Image

The Moral Malaise in Public Life

In 1916 and 1917, during World War I, Australia went through two divisive referenda dealing with the issue of whether men could be conscripted for overseas service. In 2017 we have gone through a divisive plebiscite on the issue of whether only heterosexual couples can legally marry. One of the strange features of the whole business was the numerous expressions of moral outrage without any basis in a thought-out moral system. This is disturbing but hardly surprising. Unaccustomed as one is to agreeing with anything David Marr comes up with, he did recently point out in the Guardian that the……

In 1916 and 1917, during World War I, Australia went through two divisive referenda dealing with the issue of whether men could be conscripted for overseas service. In 2017 we have gone through a divisive plebiscite on the issue of whether only heterosexual couples can legally marry. One of the strange features of the whole business was the numerous expressions of moral outrage without any basis in a thought-out moral system. This is disturbing but hardly surprising.

Unaccustomed as one is to agreeing with anything David Marr comes up with, he did recently point out in the Guardian that the Christian case against same-sex unions has not relied on any straightforward claim that sexual activity outside heterosexual marriage is morally wrong. As he puts it: ‘the strategy is to soft-pedal Sodom.’ Now, as a strategy, there is much to be said for the Christian venture into the public arena to combat the giant of same-sex marriage. The emphasis was on the two related issues of freedom of conscience and expression, and the raising of children, and these are vitally important. That should be obvious to all except to those addicted to the same-sex mantra, which is surely dishonest, that these issues are completely separate.

It is perfectly in order for Christians not to raise the central moral issue when arguing a case. In pressing for the abolition of the slave trade, William Wilberforce admitted: ‘I have urged many things that are not my leading motives’. Yet he was driven by far more urgent motives, and declared:

There is a principle above everything that is political; and when I reflect on the command which says ‘Thou shalt do no murder,’ believing the authority to be divine, how can I dare to set up any reasonings of my own against it? And Sir, when we think in terms of eternity, and of the future consequences of all human conduct, what is there in this life that should make any man contradict the dictates of his conscience, the principles of justice, the laws of religion, and of God?’

Wilberforce would argue, for example, that slavery was against the economic interests of the plantation owner, but, in the end, as Wilberforce himself put it: ‘A man who acts from the principles I profess reflects that he is to give an account of his political conduct at the Judgement seat of Christ.’

As strong as the case against same-sex marriage is, it is ultimately built on the foundation that God who is holy tells sinners not to engage in immoral sexual behaviour. That moral foundation is missing today, and it is common for Christians to argue that we ought never appeal to it in the public arena. In the longer term that moral foundation will need to be re-established for any religious language to make sense.

A parallel example concerns the Reformation. To celebrate the Reformation as the trigger to democracy makes some sense, but it is grossly misleading. The 51% can do great harm, and in any case, Luther was mainly concerned with how a sinner could be in right standing with God. In January 2016 two philosophy teachers from Texas, Robert Frodeman and Adam Briggle, lamented that philosophy in the last century or so had lost its way when its ceased to be connected to goodness. Their sad conclusion was: ‘The pursuit of philosophy now is to be smart, not good. It has been the heart of our undoing.’

The NSW Department of Education has recently issued an ex cathedra decree which declares that sex education must not be taught in Scripture lessons, as the subject should be taught by professional educators according to the Personal Development, Health and Physical Education (PDHPE) curriculum – the same crew who brought the Safe Schools program to us. This has been accepted by Christian authorities to mean that we cannot teach all of the Ten Commandments or all of the Sermon on the Mount, or even read through all of Mark’s Gospel (because of passages like Mark 6:14-29; 10:1-12, 19). The prime text that is left concerns rendering unto Caesar all that is Caesar’s – and it appears that whatever Caesar says is Caesar’s is Caesar’s.

We can argue a good case in all areas, but ultimately Christians engaged in politics, philosophy, history and education need to point out that all these things find their meaning in Christ, who is the head of all things (Col.1:15-17).

Special Request:

For nearly eight years, we've highlighted issues ignored by mainstream media and resisted globalist ideologies eroding Western civilization. We've done this joyfully, without paywalls, despite personal costs to our team. Your support has kept us going, but operating costs exceed donations, forcing us to use ads. We’d love to ditch them, so we’re asking for your help. If you value our work, please consider supporting us via Stripe or PayPal. Every bit helps us keep fighting for our kids’ future. Thank you!

What's New?

Use the blue arrows at the bottom to scroll through the latest.
A Government That Won’t Acknowledge Christianity Can’t Defend the Nation

A Government That Won’t Acknowledge Christianity Can’t Defend the Nation

"By refusing to name its own moral foundations, the state undermines its ability to openly distinguish between belief systems that can coexist within its legal and moral order and those that fundamentally conflict with them. A society that cannot articulate its core moral commitments cannot coherently defend them."
By
by Staff WriterJan 16, 2026
Hate Speech Laws Are Just Blasphemy Laws

Hate Speech Laws Are Just Blasphemy Laws

"Blasphemy laws protect a society’s sacred object from verbal violation. Hate speech laws do the same, only the sacred object has changed. They are secularism’s answer to blasphemy law: enforcing reverence for the system’s ultimate values while denying that those values are religious at all."
By
by Staff WriterJan 15, 2026
Opposition Grows to Labor’s “Horrendous” Hate Speech Bill: “Worst Assault on Freedom Yet”

Opposition Grows to Labor’s “Horrendous” Hate Speech Bill: “Worst Assault on Freedom Yet”

Opposition to the federal government’s Combating Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism Bill 2026 is mounting across multiple parties, with MPs and senators warning that the rushed, broadly worded legislation threatens free speech, religious freedom and civil liberties while failing to address the causes of extremism.
By
by Staff WriterJan 15, 2026
Democrats Want Trump’s War Powers Limited Over a War With Venezuela That Doesn’t Exist

Democrats Want Trump’s War Powers Limited Over a War With Venezuela That Doesn’t Exist

“This Vote greatly hampers American self-defence and National Security, impeding the President’s Authority as Commander in Chief,” Trump wrote.
By
by Rod LampardJan 14, 2026
True Leaders Inspire Unity, Weak Men Legislate It

True Leaders Inspire Unity, Weak Men Legislate It

"Heavy-handed laws, by contrast, are a symptom of weakness—a last resort when authority has decayed, and coercion is all that remains."
By
by Staff WriterJan 13, 2026
Australians Sound Alarm Over New Draconian “Hate” Bill

Australians Sound Alarm Over New Draconian “Hate” Bill

"The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security has allowed less than 48 hours for public submissions on the 144-page draft bill."
By
by Staff WriterJan 13, 2026
Hate Speech Laws Are an Admission of Government Failure

Hate Speech Laws Are an Admission of Government Failure

"Hate speech laws are evidence that our governments can no longer inspire loyalty, trust, or solidarity. They are an admission that policymakers have no unifying vision capable of bringing diverse people together voluntarily. So instead, they use force."
By
by Ben DavisJan 13, 2026
UK Leads Talks With Canada and Australia on Potential X Ban

UK Leads Talks With Canada and Australia on Potential X Ban

"Free communication has always posed a problem for those who seek to centralise authority. Open platforms like X allow claims to be challenged, narratives to be contested, and power to be scrutinised. That is precisely why they become targets when governments feel uncomfortable, embarrassed, or threatened."
By
by Staff WriterJan 12, 2026

Image

Support

If you value our work and would like to support us, you can do so by visiting our support page. Can’t find what you’re looking for? Visit our search page.

Copyright © 2025, Caldron Pool

Permissions

Everything published at Caldron Pool is protected by copyright and cannot be used and/or duplicated without prior written permission. Links and excerpts with full attribution are permitted. Published articles represent the opinions of the author and may not reflect the views of all contributors at Caldron Pool.

Caldron Pool does not condone the use of violence, threats, or intimidation for political or religious purposes. We strongly advocate for peaceful, respectful, and free communication and open debate without fear of reprisal or punishment.