61 of 74 Laws Restricting Christian Freedom Came from Labor Governments

61 of 74 Laws Restricting Christian Freedom Came from Labor Governments

From Daily Declaration

The Australian Christian Freedom Index documented 74 Acts of Parliament that have restricted Christian freedom over the past 25 years. Which parties and worldviews restrict Christian freedoms in Australia — and why?

I’ve spent a lot of time teaching people about worldviews. Because worldviews shape our actions — and Acts of Parliament.

Worldviews are our mental maps of reality — you want them to be accurate. They’re our underlying assumptions about what is true, what matters, and how the world works. Most people don’t consciously think about their worldviews, even though worldviews automate many of their actions.

For example, at footy training with many balls in the air, we often hear a warning, “Heads!” And everyone in the vicinity reels. Now the fact is, the ball can only hit one of us, yet all six of us react — because in that moment, our actions are shaped less by the fact itself than by what we believe the fact to be. Our beliefs about truth shape our worldviews, which shape our values, which shape our choices and actions.

Worldviews in Politics

Worldviews also shape actions in politics.

Some claim this only applies to religious conservatives. They complain that Christians vote according to their worldview, while progressives somehow operate from a neutral, objective place. They pressure conservatives to keep quiet about their foundational truths lest they shape their values and choices.

And yet progressives also possess foundational truth-claims, and assumptions about morality, identity, and human flourishing – and act accordingly. Yet they see no need for “separation of their beliefs and state,” because their beliefs are the state. So, their assumptions continue to shape their worldviews, their particular values, choices and actions… And sometimes those actions are Acts of Parliament.

2025 Australian Christian Freedom Index and 74 Acts of Parliament

This was in my mind as I read the Australian Christian Freedom Index 2025.

One of its more startling findings is that since 2000, Australian federal and state governments have enacted 74 Acts of Parliament that have reduced Christian freedom, with more than half of those passed in the last five years.

As someone who studies worldviews, my immediate questions were: Who passed these laws? What were their worldviews? Who do we need to avoid?

I already suspected that the decline of Christian freedom was not just the result of fewer Australians holding a Christian worldview. It was also the result of governments increasingly operating from worldviews that replaced biblical foundations with their own secular truth claims.

History repeatedly shows that belief systems moving away from biblical truths eventually regard Christianity as an irritant to be contained, marginalised or removed. For decades, we’ve seen this happen in various forms, from within Islam, ancestral animism and secular socialism.

I went looking for the worldviews behind the 74 Acts.

Which Governments Passed Acts Restricting Christian Freedom?

On pages 77 to 80 of the Australian Christian Freedom Index 2025, all 74 Acts are listed with the year they were enacted. So, I cross-checked which governments were in office at the time of each.

Who passed each, and what were their worldviews?

61 of the 74 Acts were passed by Labor governments.

8 were passed by Coalition governments generally regarded as socially moderate or progressive: Turnbull, Berejiklian, Marshall and Gutwein.

5 were passed by Coalition governments that could be described as more conservative: the Hodgman government’s Mandatory Reporting 2018, and the Marriage and Gender amendments 2018; the Morrison government’s Online Safety 2021, and the Respect at Work legislation in 2021; and the Perrottet government’s Voluntary Assisted Dying legislation in 2022. Some of these were passed under new federal constraints, and/or under pressure from progressive elements within their parties.

Labor Party Worldview

Labor openly declares itself to be a democratic socialist party, as a core objective in its Constitution (page 4).

Progressives tend in the same direction, toward moral frameworks defined by secular assumptions rather than biblical ones. Doug Wilson pointed to 1 Samuel 8:11–17 and Deuteronomy 17:15–17 as biblical warnings about governments accumulating power and overreaching their proper boundaries. The state increasingly becomes the primary authority for defining rights and social morals. Socialist Karl Marx was explicit in his criticism of the Church, the nuclear family and private property as oppressive structures.

Worldviews automate actions.

That’s why voting citizens need to learn to discern which worldviews animate which political parties.

Yet many Labor voters have no idea that Labor is socialist, let alone what that means. Some voters read the Labor party platforms, but through Christian lenses when they should read them through socialist lenses to recognise what they really mean, even as they coopt the language of human rights.

And what also tells us what they really mean are their actions. The bills they introduce, the debts they accrue and why, the harms they allow, the restrictions they introduce… the Acts of Parliament.

If we fail to name those parties and worldviews that restrict our freedoms of conscience, aren’t we giving them tacit approval, free passage toward increasing their totalitarianism?

Surely, we have already allowed too much from parties and factions animated by socialist and progressive worldviews.

Read which governments passed which of the 74 Acts restricting Christian freedom and when here.

Charges Dropped Against Christian Woman Arrested After Silently Praying in Her Head Outside Clinic — but She Plans to Continue the Battle

 

Photo: Alliance Defending Freedom UK

U.K. authorities have dropped charges against a charity worker who was criminally charged for praying near an abortion clinic, but her case might be far from over.

Listen to the latest episode of CBN’s Quick Start podcast 👇

Crown Prosecution Service’s (CPS) charges against Isabel Vaughan-Spruce have been dismissed, but she has no plans of stepping away from the legal battle.

According to a press release from her attorneys with Alliance Defending Freedom UK, Vaughan-Spruce “will continue to await justice as she states her intention to pursue full dismissal of her charges.”

Uncertainty as to her legal rights has led the charity worker to fear potential new charges or legal issues moving forward, so she’s looking for a “clear verdict in court.”

“Given the nature of Vaughan-Spruce’s regular voluntary work in offering charitable support to women in crisis pregnancies near abortion facilities, the discontinuance has left her with significant legal unclarity moving forward, given that CPS made clear that the charges ‘may well start again’ in the near future subject to further evidential review,” the statement reads.

As CBN News previously reported, Vaughan-Spruce, the director of the UK March for Life, was arrested in Birmingham, England, this past December after she said she “might” be silently praying when questioned as to why she was standing on a public street near an abortion clinic.

Vaughan-Spruce was reportedly silent before police approached her and had no signage in her hands. Her offense? According to CBN News, authorities received complaints from an onlooker who suspected she was praying silently in her mind in a so-called “censorship zone.”

Video of her police encounter went viral and sparked an international reaction. Vaughan-Spruce can be seen in the clip interacting with police and explaining she “might” be praying in her head but isn’t protesting. “You’re under arrest,” a cop proclaims in the viral video before detaining her.

The City of Birmingham maintains buffer zones around abortion clinics; these designations render it illegal for people to engage “in any act of approval or disapproval” surrounding abortion, including through “verbal or written means, prayer or counseling.”

Through Vaughan-Spruce’s ADF UK attorneys, she explained why she’s forging on to seek a more definitive conclusion clarifying her legal rights.

“It can’t be right that I was arrested and made a criminal, only for praying in my head on a public street,” she said. “So-called ‘buffer zone legislation’ will result in so many more people like me, doing good and legal activities like offering charitable support to women in crisis pregnancies, or simply praying in their heads, being treated like criminals and even facing court.”

Vaughan-Spruce said she wants to be able to continue her pro-life charity work and, in order do to so, she wants to have a clear legal status.

“Many of us need an answer as to whether it’s still lawful to pray silently in our own heads,” she continued. “That’s why I’ll be pursuing a verdict regarding my charges in court.”

 

Silent Prayer Now A Thought Crime in UK

Silent prayer, just looking like you might be praying, is now a crime in some parts of the UK.

From spiked-omline.com

Thoughtcrime is now a reality in Britain

Why was an activist arrested for praying silently in the street?

ANDREW TETTENBORN

Share

 
TopicsFREE SPEECHPOLITICSUK

A recent event in suburban Birmingham offers a stark reminder of the threat to free speech posed by Britain’s censorious state.

Earlier this month, Isabel Vaughan-Spruce was standing silently in a public street. She was doing, saying and displaying absolutely nothing, apparently lost in thought. A policeman approached her. He asked if she was inwardly praying. When she said she might have been, he immediately arrested her, took her to a police station and searched her. Last week, Vaughan-Spruce was told she faces prosecution.

How did this happen? First, Vaughan-Spruce was known to be a member of a pro-life organisation. And second, she was within 150 metres of an abortion clinic, inside a so-called buffer zone. In September, Birmingham City Council introduced a Public Space Protection Order (PSPO), which makes any ‘act of approval or disapproval’ toward abortion in the surroundings of the clinic a criminal offence, on pain of a £1,000 fine. This restriction applies to any expression related to abortion services, by any method: whether by graphic, verbal or written means, prayer or counselling, or in any other way. So Vaughan-Spruce’s alleged silent prayer was apparently enough. Someone had disapproved of her presence and asked the police to get rid of her. All the ploddingly literal-minded copper needed was Vaughan-Spruce’s admission that she might have been privately communing with her god and might therefore have been illegally praying in a restricted area.

 

Whatever your view on abortion, even if you are strongly pro-choice, this whole episode should worry you immensely. The implications for personal liberty are terrifying. If an arrest for silent prayer is not an instance of Orwellian ‘thoughtcrime’, then I don’t know what is.

Worse still, the restrictions set out in the PSPO give the police huge scope to silence outspoken campaigners. Police can order someone they believe to be breaking a PSPO’s rules to leave the area immediately and to give their name and address. Alleged rulebreakers can also be arrested or fined. After Vaughan-Spruce’s arrest, matters only got worse. As part of her conditions of bail, she was banned from engaging in public prayer, even outside the bounds of the PSPO. Initially, she was even told not to have any contact with a local Catholic priest active in the pro-life movement (though this condition has since been dropped). Nobody should ever be subject to such draconian restrictions on their expression.

 

Read the full article here

Andrew Thorburn Vindicated For Faith Position

Andrew Thorburn, who was briefly CEO of Essendon AFL Club in October before being sacked for belonging to a church, has settled with the club over the affair.

The original issue was big news, but you have to go digging through the news sites to find the latest development. Typical of the spineless media.

Thorburn has at all times acted with integrity and in a Christ-like attitude, and it is good to see him being vindicated.

As one commentator noted this morning, there is a fair level of legal protection of religious beliefs in Australia, even though most corporations just bow to the woke mob on these issues. Hopefully there will be more recognition of the concept of freedom of religion in the public sphere.

Recently re-elected Victoria Premier Daniel Andrews also needs to make an apology to Thorburn for his slanderous and vicious comments in October, but I wouldn’t hold my breath waiting for that.

From the ABC on MSN:

Essendon Football Club apologises to Andrew Thorburn over handling of his short stint as CEO

 
 
 

The Essendon Football Club has apologised to former CEO Andrew Thorburn over the way it handled the events leading to his departure after just one day in the role.

Mr Thorburn was appointed as the Bombers CEO in October, but resigned a day later after public commentary over his involvement in a church which had shared controversial views about homosexuality and abortion.

Mr Thorburn said at the time it was clear to him that his personal Christian faith was “not tolerated or permitted in the public square”, despite his leadership record.

In a joint statement released on Tuesday, the two parties said they had resolved the dispute over the matter and would work to “enable a wider community conversation on the importance of freedom of conscience, religion and belief”.

Essendon Football Club said it acknowledged “that the events of October should have been handled better and apologises for the impact it had on Mr Thorburn, his family and others”.

“Both parties consider that elements of the public commentary at the time were extreme and wrong and counter-productive to the respectful community dialogue they agree is critical,” the statement said.

 

“Mr Thorburn remains welcome at the Club. The Club reiterates that he is a person of integrity who treats others, whether at work or elsewhere, with dignity and respect.

“He has a strong track record of leadership including with respect to diversity and inclusion of LGBTIQ and other minority groups.”

The statement noted genuine diversity should include people of faith and “everyone should be able to openly express their personal position, in a respectful way, without fear and still feel that they belong”.

As part of the dispute resolution, the Essendon Football Club will make a donation to an ethics institute to prepare a paper on how sporting organisations can build “inclusive communities recognising freedoms including those relating to race, religion and sexuality”.

The statement did not specify which institute would be funded to prepare the paper.