
Humbly Relying on Almighty God — Remember When Australia Did That?
We’ve traded faith for fragility, unity for division. It’s time to return to the values that made this country great.
- Australia was founded as a Christian nation, and our Constitution reflects that heritage, beginning with the words “Humbly relying on the blessing of Almighty God.”
- Section 116 was never intended to make Australia secular, it was written by our Christian founders to prevent state interference in religion, not to remove Christianity from public life.
- Historical figures like Henry Parkes affirmed that Australia’s laws, system of governance, and Constitution were based on Christian belief.
- Modern left-wing activists and judges have deliberately misinterpreted Section 116 to portray Australia as a secular country, distorting its original intent and historical truth.
- Christianity has been the moral and cultural foundation of Australia’s unity, prosperity, and national identity, drifting away from it has led to division, confusion, and moral decline.
Australia was founded as a Christian country and has always remained so. Any attempts by the Left to deny this crucial part of our history must be met with strong resistance.
Constitutional Provision
The Left will argue that Australia is a secular, non-religious nation because Section 116 of the Australian Constitution states:
“The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion… or prohibiting the free exercise of any religion…”
Sounds modern and inclusive, right? Wrong! Proves their point? No! It does the opposite!
3 Comments
Leave A Comment
Recent Articles:
23 September 2026
4 MINS
A renewed petition targets pro-life law professor Dr Joanna Howe, as she and husband James fight back against claims they say have damaged their careers and reputation.
23 September 2026
6.6 MINS
Government-funded research on boys, masculinity and the manosphere deserves rigorous scrutiny, especially when contested theories begin shaping education, regulation and public policy.
23 September 2026
4.2 MINS
For too long, maintaining regional Victoria’s crumbling roads has been an issue of “out of sight, out of mind” for the state’s incumbent Labor government.
23 September 2026
4.7 MINS
John Anderson challenges Nyadol Nyuon’s rejection of Anglo-Celtic culture, arguing that immigration, social cohesion, shared values and economic pressures cannot be separated.
23 September 2026
3.9 MINS
Italy’s euthanasia debate has reached a troubling new stage, with doctors facing criminal investigation after refusing to participate in assisted suicide.
22 September 2026
6.3 MINS
A remarkable journey to Mount Ebal explores Joshua’s altar, fascinating archaeological discoveries and the enduring biblical significance of Samaria and Israel’s ancient heritage.
22 September 2026
2.9 MINS
A downed US airman credits God, training and teamwork after surviving a devastating fall over Iran and enduring a remarkable rescue mission.






Great article. There are heaps of State and Federal Government laws now that are used by third parties to target Christians in the courts, particularly by LGTB etc. groups, medical authorities, and woke companies. The Constitution says that no laws shall be made that inhibit the free exercise of religion. The free exercise of religion (Christianity in this case) inherently involves the right to proclaim biblical beliefs. To me, these laws violate the Australian Constitution, and I wonder why I never hear of anybody or group who are targetted in the courts using this as a defence. Maybe they do and the courts ignore this.
Aye, there’s the problem: Section 116 does not restrict the states from doing whatever they want with regard to religion. An amendment is needed. Perhaps this:
The Commonwealth, nor any government of a state or territory which is part of 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 or said states or territories.
Great comments. Regarding Federal and State law, my understanding is that, if there is a Federal law on anything, then this overrides any state law on the same thing. In this case, if State law attacks and inhibits the free exercise of religion (e.g. praying for the healing of a sexually confused person), then Federal law makes this illegal as it overrides the State law.