Your system offers "sacrifices" to obtain favour from the gods. In this, you're no different from every other religious system. You differ only in what you call your pantheon. Our ancestors abandoned this faulty system for Christ, who inverted that relationship. We do not sacrifice to Christ to obtain His favour, but because He has already shown us favour through the sacrifice of Himself. Every system says, "I give so that you may give." Christianity says, "I give because he already gave." Stop siding with those who crucified Christ. Side with your ancestors who embraced him for more than 1,500 years.

These groups aren’t demanding freedom from religion. They are demanding the authority to impose their own religious convictions upon institutions, organisations, and individuals who disagree with them. Their “secular” morality is no less a system of belief simply because they refuse to call it a religion. What they cannot tolerate is the existence of an institution that recognises a moral authority higher than their own. It’s like demanding membership in a political party whose principles you reject, then insisting the entire party abandon its founding convictions to accommodate your membership. At that point, you’re not asking for inclusion. You are demanding the institution’s surrender. And that is precisely what these organisations seek from Christian schools: not the freedom to live according to their own convictions, but the power to prevent Christians from living according to theirs. caldronpool.com/p/feminist-g…

"Now, many will agree that there is something very wrong with the current state of our nation. An increasing number of Australians believe the country is on the wrong track, and they will even admit that this is largely due to the government’s immigration policies. They’ll acknowledge multiculturalism has divided our communities into nations within nations, that diversity has undermined national unity, and that the Australia we all know and love is at risk of being lost for good. But when it comes to offering a solution to that very visible problem, all we are given are meaningless platitudes and a lot of talk about some vague and arbitrary concept of “Aussie values.” Today we have just about everyone on the right of Labor talking tough about immigration reforms, but whenever they’re asked what they mean and what it will look like, it always comes back to a “values” test. Now, aside from the fact that no one is really able to define what these “Aussie values” are, or where these “values” originate, what we are effectively being told through their imagined “solution” is that the Anglo-Celtic people of Australia are inconsequential. We are being told that the descendants of Australia’s founding stock are unnecessary—that it doesn’t matter who inherits the house, provided they like Rugby, barbecues, and waving the Aussie flag. That is to say, we’re being told that Anglo-Celtic Australians are interchangeable. In other words, what they are saying is that if every Anglo-Celtic Australian were to be replaced by foreigners, the nation itself would remain the same, provided the new imports subscribed to 'Aussie values.' Of course, this is an absurd assertion, and its implications are untenable. Follow it to its logical conclusion, and you arrive at a definition of 'Australian' in which foreigners living in foreign nations can be considered more Australian than the descendants of Australia’s first settlers. Why? Because being Australian is no longer a matter of ancestry, heritage, or belonging, but of subscribing to whatever vague collection of 'Aussie values' happens to be fashionable at the time." Read more: A People and a Faith: Why Western Civilisation Needs Both - Evelyn Rae at BACPAC 2026 @Brit_Aus_Com caldronpool.com/p/a-people-a…