I've written about the oppressor-oppressed narrative, the socialist competition for victimhood that characterises progressive worldviews which undermine societies. And therefore the need to take responsibility, rather than blame someone else.  - Every time we blame someone else for our responses, we deplete our own power to handle our reactions.
Well, this applies not only at a political level ("the government should"), but also in education ("the school should"), and in personal social skills ("they should").

Here's a brilliant piece from Brooks Gibbs that treats the problem of victimhood by increasing personal skills and responsibility. Not by addressing the oppressor only, but by addressing the "oppressee" - to become a victim-no-more. This is not victim-blaming - this ends the cycle of blame.* 

Watch this: https://www.brooksgibbs.com/crash-play

Take the hour, and take notes. 
Activation - Belief - Consequence.
- I become more flexible with my beliefs about the event. 
- I articulate the event better (are they joking, criticising, bothering, hurting or controlling me.)
- I control my emotional response more thoughtfully, (Will I be mad, sad, bad, or glad.) 
- I choose my words intentionally, towards friendships if possible. 
- I overcome drivers of perfectionism and approvalism, with a stable and secure identity. 

In a world becoming crazier and trapped in conflict, become wiser and freer in one hour.

* Nuance alert: This is about how we think about ourselves. Criminals should still be charged. But will I allow "victim" to become my default identity? 

Q: Why is it that the Royal Commission, and Labor in general, can't bring itself to say anything discerning about any religion? 
A: Well this RC is framed and run by the self-named "socialist democratic party," and socialism has features that make it "not equipped to handle" antisemitism, religion or worldviews in general. 

Here are 6 examples:
1. Some socialists dream simplistically of harmonious Society. 
- So to criticise someone, even someone doing bad things, would upset the harmony. So rather than say no, say nothing. 
Observe Commissioner Bell claim, “it is not the Commission's purpose to shame or to so further division in our society much less to try and resolve the rights and wrongs of particular disputes.” 
Either that’s her socialism speaking, or that of those who framed the RC’s terms of reference, or both. 
But it prevents socialists from speaking against antisemites and allowed them to escalate under Labor. 

2. Socialists propose that religions are irrelevant to politics.
- So to admit that there are religious causes to social conflict would admit that religion actually matters in politics. That would open the door to public discourse about worldviews and politics. 

3. Some socialists believe their worldview is a special case, entitled to state power in a way that religious worldviews are not. They do not see theirs as one worldview among many at the public table. They do not believe it should be subject to limits of state influence. Their worldview is the state. Their church is the state. To them separation of church and state means separating only religions out of the state.
- So they propose limits to religious worldviews that they have no intention of applying to their own worldview.

4. Thinking they are "not religious" blinds them to their own impact on religions and morals. 
Socialists regularly introduce legislation not merely to allow their own moral codes but to restrict others from expressing dissenting views. In Australia from 2000-2025, 74 Laws have been passed on morals that restrict Christian freedoms to dissent. Almost all those laws came from socialists. Laws limiting religious discourse, same-sex relationships, marriage, surrogacy, religious organisations staff, abortion, gender self-identification, confession, VAD, family views, health care, prayer, conversion, religious education. 
- Socialists’ denial that their worldview has religious impact renders them unable to recognise religious causes of antisemitism or social conflict.

5. Socialists conflate all religions so they can consign them to silence.  
Socialists mistakenly want the public square to themselves so they can choreograph society in peace. Every dance troupe needs a choreographer - them. For the greater good.
And honest socialists admit they want to remove all religions from public life for various reasons - too disruptive, primitive, unscientific, regressive - but also because removing all religions removes almost all worldviews that might challenge their secular socialist state. They want to influence the whole public sector - all government services - to indoctrinate the public with their own worldview.
So socialists do not differentiate between religions, because to do so might allow a competing worldview to remain in public life. They think, "better to remove them all." 
Attempts to conflate-and-silence all religions are increasing, such as in January, as part of Labor’s post-Bondi legal reforms. Labour tried to introduce a criminal vilification offence. It was eventually removed during late night party negotiations with the Liberal Party, because it was revealed that the definitions of vilification were so broad as to potentially criminalise all religious criticism. 
Then months later, this RC heard Labor MPs advocating again for the introduction of a similar criminal vilification offence. (The Australian 29/8/26 p7).
So a criminal vilification offence will likely show up again as a recommendation from this Labor RC.
(Oh, and it happened again just today, with the Digital Duty of Care Bill.)
- Socialists try to conflate all religions to remove them all, and this prevents them from discussing religions with nuance or appreciation. 

6. Socialists don't want us to think well about religions.
Because thinking well about religions means thinking well about worldviews  - including socialism. Socialists don't want to be considered along with other worldviews, because this might expose that socialism's secularity does not make it a neutral, but a negative worldview. Why? Because: 
. Excluding all supernatural worldviews from public discourse actually ignores a primary aspect of society's shared national cooperative, that in reality needs proper expression and negotiation.
. Repressing religions represses freedom of conscience, freedom of religious discourse and free belief. This inevitably requires more surveillance and control to the point of totalitarianism. For the greater good of course. 
. Another worldview is better at handling social cohesion. One that can openly address religions because it is one. One that believes in the equality and dignity of all. One that has reasonable constraints, but advocates freedom for all. One proven by history. One that is not culturally bound. One that can unite Australia yet allow competing worldviews. 
- So to prevent us from such thoughts, socialists tend to think or say little about religions. 

That's half a dozen reasons why socialism is "not equipped to handle" antisemitism or social cohesion. 

What do you call a can-opener that doesn't open cans? 
What do you call an investigation that doesn't investigate causes?
Whatever it is, that’s what you can call this Royal Commission into antisemitism and social cohesion. A non-Commission. A Royal Omission. It is avoiding its primary commission - to investigate the causes, to hopefully identify solutions. 

Last week the RC's public hearings closed, without having interrogated any sources of antisemitism. Think of that! 

The RC had ASIO submit about declines in national security measures under National Security Committee ministerial oversight, despite increasing National Security warnings about probable threats, particularly to Jews in Australia. (The Weekend Australian 5-6/9/26). And yet no government ministers responsible for these downgrades were interrogated. Ministers who allowed antisemitic threats to continue. Including the Prime Minister's role as chair of the National Security Committee of cabinet. Yesterday Howard called on Albanese to volunteer to face the music if the RC won't call him. 
We had the laws necessary to intercept and prosecute public antisemitic incitement to violence, but ministers responsible failed to approve their use. This RC failed to interrogate them. 

We all witnessed various public scenes of leaders inciting crowds to antisemitic violence, and yet:
No hate preachers were interrogated.
No anti-Israel or anti-Zionist lobbyists, protesters or organisers,
No Palestine Action Group leaders, no pro-Palestine protesters,
No university protest organisers were interrogated.
No socialist paper editors or authors,
No muslim,
No Nazi,
No promoters of anti-semitic views by Greens or The Muslim Vote. (The Australian 29/8/26 p15).
No one who has been publicly on record inciting antisemitic violence has been interrogated by this Royal Commission.

Commissioner Bell justified, “it is not the Commission's purpose to shame or to so further division in our society much less to try and resolve the rights and wrongs of particular disputes.”  

Imagine this justification being used by other RCs! 
Past Royal Commissions interrogated and even prosecuted the guilty. This is how they found solutions. Think of priests at the RC into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse. Heads rolled at NAB during the Banking RC. The RC heard plenty of victim statements, but so far has investigated none of the perpetrators identified. 

If the terms of reference are so narrow they won't allow interrogation of perpetrators and enablers, then they must be broadened!  Otherwise this can-opener won't open cans. 

In the future, some will claim we “already had a RC into antisemitism.” But did we really? Clearly we should call this the Royal Omission. 

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.

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. 

The Royal Commission on Antisemitism and Social Cohesion wants to hear from us citizens about what is causing social division, above and beyond antisemitism. Submissions open until the end of May. Make a submission. My submission starts like this: 
In my professional work, I teach widely about worldviews and their influence on how we behave, individually and as groups and societies. Subcultural groups and government departments are no exception. Our worldviews prompt our behaviours. I offer six causes of antisemitism and social division in Australia, and specific solutions to them. 

1. Antisemitism Observed, and Security allowing it
2. Socialism 
   
3. Radical Islam [edit: note this info.]
   
4. Neo-Nazi Nationalist Racism 
5. Indigenous divisions 
6. Obscuring Judeo-Christian values 

Citizen Go asked me what I see as the big issues beneath the political seismic rumblings of our day. 
Many feel the ground shifting beneath our feet.

1. It is the seismic rumbling of worldviews.
The Hanson train appreciates the value of the historic Judaeo-Christian faith that gave rise to the Western Values upon which Australia was Federated. Grinding against this is the Secular Socialism that now characterises the Labor Party and secular progressives more broadly. Liberals and Nationals are torn between the two. 
Many people don't think deeper than the competing value sets of party platforms. Many don't even think about the value sets; they just vote with their gut, which is also tainted by human fallenness. But beneath the team colours, beneath the Party Platforms and value sets, are competing foundational worldviews.
If these worldview foundations continue to be overlooked, the current rumbling will worsen into earthquakes.
Australian society will continue down a well-worn track of socialism producing decline economically, socially, spiritually, and personally. Socialism historically leads to communism, or these days is more more likely to be replaced by political/militant Islam imitating Mohammed who was a religious, political, then military leader. 
Why would I say Islam? Because since the Ottoman Empire fell, history keeps repeating that trajectory in country after country around North Africa, the Middle East, Europe, across the 10-40 window into Asia down to Indonesia. See Ayaan Hirsi Ali on this. 
Can Australians fail to notice the manoeuvrings of Socialists in inner city politics, and of Islam into the suburbs? 
Christianity has had a stabilising and creative influence on Western culture. It is responsible for the unique goods of Western civilisations, especially in the federation projects of USA, Australia, and in the Pacific. The more nations adhere to Bible-based value sets, the more fair and free they became, conversely the further they stray from the Bible the less fair or free they become. 
Secular socialism has had a destabilising effect. Without a Biblical reference point, factions devolve into tribal power struggles over whatever each tribe deems is right in their own eyes. 
Islam has historically sought to ultimately dominate. Since the rise of Hitler, Islam has entered nations on the coat-tails of Christian compassion and socialist destabilisation, migrating as a religion, then becoming political then militant - just like Mohammed. "The ballot or the bullet." Ratcheting in Sharia Law. 
These worldviews change the fortunes of nations. Which do we want? That's my clarion call to voters. 

2. Reducing Freedoms of Conscience
But, some assert, doesn't a Christian-based government dominate others too? No. 
The Bible-based federation projects (USA, Australia, Pacific) were explicit about freedoms of conscience. Even as Australian federation assumed "humbly relying on Almighty God," and even as Christians educated people to submit to God and upheld Judeo-Christian jurisprudence, Christianity also instituted freedom for people to dis-believe it. 
Over time such freedoms became more detailed, such as removing anti-gay laws, so that you could believe and practice your persuasion. But it was not expected that the Judeo-Christian political worldview that gave rise to such freedoms should be overthrown. 
But socialism has sought to upend Christianity as the freedom-protecting worldview of our federation. "Conservatives" - which now appears to be code for those who articulate a biblical worldview - are wrongly labelled as extremists and oppressive.
Now in 2026 we see socialist governments impose legislations that increasingly restrict Christian freedoms. For example, removing the freedom to disagree about gay lifestyles, on threat of job loss, defunding, heavy fines, prison time. We are now seeing increasing totalitarian overreach, enforcing socialist worldview, excluding biblical worldview. History repeating. 
The need for religious education, worldview education, across all sectors of society cannot be understated. 

3. God
Meanwhile, beneath these worldview tectonic plates is the Ground of all being - God.
The Christian worldview offers God in a unique way that Indigenous animism does not, Socialism doesn't, and Islam doesn't.
Australia's founders knew that, said so, and assumed Christianity generally underlay the Constitution. "Humbly relying on the blessing of Almighty God." 
As much as worldview education would really help the world, it is only God who ultimately brings growth/blessing. Deuteronomy 11 is specific that God will bless or curse, depending on whether "we" will try to follow Him or not. 
Widespread personal repentance is key. This too underscores the importance of religious ed, because "we" need to recognise that we need God. There's no good reason to avoid saying so. 

Notice: Australia was not intended to be a theocracy, such as Islam, or as Anglo and Roman governments of the dark ages have tried - in fact having learned from the Reformation, the founders of federation sought to avoid that. But they did assume that the Bible would be its reference point. Not a Christian organisation such as the Anglican church or Catholic church. Sure, we can argue a lot about how to interpret the Bible, but at least we'd be on the same page. 
And so to participate in the democracy as envisaged, our public needs to recapture its Biblical literacy. 
(Also note that Bible-literacy can be manipulated, and has been  by the left in its coopting of the language of human rights and Christian civics, while replacing the meanings of those words with their own definitions. Labor's Platforms should be read through Socialist lenses, not projecting Christian values - the two readings reveal very different visions.) 
Christianity sees the need for government to make room for unbelievers to disbelieve. The rain of good governance should fall on both believers & unbelievers alike. Government is not to force belief, which is the true definition of the separation of church and state. But government should protect the Christian belief that makes it protect freedom of conscience. 

4. The race card furphy
Another danger is referring to race rather than values & foundations. We don't want "white Australia," we want Judeo-Christian values Australia. I know it's harder to say, but melanin levels are not the point!
Besides, because Christianity is the only truly cross-cultural worldview, we have Christians from every country sharing Christian core values. But also, Christianity discerns the good from the bad in every culture, including Australia's. That value set is what we need to appeal to.
It's a value set that can evidently be appreciated by those who don't believe the worldview itself, because of its uniquely freedom-producing consequences. 
"White" does not describe any of that. It is so simplistic as to be wrong. Neo-Nazis need education about this.

[Update: 4b. Multicultural equivocation and as foundation
"Multiculturalism" needs definition. Do we mean to celebrate all cultural differences indiscriminately? including values that would undermine and dominate the country? everyone pulling in disparate directions causing endless conflicts? Or do we define it to mean those various cultural forms below an agreed set of unifying values.
"Monoculturalism"? The word begs the question, what do you mean by that. If you mean all levels of cultural expression must be the same, it is gross overreach.  But if you mean one set of core values that keeps the country unified in a healthy way, to which all citizens should subscribe regardless of their other cultural forms, then yes. Obviously without that a country tears apart. 
If we define words reasonably, we might come to an agreement: multicultural about our various cultural forms, yet monocultural about a set of unifying values. Then we just need to be clear about that core values set, assumed at federation...  
- HOWEVER, that's the cause of this seismic problem - our Government does NOT agree on that unifying core values set. Let us speak plainly about this.
Socialists are consciously seeking to remove & replace Christian core values, with their own. Socialism sees the State as the Saviour, not God. So they seek to remove Christian freedoms of faith, family and foundations, from the public square. 
- See the 74 Acts of Parliament since 2000, that restrict Christian freedoms.
- See recent moves to remove the Lord's Prayer from parliament's standing orders.
- See Albanese Labor Government’s Home Affairs Multicultural Framework Review, “Towards Fairness: A multicultural Australia for all.” Read alarm bells here. Listen to Labor sawing off Christian heritage: 
This Home Affairs Dept review says the "nation itself is inherently multicultural." Multicultural. This simplistically ignores the massive national influence of Christian-based British parliamentary democracy, Federation, common law, English language, Christian moral assumptions, civic duty, self-government, military sacrifice, the fair go, loyalty to one flag. All the things that made modern Australia recognisably Australian are treated as background material, while pushing multiculturalism as THE great organising principle. 
The review refers to “violent attempts to eradicate anything deemed counter to Western Anglo society.” It says legal and political structures enabled “Anglo dominance” while reducing the significance of other cultures. It complains that past government responses promoted “shared Australian values” that all groups were expected to follow. It says the move toward “social cohesion” included “assimilationist attitudes.” It even says social cohesion has become problematic “to the point where the term itself has become problematic.” 
It refers to a “once-in-a-generation reform agenda.” This is conscious root-removal, a “whole-of-government and community approach,” to “drive social change.” 
It calls for “continuously applying an intersectional, gender-equality lens to multicultural policy and services.” This is Critical Race Theory, Critical Gender Theory - victimhood theory. Affirm every culture as oppressed, except for the one blamed as the oppressor - ie. the Judeo-Christian values set that can actually unify us under Almighty God.
This government review proposes re-education by its proposed "Multicultural Affairs" offices, with compliance regimes and KPIs... Labor's "social justice" agenda is to remove the values of "Anglo, colonist Christianity," and replace them with their socialist values of oppression-survivors complying with their final authorities - their Government. 
That is the sound of political ground shifting.] 

5. Name the worldviews & values
The Australian Christian Party get it - its in the name.
One Nation is trying to name these values & issues. And name ensuing practical issues.
- They've rightly named "Australian values" as Judeo-Christian.
- And the need for social cohesion.
- They've rightly named the discord caused by Welcome to country ceremonies, the need to become One nation, not co-sovereigns. Christian Values such as "humbly relying on Almighty God," clash with indigenous animism, tribalism, and with the socialism that drives much of government and corporate efforts in Aboriginal lands. 
- They've rightly named political Islam and its over-representation in immigration. 
- They've rightly named simple mathematics when it comes to immigration numbers. 
They've been criticised for being racist when they name these things, but that's the detractors being guilty of simplistic racism in their own categories. 
Jacinta Price and Tony Abbott get it. Does the Liberal Party get it yet, after their long dalliance with 'progressives' within? Depends if the conservative swing is a return of conviction or just a ploy for the popular vote. They need not compete with One Nation, but cooperate.

6. All the green facts
The "Green Economy" has taken so long to release all the relevant facts that we can now surmise it must be ignoring or refusing the relevant facts, otherwise they would produce them, right? Fair to ask if  the facts are not forthcoming because they don't fit the policies & interests?
Page Research Centre has made the best effort I've seen of trying to collate them - the total costs involved, from producing infrastructure to maintenance to disposal, and, equally relevant, all the scientific facts about CO2 and the biosphere's complex capacities to process it over time and long cycles. CO2 levels may indeed be a red herring, such that other adaptive changes are being ignored. 
Scientific "consensus" has become a power play by a mix of political and financial interests. Science always progresses from the margins, not the consensus.
Normal value-driven Aussies have waited for the relevant facts, but we're still waiting and are getting suspicious. Many smell a rat around the push for the electric grid, we are concerned that we could be literally disempowered by the flick of a switch. But we don't have the words or facts to describe the truth accurately. Who can provide the facts & words we're groping for? We appreciate it when some tries to ask these questions. Even more when they try to give the answers. 

7. Fact-based reporting
We need a reliable media outlet that gives actual facts, not just opinions. There are some, but they are dispersed and underfunded. Support the causes of groups like: The Australian newspaper. Jerusalem Post. Discovery Institute (Center for Science and Culture). Creation.com. The Page Research Centre. Australian Christian Lobby. Australian Christian Party. Freedom for Faith. Australia Christian Freedom Index. The Canberra Declaration. 

ARC (Alliance for Responsible Citizens) is full of good papers and thinking on such issues as these.

Well, that's my brain dump for you. For what it's worth.

A thought about reactions to the Ayatollah’s death. 
Many who celebrated the death of Charlie Kirk, are now openly mourning the death of the Ayatollah as leader of their religion. Some commentators are defending this grief in the name of religious freedom, but they are equating violent Islam with all religions. 
What values does such mourning and commentary mirror? To ourselves and to our governing authorities. 

Nuance check - 
- Yes, we may mourn that a human being has died. 
- Yes, people can be forgiven for irrationality in grief. 
- Plus, I also mourn that it has come to this: that some so misguidedly agree with the views and violence of the IRGC and their terrorist proxies, that they must be so forcefully resisted. 
- And such sword-bearing is not the authority of private citizens. But it is within the avenging authority of governments (Romans 12:17-13:4). 

Equivocation check - 
For discerning governing authorities, mourning the death of the Ayatollah as a leader of your religion is NOT equivalent to mourning the death of the Pope as a leader of my religion. 
- Is your religion the Ayatollah’s religion? It explicitly incites violence against unbelievers and the imposition of his republic by force. This is a worldview from which unbelievers of goodwill must be protected. 
- Is your religion the Pope’s religion? It explicitly calls for peace even with unbelievers, and conversion by informed and free conscience. This is a worldview that unbelievers of goodwill must protect. 
(Note: even if Popes of the past did try to impose their religion on others by force, a rare and overblown instance, Christians themselves opposed this as NOT true Christian religion.) 
- Muslims who do mourn the Ayatollah as leader of their religion are aligning themselves with his Islam, one violently opposed to Australian-Citizenship-values. 
- Muslims who support Australian values for all (not just for muslims) would NOT be equivalent to the Ayatollah’s religion. They ought not mourn him as leader of their religion, lest they equivocate peaceful Islam with violent Islam. 

​To equivocating governments and commentators, I say, under legislation about incitement to violence, Australian citizens who violently oppose Australian citizenship values are forfeiting their Australian citizenship rights, by arrest or deportation. 

What does your reaction reflect to our government about your worldview and citizenship? 

PS: For muslim friends - a 60 day series of readings with the Prophets.