Values over nationalism

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. 

---