Family history has it that I was expelled from the St Andrews Church of England Sunday school for talking too much. Given this, I am probably ill-equipped to discuss Christianity, freedom of religion, and multiculturalism in the context of the Bondi massacre, but I will because I still talk too much…

My family wasn’t much into religion. When I grew up, it was fashionable to disparage Christianity – it was old-fashioned on censorship and birth control and much more. It was fashionable to be a ‘humanist’, which was a kind of low-fat Christianity – being nice to people but without spiritualism. But for all the disavowal of Christianity in the 60s and 70s, it is fundamental to the central tenets of the Western secular state.

It sounds like an oxymoron, but our secular state is Christian at its core.

‘Render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s’ sets up the secular State. I will skip the Renaissance, the Reformation, the English Civil War, the Enlightenment, the founding of the United States, and much more in the interest of time (thank God!).

Author Tom Holland has made the case that the Woke agenda is, in essence, Christian in that Christ’s ministry was essentially one about caring for the less fortunate. The parable of the Good Samaritan says that being a good neighbour is a universal responsibility, not one defined by a community, and that is now part of how the modern state operates providing equality, human rights, and welfare.

It is that inherent Christianity that makes multiculturalism possible in a secular state. Post Bondi, the limits of multiculturalism are sadly on display.

What if a group that doesn’t respect the separation of Church and state, that isn’t about the welfare of us all, and that finds a turned cheek to be an invitation to strike is allowed to fester within the body politic? What if a religion is also an alternative political construct that is antithetical to our modern secular state?

Let’s go back to the beginnings of multiculturalism.

In Australia, that beginning came with the Whitlam government in 1973 and was endorsed by the Fraser government and subsequent governments of both colours. Those were more innocent times. In 1970, in the wake of US race riots, the UK pop group Blue Mink released a song called Melting Pot. ‘What we need is a great big melting pot.’ The idea that all of the racial groups would just blend to churn out ‘coffee coloured people by the score’ was well received. Melting Pot charted in the UK and Ireland and reached number 10 in Australia. The lyrics would not pass politically correct modern standards, but at the time no one doubted the virtue of us all being lumped together ‘what a beautiful dream / if it could only come true’.

Multiculturalism with assimilation has produced a very successful Australian cultural melting pot in my view, but it carries with it risks as Bondi has revealed.

There are lots of countries who aren’t that keen on the melting pot described by Blue Mink. Finland, Japan, South Korea, Hungary, and the Czech Republic are some examples. Some countries place more emphasis on social cohesion and see multiculturalism as a threat to that. Countries like the Netherlands, Denmark, and the United Kingdom are moving from multiculturalism to a more assimilationist approach.

It should be noted that in the Netherlands and Denmark the challenges of managing growing numbers of immigrants from the Middle East has resulted in policies we hardly recognise for countries so often held up by the progressive left as models of toleration, welfare, and state intervention.

Denmark found that the continuation of its welfare state itself was at risk of becoming unsustainable. Governments of the left and the right became concerned about poor levels of integration and the formation of Islamic ghettos. In 2004, then-Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen warned of areas where ‘the men are unemployed, the women are isolated, and the families speak only the language of their home country’. In response, the Danish government moved to sell off and demolish public housing to force dispersion of its Islamic ghetto dwellers – places where more than 50 per cent of residents are from ‘non-Western’ backgrounds. Denmark has tightened the ways refugees can be joined by their family. Language tests, age restrictions, financial guarantees, and welfare exclusion now apply.

In Australia, multiculturalism is holy writ for now. The ABC provides some guide to the reason for this for the cynical like me.

‘Left-leaning governing parties have traditionally benefited from the support of first-generation Muslim communities, as well as from the particular intersection of class, gender, geographic, and multicultural politics which shape Muslim voting patterns.’

Which strangely enough brings me to John Christian Watson, the third Prime Minister of Australia. The Federal seat named in his honour is now held by Labor’s Tony Burke, the Minister for Home Affairs, Immigration and Citizenship and also Leader of the House of Representatives. Watson is a very multicultural community. Islam is the largest religious affiliation (25 per cent) and Arabic is the language other than English most commonly spoken at home (16 per cent). There are other Labor seats with strong Islamic populations, such as Blaxland.

How does Labor deal with its multicultural challenges?

‘There is no place in Australia for antisemitism,’ Trumpets the press release put forward as part of the ‘PLAN TO COMBAT ANTISEMITISM’.

Sadly, it’s not a plan to combat murderous Islamic extremism. It seems to me that this framing allows for the argument that there are antisemites of different origin – Islamic and non-Islamic (neo-Nazis, presumably) – therefore the problem isn’t primarily about the Islamic community.

The other framing, which I believe has some foundation in political expediency, is this.

‘Aggravated hate speech offence for preachers and leaders who promote violence.’

In my conception, Elmer Gantry was a preacher. The dictionary says a preacher is ‘a person, usually a priest or minister, who gives a religious speech’. It could be an Islamic preacher, I suppose. I don’t know that any Christian preacher has been accused of hate speech. Indeed, given Christ’s ministry was one promoting ‘love your neighbour as yourself’ it seems a clever construct which doesn’t single out Islamic ‘hate preachers’ or reference hate Imams.

No doubt there would be security concerns about the identification of Islamic terrorism and the risks of further alienating Islamic communities.

After 911, the attack on the Bataclan in Paris, the Manchester Arena bombing, the Bali bombing, the bombing of the London Underground, and now Bondi, it is naïve to think that ordinary Aussies don’t associate Islam with terrorism. It follows that Islamophobia is on the rise. That isn’t fair to law-abiding Islamic citizens, but it is inevitable.

For the Labor Party this considerable challenge arrives at a difficult time.

Senators have quit Labor to support Greens’ motions recognising the state of Palestine. The left of the Labor Party was already fiercely pro-Palestine, but now with the emergence of a Muslim-focused political organisation, seats like Watson won’t be as safe as they currently are. It seems quite plausible that, as has happened in Britain, Muslim voters will jettison Labor in favour of Muslim candidates for Muslim causes.

I think the prognosis is not good. Multiculturalism, as an institution, is too politically powerful. It is an icon that presents too great an opportunity for governments to hand out culture grants and court favour with particular ethnic voter blocs. Why would they replace it with an assimilationist approach?

I can’t see any restrictions on Islamic migration to Australia, particularly in light of section 116 of the Constitution, but also because the problem in Bondi was (at least partially) alleged to be home-grown, not imported extremism. If a government crackdown were to take place, I expect Islamic hate preachers will take their hate underground, but the hate won’t go away. The Islamic community will continue to be isolated and to experience Islamophobia and as a consequence inspire new terrorists to embark on a murderous jihad.

Perhaps the idea of a Melting Pot was right – a beautiful dream if it could only come true.