitution… are based upon and interwoven with our Christian belief.” 99% of people claimed some form of Christianity, founded upon the Bible. So it would be in step with Federation to simply name that which was assumed at the time.
2. The Bible upholds proper Separation of Church and State.
   Yes, no Church institution should control the State, as such power is likely to corrupt the Church's ability to provide moral guidance. Nor should the State interfere with the churches' moral mandate, or tell believers what to believe.
   In the drafting of our Constitution, ‘secular’ meant a person's religion was not to preclude anyone from politics, and back then it really meant that Anglicans, Catholics and anyone else could engage in politics [See Chavura & Tregenza, 2019, 'The 'secular' settlement and Australian political thought', Australian Journal of Political Science, vol. 54, no. 2, pp. 272-287. https://doi.org/ ] ‘Secular’ government meant inclusive, not exclusive, of religious people. And the Bible was the general reference point, rather than any religious institution - Catholic, Anglican or any other - which could be corrupted by various forms of power or coercion. Just the brute facts within the Bible itself are enough of a reference for the public discourse.
   
3. The loss of Biblical reference point is an obvious problem.
   After WW2, with increased immigration, and the Communist threat, public figures began to describe our government as ‘democracy.’ Democracy means “people rule.” Overt Christian references decreased and became merely one view among many. And no evaluation of other reference points was undertaken. So after decades of broadcast reinforcement of self determination, many drifted into the belief that we are our own reference points - which of course is no reference point at all. Consequently our society now has many tribes pulling in different directions according to their own reference points, often bad ones.
4. What else compares to the Bible?
   Evaluate the contenders. Communist Manifesto? Mao’s Red Book? The Uluru Statement? The Koran? Past alternative reference points produced social projects that inevitably dehumanised others, often gruesomely. Gramsci’s/Marcuse’s long march through the institutions has splintered societies into raging self-interests, devoid of moral answers. Many of their modern followers try to denounce the Bible, but they do so ultimately because the Bible protects the rest of us from their own plans to dominate.
5. The Bible is morally good.
   “Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other,” according to founder of American democracy, John Adams [quoted by Paul Kelly (2/3/24).] If democracy is to lead anywhere good, then the people need an agreed, morally good reference point such as the Bible. Therefore students must study it, at least enough to understand its gist. Political parties need theologians to interpret it well. Media must work within its parameters, and convey it to inform people well enough to vote using it. The public domain can still entertain other ideas, but it must maintain the Bible as the reference point for moral decisions.
6. The Bible is the only reference that allows others to freely express divergent opinions.
   Whilst reserving the priority of making itself clear, it does not endorse forcing people to follow it, it rather asks people to choose it on its merits. It alone has the injunction to allow others to speak, while still being the common reference point, whereas every other ideology eventually excludes others from the discourse. It is truly cross-cultural, able to fulfil and uplift every culture, being about the Creator of them all.
7. The Bible has a proven record in social and political history.
   Magna Carta limited the King’s power to “under God.” It introduced the rule of law. It introduced natural law (the way things should be) as a guiding principle for legislation. And, ever since, we have seen societies improve or worsen according to how closely they follow this Biblical vision. Corruption comes as we stray from it. And even atheists endorse it as a force for social good, like Douglas Murray who “calls himself a Christian atheist” (2/3/24.) Or Dave Rubin, “The eternal truths told for thousands of years through the Biblical stories are the rudder that keeps us moving forward during the storm.” (Mahlburg Cross & Culture p90.) Vishal Mangalwadi makes the case extensively in his book, The Book that Made Your World: how the Bible Created the Soul of Western Civilisation.
8. The Bible includes spiritual dimensions of reality.
   Most people still experience & appreciate spiritual realities, even in secularised nations. Such dimensions are part of reality that we ought never ignore.
9. The Bible gives clarity.
   Regaining such a robust consensus point would give our policy-makers confidence to make international decisions, about how we trade - what the right things are, and why we do them.
10. It is possible to name the Bible as our reference point politically. 
    PNG recently did it. We could too, openly call it a Bible-referenced Democracy. Consider, what if we do? Then also consider, what if we don’t?

It’s better late than never for Australia to openly discuss, evaluate and decide upon the most beneficial reference point for us as a nation: the one that federation rightly assumed in the first place, the one from which the further we drift the worse we become. If you can propose a better one, make your case. But if not, then let’s name the Bible, stop the drift into further fracture or bloody error, and come together around the best reference point for democracy.
​
What if we discussed a referendum on that!

The Uluru Statement from the Heart calls for Makarrata. So what is it, and what hope does it give for the future of Australia?
Makarrata can be used in a bait and switch way to punish invaders. The bait is to define the word as "peace after a dispute," but the switch is to discover it's fuller meaning is that of violent payback.
Makarrata literally means, "spear penetrating."
According to the ABC's explainer, "Makarrata literally means a spear penetrating, usually the thigh, of a person that has done wrong… so that they cannot hunt anymore, that they cannot walk properly, that they cannot run properly; to maim them, to settle them down, to calm them — that's Makarrata."
A crippling blow to subdue the criminal conduct. If this is what is being asked by the Uluru Statement, then that's quite an alarming switch we need to be wary of. A profound danger for the future of reconciliation in Australia.
But wait.
There is more to Makarrata, which actually has profound promise for the future.
As my dearly departed Aboriginal Elder mate Ron Williams told me, within Aboriginal law, in such "spear penetrating" situations, a substitution can be made. If an uncle steps forward to offer his own thigh be speared on behalf of the offender, the offender can be reconciled to the tribe by the spearing of the substitute. The shedding of the uncle's blood reconciles the offender.
If you haven't already noticed - that is exactly what we need! There is no way that people today can atone for the wrongs done by people of the past to other people of the past. Yet a debt must be paid. It can only be paid by a substitute for the people of the past. And that substitute must be good, preferably having no guilt of his own to atone for, yet be willing to pay the price in full for the offender. 
And we have such a substitute.
Only one. Yet the perfect substitute.
It turns out he already has paid Makarrata, for us, and paid it in full. Literally a "spear penetrating" into his side, and blood and water flowed that proved he had made the ultimate sacrifice of death. As a substitute. On behalf of... us. You, me, "them," everybody. Not just for crimes against indigenous peoples, but for crimes against non-indigenous too. Not just for our crimes against other people, but for our crimes against the Great Creator of all things! Who could be such a worthy sacrifice for that, but God himself in the flesh?
This once-for-all Makarrata substitute introduces into our current debates the one thing necessary, yet mostly excluded: the one way to forgiveness. Mutual, true, heartfelt forgiveness. Because the Makarrata has been paid in full. By no less than the Great Creator Spirit in Person. Let that penetrate your mind. And then your heart. And then awaken your soul.
It takes humility to realise that we are guilty of crimes requiring Makarrata. It takes humility to repent from them. And yet more humility to accept that we can't make amends ourselves and never can, the offence is too great - that we are totally dependent on a substitute.
It takes humility to realise that when the substitute has already paid in full, I can no longer exact revenge from the offenders.
In this case, humility is needed all round. Humility also to learn whether this Makarrata actually happened in fact - if you're ready, look here. Because substitutionary Makarrata is the only way to the "peace after a dispute" that Australia really needs.

My submission to Labor government's Communications Legislation Amendment (Combating Misinformation and Disinformation) Bill 2023 (Cth).

The proposed Combating Misinformation and Disinformation Bill must be withdrawn. I accept that we don’t want misinformation and lies being spread, but the alternative is worse. So it has always been. Yes, we don’t “want” lies propagated, it can be hurtful and misleading. But freedom of speech ensures that the truth will also be out there.
1. Worse than a plethora of lies, is the absence of truth. 
Suppressing freedom of speech not only suppresses lies but also truth.
2. Suppressing freedom of speech inevitably suppresses truth.
Such suppressive power as in this bill allows abuse by powerful interests by becoming the arbiter of truth and lies - it is a powerful position, you can control the decisions and thus the outcomes.  And so the law of the jungle ensues, and the one with the most power suppresses other narratives. Further abuses then flow from that, as every Nazi & Communist government’s propaganda department has proven.
3. Power-brokers will use such a Bill with its powers and sanctions to undermine democracy.
They will manipulate the masses to accept only their narrative, inevitably leading to entrenching their power further, silencing dissenters (brutally and unjustly), and thus violating human rights. By this point government transparency has long gone, replaced with shadows in which abuse & suppression is justified in the name of ‘greater good.’ Have we not learnt from history!
4. Special-pleading that “our government wouldn’t abuse such powers” only belies a profound ignorance of human nature, and the need to safeguard against its love of power.
5. Reasons for freedom.
Within a multicultural democracy, we need to allow freedom for very different worldviews to co-exist living according to different understandings of the truth, but also we must be clear about the reasons why we must allow such freedom.

Here is why we must allow freedom of speech & dissent:
- Pragmatically speaking:
a) Freedom of expression lies at the heart of human freedom.
If we don’t allow speech & expression to be free, we don’t allow people to live free, to live as they ought according to their best perception of reality. Moreover we impede their engagements with other viewpoints, which can help further refine their perceptions of reality.
b) Free expression must concede that conflict must occur.
As different truth-claims are made, conflicts will occur - so it must be, since the only alternative is to sacrifice freedom. And conflict per se is actually necessary, it’s a means of clarifying and learning.
c) Hurt may arise from conflict, but hurt is a price of freedom amongst diversity.
If conflict per se is not harm, nor is disagreement, nor is dissent, then any harm ensuing from conflict is not from conflict itself, but from the ways in which conflict is done. Thus we reject that disagreement or conflict or even hurt are valid reasons for suppressing freedom of speech. It is certainly not for the State to exclude peoples' freedom on the basis of mere hurt feelings.
d) Harm must be carefully delineated from hurt.
Harm comes from the ways in which conflict is handled, not conflict per se. Thus we may limit the ways we conflict, and police protect against bad ways. But we do not limit the content of the conflict itself. Indeed we have good and preferred ways to conflict well, productively, and to live with disagreements. We certainly do not suppress disagreements themselves.
- Foundationally speaking:
e) We must clearly safeguard the reasonable foundations of freedom of expression.
Otherwise freedom becomes a cut flower doomed to wither without roots. The Judaeo-Christian tradition gave rise to freedom of dissent, human rights and dignity, free speech, and the Creator-referencing democracy that expressly allows participation in the state regardless of religion. Are there other worldviews that produce such freedoms? Safeguard those too. But be clear about them.
f) Conversely we must name worldviews that rationalise the suppression of such freedoms.
We should view them suspiciously, and they should certainly not be adopted by the very democracy they would threaten. Perhaps such a suspect worldview is held by the proponents of this Combating Misinformation and Disinformation Bill. The very freedoms they are using to propose it, are the same freedoms it threatens.
 
Suppressing free speech as this bill would do, as if ‘the government’ knows the truth and the populace does not, is certain to suppress truth and freedom, and thereby grievously undermine our free democracy. Please, immediately withdraw and delete this Bill, and anything like it.
 
Thank you.
Geoff W

There are two questions in this referendum:
1) about constitutional recognition of Indigenous Australians, which is due;
and 2) about a new national Voice mechanism.

Part 1) already has bipartisan support. “As a party, we seek to unite the country by constitutionally recognising Indigenous Australians.” says Peter Dutton, (Weekend Australian 15 Apr 2023, p21 right.)
[On the next page Peter Craven (ibid p22) gives a false premise by claiming, “the state of Australian politics now means you are for constitutional recognition or you’re against it.” That's clearly false. It's the divisive narrative, falsely casting opponents of the Voice mechanism as anti-recognition, even racist.]

It's only part 2), the Voice, that does not have broad support. Warren Mundine makes that case (ibid p15 below). There are 150 plus aboriginal nations in Australia - who's voice will be represented in The Voice?

And how can The Voice mechanism truly supersede existing processes when it promises to maintain the existing processes it claims don't work! Or do they actually work after all, in which case we don't need the Voice. If the Voice mechanism is a good idea, let it gain support on its own merits, not by forcing it into the constitution. Separate the issue of constitutional recognition from the Voice mechanism.

So what words will be changed in the constitution?
Here is the wording change as initially proposed in March '23:

- One concern is about how submitted Australia would become to this "body," the Voice. Part 3 indicates the mechanism can be changed by parliament to suit the needs of the times. But still, how much political pressure would Voice representations have? Who could ignore them without being labelled racist? "Co-existing sovereignty" is an oxymoron, clearly divisive, yet precisely what is called for by the Uluru Statement from the Heart, which tells us the aims of the Voice.

- A second concern is that The Uluru Statement from the Heart clearly submits to a polytheistic worldview with which I do disagree. Albanese's position is to submit us to it: "While the Voice could be done without a referendum, Indigenous people asked in the Uluru Statement from the Heart for it to be enshrined into the nation's founding document as recognition for First Nations people." But I'm happy with the constitution's current first words, "Under Almighty God..." which belongs there, both absolutely and also because all religions, even Aboriginal, have a concept of a supreme Creator behind it all, even though some then diverge into polytheism and pantheism. And even atheists can agree that societies do better in reference to God, even if He's only a unifying concept (in their thinking.) But the Voice is to be created in reference to ancestral polytheism instead, and is Australia then to submit to this polytheism?
[Update: Note that frivolous legal claims (Lawfare) are being made against Christians for raising this matter. David Pellowe exposes the issues here.]

Wiradjuri man Neville Naden explains reconciliation from a Biblical perspective - it's far better. 
Here are some more on the theological considerations of aboriginal recognition - there are limits. 
Plus a fair read of the Uluru Statement also indicates a naive Cultural Marxist agenda (This link also takes you to the full Uluru Statement from the Heart not just the one pager. 

- A third problem to consider is that establishing the Voice as an extra mechanism separates out first peoples from the rest of Australians. Are we sure we want this? We can never be one people if this specific separation is constitutionally perpetuated. As a Christian I know that all nations ultimately can be united in Christ, as Christianity is the only truly multicultural worldview, (and it even has the foundation for allowing people to not choose Christianity.) Australia could be that kind of unified country, but would this constitutional change be a wedge against such ultimate unity? It is one thing to recognise that Aboriginal people were here first and we need to correct the lies and fallout from tera nullus, but it's another to enshrine a mechanism that will require & maintain two voices, never to become truly one.

Constitutional recognition? yes, something in the constitution is due. The Voice mechanism? no, it will constitutionally commit us to ongoing racial separation, and conflicts over co-existing sovereignty. It is certainly not racist to refuse a divisive mechanism.
That's why I think it very sad that Albanese is blowing this opportunity for constitutional recognition by imposing the Voice.

The official referendum booklet of Yes/No cases includes other arguments not listed in this blog, but doesn't include the problems of polytheism or co-existing sovereignty. Nor does it address the very involved processes of the Voice that are being planned for all levels of governments, by the Indigenous Voice Co-design Process Final Report to the Australian Government July 2021.

I found myself in conversation with a United Australia Party representative at the local polling booth at last Saturday's federal election. He said, "We all want freedom, right!"
"Mm, that's a value that comes from somewhere," I replied.
He nodded, "it's all about goodness and kindness, right."
"And those values come from somewhere too."
"Yeah, err..." he stalled.
I bailed him out: "Y'see, I like a lot of your values, but I'm voting Australian Christians because they are very open about where their values come from - it's the Bible, it's God, the foundations of the Judaeo-Christian worldview. So I know whatever questions they face, they will try to figure an answer from that reference point. What about the other parties - what are their reference points? Clive Palmer? Marx's Communist Manifesto? Prevailing popular opinion?"
So that's my basic question for every party and representative: "What's your reference point?"

What's a boss meant to do? The state government says their staff must vaccinate, or the company will be heavily fined. Should bosses view these mandates as a medically warranted rule (like, 'stay home if you’re sick'), or as an unwarranted status division (like, 'stay home healthy or not, because you didn't comply') a breach of conscience & civil liberties.

(BTW see below for my view on vaccines [1] and mandates [2].)

Have we considered when a mandate might become an unwarranted breach of conscience?

Mandates over conscience-matters demand some of the population go against their conscience.
- So we might resist mandating as citizens concerned for the democratic power of the people.
- But more important to me as a Christian is whether a mandate might breach a biblical principle of maintaining our good conscience before God.
Here are some key passages and thoughts to consider:

1. Christians have God-given, Spirit-quickened, Word-informed consciences. Normally our conscience knows when we've done wrong, we would have to suppress it to think otherwise. Moreover a Christian conscience should be being cleansed & quickened by Word & Spirit.

• Romans 9:1 I am telling the truth in Christ, I am not lying, my conscience testifies with me in the Holy Spirit,
• 1 Timothy 1:19  Holding faith and a good conscience. By rejecting this, some have made shipwreck of their faith,

  2. This conscience should make us willing to make Christlike sacrifices:

• 1 Timothy 1:5 The goal of our instruction is love that issues from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith.
• Philippians 2, make my joy complete by being like-minded, having the same love, being one in spirit and of one mind. 3Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit. Rather, in humility value others above yourselves, 4not looking to your own interests but each of you to the interests of the others.

3. We each might have different roles to play, some to abstain, some to comply. For some, sacrifices might mean to risk having the vax for the greater good, for others it may mean to risk the state's wrath by fighting to preserve civic freedom of conscience.

• Romans 14:1-23 The one who eats, eats in honor of the Lord, since he gives thanks to God, while the one who abstains, abstains in honor of the Lord and gives thanks to God. 7 For none of us lives to himself, and none of us dies to himself. 8 For if we live, we live to the Lord, and if we die, we die to the Lord. So then, whether we live or whether we die, we are the Lord's. 9 For to this end Christ died and lived again, that he might be Lord both of the dead and of the living. 10 Why do you pass judgment on your brother? Or you, why do you despise your brother? For we will all stand before the judgment seat of God; 11 for it is written, “As I live, says the Lord, every knee shall bow to me,  and every tongue shall confess[b] to God.” 12 So then each of us will give an account of himself to God.
• 1Corinthians 8:12 And so, by sinning against the brethren and wounding their conscience when it is weak, you sin against Christ.

4. Following Jesus in this matter should bring unity despite diversity of practice. We should respect others' decisions on this matter of conscience.

• Romans 12:3 think of yourself with sober judgment, in accordance with the faith God has distributed to each of you. 4 For just as each of us has one body with many members, and these members do not all have the same function, 5 so in Christ we, though many, form one body, and each member belongs to all the others.
• Philippians 2, make my joy complete by being like-minded, having the same love, being one in spirit and of one mind.

5. We respect that governments play a role under God:

• Romans 12:19 Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, “Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.”
• Romans 13:1-5 Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God… 4 for he is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer. 5 Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God's wrath but also for the sake of conscience.

6. But under God we may also resist a disproportionate response, and as citizens we may bring another authority to bear:

• Acts 25:11 For if I have done wrong and have committed anything worthy of death, I don’t refuse to die; but if none of those things is true that they accuse me of, no one can give me up to them. I appeal to Caesar!”
• Acts 4:18 Then they called them in again and commanded them not to speak or teach at all in the name of Jesus. 19 But Peter and John replied, “Which is right in God’s eyes: to listen to you, or to him? You be the judges! 20 As for us, we cannot help speaking about what we have seen and heard.”

7. So when it comes to a mandate: in good-conscience, listen to Jesus, and do what he says.

Bosses, it's simplistic to "just obey the government." Organisations have consciences, as well as the people in them. If your organisation-under-God protects people's conscience, stand by that, unless there is a really good and godly reason that outweighs it. If your organisation doesn't reference God, the consciences of your people still matter. So Christians, look to your God-given conscience, and prayerfully, sacrificially if need be, obey what Jesus tells you.

And whatever your call is, do be clear on how and when to resist a government mandate that does breach your line of good conscience. Because the greater good also requires civil liberty. And liberty of good conscience is important under God.

-----------
[1 - My view on vaccines? Consider them separately to the mandates issue. Good info accumulates here: https://creation.com/cmi-vaccination. Make an informed decision, weigh the risks of not having, as well as having. Then act accordingly.]

[2 - My view on mandates? Normally, forcing an injection upon people would be a breach of civil liberties, but the argument goes, it's ok if warranted by emergency conditions. So are we in emergency conditions? The emergency powers bill in WA was intended for short term emergencies such as earthquakes or floods, they were never intended for an ongoing situation like this, lockdowns of such magnitude and longitude were not envisioned. Once vaccines were available the use of emergency powers became disproportionate. Mandates should be subject to the normal scrutiny of any legislation. The costs of mandating vaccine status have been a disproportionate response for some time now. I am suspicious of the imposition of Pf&AZ to the exclusion of Novovax, Covax-19 (https://vaxine.net/projects/), and the broader immune response to the weaker Omicron..."Omicron has delivered us from Delta," (see Dr John Campbell at 5':30" and 7':19" here.)
Yes, if Covid came to WA earlier a wave of hospitalisations and deaths would have occurred, but this is inevitable anyway since emergency sanitary measures had suppressed normal death rates. Plus, we could have managed serious spikes with temporary field hospitals if necessary - all without a state of emergency, locked borders, lockdowns, exclusive vaccine mandates & compliance apartheid. I am suspicious of the continuance of these states of emergency.]

[* Update, 10 Jan 2024: 
"The People's Terms of Reference for a COVID-19 Royal Commission." I am a co-signatory of this call for a Royal Commission into how the pandemic was handled in Australia, so that power excesses & abuses don't recur.