Wait a minute… I thought “diversity is our strength”? Isn’t multiculturalism what gives us the wonderful blessing of being able to eat Thai, Italian, Mexican and other types of food in one city? Aren’t all cultures equal? Isn’t being against multiculturalism racist? Well, as a half Indian, half Chinese guy who grew up in the Caribbean and speaks English, Portuguese, Spanish, some French and reads Koine Greek, has travelled all over the world, and lived in several countries, I can confidently say… NOPE. But not because of my background or life experience. I say that, because at its core, multiculturalism is a lie.
In this article, we expose the heresy of multiculturalism—a culturally taboo topic to touch. So, we’ll make sure to poke this cultural idol in the eye as we look at how this lie has taken many (even Christians) captive, the terrible fruit it has borne, and how it is out of step with a Biblical worldview.
NOTE: Because all people have equal value and dignity as image-bearers of God (Genesis 1:27), we affirm the inherent worth of every individual. I’m not arguing for the inherent superiority of a particular ethnicity, skin colour or even people group. What we are dealing with here is culture, and whether all cultures are equal. Cultures themselves, as the collective expressions of human worldviews and practices, are not beyond evaluation. Some cultures yield prosperity and justice while others sow oppression and decay.
The Relativism at Multiculturalism’s Heart
Multiculturalism’s core deception lies in its embrace of cultural relativism, the idea that all cultures are equally valid and immune to moral critique.
Cultural relativism is postmodern ideology applied to sociological and cultural issues. Postmodernism sees all truth as relative—summarized in the banal statement “What’s true for you, is true for you. And what’s true for me, is true for me”—multiculturalism applies this to cultures. We’re made to feel like it’s just a matter of preferences with no objective standard to measure or evaluate cultures. They’re just all different preferences—like ice cream flavours or favorite football teams. It is marketed to us as a wholesale good on society by globalist elites. Something we must embrace unthinkingly and unquestioningly. After all, we don’t want to be racist Nazis—right?
In reality, as history and data reveal, multiculturalism often leads to fragmentation rather than unity, importing incompatible practices that undermine societal flourishing. Pretending otherwise is not only naive but dangerous, inviting the very chaos—as we are seeing more and more clearly in our fractured Western societies.
Why Call it Heresy?
Many churches and Christians have bought the lie of multiculturalism.
We are taught by today’s secular culture that multiculturalism is an unquestionable good we must embrace. It is framed as equality and a way to combat racism. After all, don’t you love all the amazing blessings of multiculturalism—like various ethnic cuisines, fashions and cultural activities? Isn’t it just what the Bible shows us in Revelation 7:9—a great multitude from every tribe, people and tongue? Isn’t that what we should want our churches and societies to look like? Isn’t it only white Nazis who oppose multiculturalism?
Well… no. Because those things are conflations of categories used to pull a bait and switch on Christians.
While God’s Kingdom are made up of people from every tribe, language and nation—this is the reality of the Church universal. It does not then eradicate the reality of local cultures. It is also something God is doing as He saves people from various groups and regions in the world, not something that we manufacture. It also confuses the categories of peoples from various ethnicities with cultures. What we are talking about here and examining is the claim of multiculturalism that all cultures are equally valid, good and true. Not whether people of varying ethnicities or belonging to various groups can be saved.
OK. So, you might say, “Come on, multiculturalism might have its flaws… but isn’t calling it a heresy a bit too far?”
Not if you understand the core lie at the heart of multiculturalism.
The foundational commandments of God’s Law had to do with the exclusive worship of the One True God (commandment 1) and the forbidding of idolatry (commandment 2). Jesus said that this first commandment was the greatest—to have total allegiance and fidelity to the One True God with our whole being (Matt. 22:37–38). Thus, breaking of the greatest commandment is the greatest sin—no small matter.
Multiculturalism fundamentally says that all cultures are equal. All culture is religious (as we will see later)—they are birthed out of some religious worldview. Thus, this is a denial of the greatest commandment: we are to have no other gods. Thus, all other religious worldviews based on anything other than the One True God is a form of idolatry. By saying that all cultures are equally valid, multiculturalism denies this fundamental basis of Christianity. It says that all gods (religions) are equally valid. This denial of a core truth of Christianity is a heresy.
Multiculturalism is not a Christian idea. It is the rotten fruit of secular Postmodern and neo-Marxist ideology. This is why it is pushed and trumpeted by today’s secular elites and neo-Marxist globalists. This is why it is often packaged together with woke social justice and Leftist ideology.
But how is culture religious?
Culture is Religion Externalized
All worldviews rest on ultimate truth commitments that are fundamentally religious committments. Foundational beliefs such as human origins, the equality of all people and the sacredness of life, virtues such as liberty, truth, loyalty, and the fallen nature of man all stem from religious (faith) committments. Many of these beliefs cannot be proven but must be accepted on “faith”—such as the belief that your senses work and the belief in laws of logic. These beliefs together form a network that becomes a person’s worldview—the way they view the world, understand their place in it and what they ought to do.
This network of beliefs (worldview) informs how we understand and interact with the world around us, what we value and what we build. Therefore, it determines the type of culture that is built as the outworking of these beliefs. All cultures are born out of these fundamental truth committments—ie. religion. Thus, a people’s religion (whether Muslim, Hindu, Christian, atheist, Budhist, etc) will produce a certain culture that reflects that religion. This is why Muslim nations develop a Islamic culture that embodies their religious values (e.g. Sharia Law), or Hindu nations develop a culture based on its fundamental religious values (e.g. the caste system). Even secular societies produce a certain culture, as seen in the rise of Marxism in communist nations and Cultural Marxism in the West with the rise of secularism.
Henry Van Til famously summarized it that “culture is religion externalized.” Thus, only those aligned with God’s revealed truth produce lasting good. Cultures built on falsehoods inevitably falter, while those reflecting divine order foster life and liberty.
Dr. Joseph Boot of the Ezra Institute in The Mission of God: A Manifesto of Hope for Society, Boot critiques modern multiculturalism as a form of radical pluralism that repaganizes society and absolutizes the state over God’s law. Boot is correct that “culture is inescapably religious and therefore it cannot be neutral.” Thus, Christians ought to pursue the gospel’s transforming power to re-Christianize cultures rather than buy into the myth of neutrality. A culture shaped by God’s values will be objectively better than any alternative. Multiculturalism serves as a demonic façade for secular paganism, enforcing “neutrality” while imposing anti-Christian values. It’s a bait-and-switch that many Christians have bitten into.
Thus, all cultures are NOT equal because they will vary substantially based upon their fundamental religious committments.
The Bias of Multiculturalism
Inherrent in multiculturalism is a certain bias against Western (and Christian) cultures. All cultures are equal, accepted and must have a place at the table—except Christian culture. This is why, in the name of multiculturalism, we see immigrants and radicals tolerated chanting “death to Canada” or whatever their host nation. Meanwhile, you would never ever see the opposite tolerated. Western culture, which was significantly built on the principles of Christianity, is the target of destruction by multiculturalism.
Political scientist Samuel P. Huntington in his book, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order, captured this tension, arguing that multiculturalism is “in its essence anti-European civilization” and “basically an anti-Western ideology,” as it undermines the ability to critique practices incompatible with core Western values like individual rights and the rule of law. Douglas Murray, in The Strange Death of Europe: Immigration, Identity, Islam, expands on this, detailing how relativism has precipitated a crisis of identity by allowing the importation of elements that erode social cohesion without discernment.
“What ‘multiculturalism’ boils down to is that you can praise any culture in the world except Western culture—and you cannot blame any culture in the world except Western culture.”
(Thomas Sowell)
Multiculturalism is a distinctly secular Western impulse. It is mainly the secularized Western countries, and those influenced by them, that are pushing for multiculturalism the hardest.
Other countries such as China, North Korea, Japan, Nigeria, Afganistan, etc. are not too concerned about pushing diversity. In fact, some of them radically seek homogeneity. For example, in South Korea, approximately 96-99% of the population is ethnically Korean, speaking Korean and having very strong cultural homogeneity. In Japan, ethnic fractionalization is only 0.0119—meaning about 98% ethnically Japanese, contributing to a highly cohesive culture emphasizing harmony and group-oriented values. Similarly, Tunisia is around 98% Arab-Berber, supporting a unified Arab-Islamic cultural framework. None of these countries are pushing for greater multiculturalism.
So, why is it that secular Western countries are the predominant pushers of multiculturalism?
This is because multiculturalism is an ideal invented in the minds of Western neo-Marxist globalist elites whose goal is to destroy the Christian foundation of the West via the disruption of cultural harmony and destabilization of society. This is ultimately what multiculturalism and mass immigration policies achieve and why it fits into their utopian schemes. Perhaps one of the great ironies is that it only works in nations whose cultural conscience have formerly been shaped by Christian morality because it works by hijacking the Christian virtues of compassion and charity. However, it hijacks these virtues to ignoble ends.
The Canadian Charter of Rights
A good illustration of this is found in the Canadian Charter of Rights.
The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms was enshrined in the Constitution Act of 1982. Liberal Prime Minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau was the one pushing for its adoption—and its initial draft did not include any mention of God. It was only after Trudeau was advised to add mention of “God” to sway the Evangelical support that it was added. Unfortunately, Christians took the bait and switch.
The Charter weakened Canadian freedoms and rights by taking a secular French approach to human rights—where they are granted by the government, as opposed to recognized by the government. Dr. Michael Wagner rightly noted, “what most people didn’t understand was that the worldview underlying the Charter was an alien thing.”
Prior to 1982, Canadian rights were already safeguarded through mechanisms rooted in British common law traditions, which were based on a Christian worldview. The Charter transferred significant authority from elected legislatures to unelected judges, enabling judicial overreach that can override democratic decisions. Section 1 of the Charter says guaranteed rights are “subject only to such reasonable limits as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.” That is, the Charter itself allows governments to limit rights if they can pass the Oakes test. This means that Canadian rights are not absolute. This provision permits governments to override Charter rights for up to five years when deemed “reasonable”. But reasonably by whom? And by what standard?
Section 33 allows Parliament or a provincial legislature to pass a law that operates “notwithstanding” certain Charter rights for up to five years (renewable). It’s a constitutional override. The Clause means legislatures can reverse court decisions protecting Charter rights by enacting or re-enacting laws that explicitly override those Charter protections. Furthermore, the Charter does not constitutionally entrench a broad property-rights protection. Property was discussed politically during the Charter’s formation but was excluded.
The opening phrase, “Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law” has made many Christians think that the Charter was a good thing—and that was the intention by Pierre Trudeau. However, that “God” is not defined here. But it is in Section 27 where it says,
“This Charter shall be interpreted in a manner consistent with the preservation and enhancement of the multicultural heritage of Canadians.”
This Clause serves as an interpretive mandate for courts. It necessitates that they must interpret the Charter according to multiculturalism—or a pluralistic religious framework. It thereby forbids the courts from interpreting the Charter in a distinctly Christian way.
The “God” of the opening line of the Canadian Charter must be a multicultural god. Thus, an idol. And one which provides no specific protection for Christians.
In 1985, federal Justice Minister John Crosbie, before a parliamentary committee made it perfectly clear that Canada was being fundamentally transformed, and Canadians didn’t know what was going to hit them:
“The public does not realize that we already have had a revolution in Canadian society. The adoption of a charter was a revolution. It has changed the whole power structure of Canadian society.”
Left-wing politicians, activists and academics knew that the Charter was the way to radically alter Canada’s Christian foundings and overturn the old Canada. University of Toronto law professor Lorraine Weinrib summarized that,
“The Charter’s purpose and desired effect, from the point of view of those who supported it was to transform the Canadian constitutional order in fundamental ways, not to codify existing constitutional values and institutional roles.”
It turns out, as we all saw during COVID that the Canadian Charter of Rights is not worth the paper it is written on. Almost every Canadian right was trampled on by a totalitarian state claiming to have “reasonable” cause—which was never substantiated—as they arbitrarily closed down churches and destroyed small businesses while enriching Pharmaceuticals and allowing state-approved BLM protests. The influence of secular multiculturalism on this document is a significant factor in this outcome.
This same document is being used against Christians in Canada to enact hate speech laws that will impose heavy penalties for speaking Biblical truth publicly.
Objection: “But all cultures contribute uniquely, like art or traditions—doesn’t that enrich us?”
This objection shows the need for a more substantial theology of culture in the church and amongst Christians. Many Christians have a superficial understanding of culture and don’t actually understand what culture is or how the Bible should inform our thinking on the topic. As a result, they confuse a culture’s superficial artifacts (art, cuisine, etc.) with the substance of what makes a culture.
While common grace allows for redeemable elements in every culture, this objection misses the point. It is easy to come up with a list of superficial artifacts of cultures, such as their cooking style, or fashion trends and art. However, these superficial contributions pale against the weightier elements of cultures—such as the moral and legal systems they produce, their values (such as the sacredness of life, liberty, order, equal value of the sexes, etc.), and the societies they build.
In the eschaton described in Revelation, we see the kings of the earth bringing their treasures into the New Jerusalem (Rev. 21:24)—so there is some truth that every culture will bring its contribution into the Kingdom. However, this doesn’t mean that everything about every culture, wholesale, will be brought into the Kingdom. Some cultures mutilate their women and children, other murder their babies in the womb, some cultures eat their enemies and others believe that killing Jews and Christians is a virtue. Are those enriching contributions?
Every person should be able to say “no, not those contributions”. But the question then is, by what standard?
Without objective truth to judge, societies risk importing oppression under the guise of tolerance.
All cultures are not equal because all cultures fall short of the perfect standards of God in different ways. This is because all cultures reflect the religious worldview(s) that created them.
The standard by which we judge any culture is the perfect Law of God. The more a culture aligns with God’s Word and a Biblical worldview, the more blessing it will receive from the LORD and the more enriching it will be to people.
This is the true measuring stick of cultures.
Historical Collapses Under Multicultural Strain
Aside from the fact that multiculturalism’s fundamental premise is antithetical to a Christian worldview, there are historical reasons to not embrace it. We are not the first generation to try multiculturalism. We should learn from history. Because those who don’t learn from history are doomed to repeat its mistakes.
When people of varying cultures naturally come together over a shared vision, it can be harmless enough. However, history offers sobering examples of how forced multiculturalism, without a unifying ethos, leads to division and violence.
Consider Yugoslavia, an artificial multiethnic state forged post-World War I, uniting Serbs, Croats, Slovenes, and others under a facade of unity. Yugoslavia’s forced multiculturalism under Tito’s regime suppressed ethnic tensions through state-sponsored “brotherhood and unity.” The policy promoted cultural pluralism without requiring assimilation, fostering resentment and “illiberal tolerance” that exploded post-Tito. The 1990s breakup unleashed wars killing over 100,000 and displacing millions, fueled by clashing religious and cultural identities—Orthodox, Catholic, and Muslim. As one analysis notes, the breakup wasn’t random; it stemmed from incompatible visions of society, where one group’s cultural dominance bred resentment in others.
Further back, the multiethnic Austro-Hungarian Empire (1867-1918) promoted “unity in diversity” but suppressed nationalisms, leading to internal revolts and economic crises. Crop failures and economic crises exacerbated divisions, resulting in the 1918 dissolution into nation-states. The Ottoman Empire’s millet system tolerated Christians and Jews but fostered resentments, leading to nationalist uprisings (e.g., Greek independence 1821), culminating in genocides like the Armenian (1.5 million deaths) and the 1922 collapse. Even the Roman Empire, thriving temporarily on multicultural assimilation, fragmented under overextension and unintegrated barbarian influxes, falling in 476 AD.
Historian Victor Davis Hanson warns: “Emphasizing diversity has been the pitfall, not the strength, of nations throughout history.”
Multiculturalism or Monoculturalism?
Objection: “But multiculturalism and mass immigration leads to greater flourishing because you benefit from people and cultures all over the world contributing to a society instead of from just one locality.”
But that’s the irony: Idealistic policies assuming harmony without a shared homogenous culture overlook the reality of human depravity (Jeremiah 17:9). While it is true that countries can benefit from strategic immigration of skilled workers or knowledgeable experts in valuable fields, the fact is that without a shared culture, societal trust—which is foundational for prosperity—goes down.
Multiculturalism’s defenders often point to its apparent benefits as proof of its value, highlighting how diverse societies enjoy a richer tapestry of foods, music, festivals, and artistic expressions. Who among us hasn’t savoured the flavours of international cuisines or marveled at vibrant cultural celebrations? These elements can indeed add colour to daily life, reflecting God’s common grace at work even in fallen cultures (Matthew 5:45). However, these gains are profoundly superficial when weighed against the deeper conflicts that arise from incompatible core values. Multiculturalism often weaponizes these trivial benefits to silence critique: a festival here or a fusion restaurant there is touted as “enrichment,” but it masks profound losses in social cohesion and moral clarity.
In contrast, societies with a monoculture—that is, a predominant shared or common culture enjoy greater levels of harmony, safety and stability. For example, according to the Global Peace Index, Japan ranks #9 with homicide rates below global average (0.2 per 100,000) and low violent crime; high cultural homogeneity supports elevated social trust (~40-50% in surveys) and economic stability. Iceland ranks #1, with minimal terrorism, low homicide rates, and high societal safety; homogeneity contributes to strong social cohesion and low political instability. A 2005 study in the European Sociological Review found that across 60 countries, ethnic homogeneity positively predicts trust, linking to low internal war and stability via good government. Countries like Norway (65% social trust), Sweden (60%), and Denmark (58%) exhibit high interpersonal trust levels, attributed in part due to being historically ethnicly and culturally homogenous.
A common, shared culture is key to the long term stability, safety and prosperity of any society and nation.
Even more, societies with a transcendent Christian anchor, like post-Reformation Europe, achieved stability through shared moral foundations that were founded upon God’s word. Until their recent apostacy from their Christian roots, these societies (including the US and Canada which were founded by settlers from Christianized Europe) enjoyed far greater freedom, prosperity and security than any others in the world. It was Christianity that produced the freest nations in the world because it was for freedom that Christ has set us free (Gal. 5:1).
So yes, Christians should want a monoculture in society that is based upon a Christian worldview. Note—this monoculture is not necessarily monoethnic, since shared culture does not rely on skin pigmentation. Properly understood, this would give unity in the essentials and freedom on issues of personal liberty.
Reduced Trust and Fragmentation
Justin Trudeau and Kamala Harris, among other politicians, have repeated the mantra that “diversity is our strength.” However, where multiculturalism has been embraced, we’re seeing increased societal fragmentation and reduced trust. Oftentimes, immigration without assimilation ends up importing conflicts and problems from the rest of the world and thrusting it upon a local population that doesn’t want anything to do with it.
Modern evidence from sociology and statistics underscores multiculturalism’s harms, particularly in eroding social trust—the glue of cooperative societies. Harvard’s Robert Putnam, in Bowling Alone and his 2007 paper “E Pluribus Unum,” found that ethnic diversity correlates with lower social capital: in diverse communities, people “hunker down,” trusting neighbours less, volunteering 15-20% less, and even distrusting within groups. Putnam delayed publication hoping for counterevidence but concluded that diversity undermines civic life short- to medium-term, and he instead suggests adaptation via assimilation. These findings have less to do with ethnicity (per se), and more to do with the cultures of those groups.
Merely sharing melanin levels and biological resemblance does not mean that people share a culture.
For example, ethnically, I am half Chinese and half East Indian. However, culturally, I grew up in Trinidad in the Caribbean. So, I do not at identify myself with Asian cultures—they are foreign to me. Caribbean and Trini culture is what formed me from a young age. However, now, I have been an immigrant to North America for many years. So, I’ve had to adapt to North American cultures and assimilate to its unique cultural expressions, customs and values.
This process of assimilation for immigrants is important for cultural cohesion within a society. There are certain cultural norms which must be learnt and adopted if one is to become an “insider” and not forever a foreigner in a land. Otherwise, a society becomes fragmented as unassimilated immigrants do not integrate into larger society but rather form ghettos or disrupt the established norms of the culture. For example, in business or dining etiquete there are certain cultural protocols which must be adhered to in order not to give unintended offense. Various cultures have their own unique rules of decorum and manners which must also be understood to integrate fully. Interestingly, it was in Christian societies that a high emphasis on manners and etiquete took root—such as in British high culture—as a way to love your neighbour and consider others.
Simon Hankinson, Senior Research Fellow in the Border Security and Immigration Center at The Heritage Foundation, wrote a very relevant article entitled, “Diversity Isn’t “Our Strength” When Millions of Foreigners Refuse To Assimilate”. In it, he shows how multiculturalism abandons the traditional American “melting pot” where immigrants assimilate, instead promoting cultural retention that imports old-world conflicts. Without assimilation, immigrants bring feuds like Hindu-Muslim riots (up 84% in 2024) or pro-Iran marches, fostering sectarian politics. For example, U.S. politicians like Ilhan Omar prioritizing Somali interests over American unity. Diversity without assimilation erodes social capital, as a 2007 U.S. study of 30,000 people found diverse communities have lower voting, volunteering, and charity. A 2022 German study shows reluctance for supporting welfare in migrant-heavy areas. In Sweden (20% foreign-born), children of immigrants are five times more likely to be suspected of murder; Britain’s grooming gangs disproportionately involve Pakistani men, even though authorities are hesitant to admit this due to fears of being called racists by the woke left.
A European Sociological Review meta-analysis of 90+ studies confirmed diversity negatively affects community attitudes and reduces generalized trust. A 2019 MIT study on ethnocentrism found diversity increases distrust and polarization, especially in low-trust regions. In an interesting article in City Journal, Kenny Xu notes that multiculturalism stokes inequality between those who assimilate and thrive versus those who reject integration, becoming alienated in their own land.
Crime and Instability
In Sweden, non-European immigrant unemployment exceeds 20%, correlating with a 50% violent crime rise since 2015. An October 29, 2025, Telegraph article details UK cases, including a gang of small-boat migrants jailed for “roaming street violence” in Dorset, and other incidents like a Libyan migrant raping a 13-year-old in Portsmouth, amid rising assaults under mass immigration policies. An October 20, 2024, City Journal piece highlights U.S. cases, such as Venezuelan gang members committing murders (e.g., in Maryland) and robberies, attributing spikes to mass immigration from violent Latin American regions. In Italy, based on Italian Interior Ministry data released in 2025, foreigners (who make up about 8.7% of Italy’s population) accounted for 34.7% of arrests in 2024, with breakdowns including 43% of sexual assaults, 39% of drug dealing, 24.5% of car thefts, 29% of smuggling, and 23.7% of intentional homicides.
However, we should not over-emphasize the crime component in this analysis. One also finds data and studies that show that in some cases, immigrants commit crimes at a lower rate than the native populous. For example, a 2024 study found Texas natives convicted of homicide at 5.6 times the rate of undocumented immigrants (2.9 vs 16.5 per 100,000), with similar patterns for assault and larceny; overall.
So, we must be careful to not overstate the case. It is not true that all immigration will lead to increased crime. After all, I’m an immigrant and have never committed a crime! It depends on what types of people are immigrating and why. Many true refugees never commit crimes since they are fleeing violence in their own countries. Many skilled worker immigrants never commit crimes because they come to work in a particular industry. The reasons why someone is immigrating are an important determinant. However, even if we were to dismiss the crime component, the fact remains that immigration without cultural assimilation breeds increased cultural tensions in a society.
An August 4, 2025, Immigration News Canada report documented a 1,350% rise in hate posts targeting South Asians on X (formerly Twitter) from 2023-2025, totaling 26,600 offensive slurs. Toronto police reported a 15% hike in hate calls in 2024, with South Asians third-most targeted. A July 15, 2025, Hub article argues, it’s “dangerously adrift—ungrounded, relativistic, and increasingly weaponized by illiberal ideologies,” fostering tribalism over unity.
So, no Justin and Kamala… diversity is NOT our strength.
Many countries with open border policies are finding out the hard way that immigration without assimilation spells disaster.
Former German Chancellor, Angela Merkel declared multiculturalism “has utterly failed.” David Cameron echoed this for the U.K. and a London School of Economics study noted ethnic majorities feel less safe in diverse areas.
Data shows that harms persist without strong assimilation and today’s media conflicts often amplifies divisions. When people do not have a shared system of beliefs, values and customs, it makes working together more difficult and as a result, people will often avoid working together with others who are too culturally dissimilar. This causes a decline in potential economic productivity and overall efficiency.
Thus, multiculturalism also leads to financial consequences.
Economic Burdens
The societal fragmentation extends to economics, where multiculturalism’s open embrace of mass immigration without cultural discernment imposes fiscal strains and opportunity costs.
Noted economist, Thomas Sowell, in Wealth, Poverty and Politics, details how uncontrolled immigration depresses low-skilled natives’ wages by 5-10% (U.S. Census data), while remittances ($150B+ annually) drain host economies without aiding the sender nations’ development. A 2019 Migration Observatory briefing notes diversity reduces welfare support (with 10-15% drops), as citizens withdraw from systems perceived as benefiting “others.” The Mises Institute analyses critique immigration’s role in housing inflation, showing 20-30% increases. Ludwig von Mises, in Nation, State, and Economy, warned free immigration ignores political realities, leading to distortions without unity.
Politicians often tout that immigration helps the economy by providing workers. However, Thomas Sowell quips that, “Stopping illegal immigration would mean that wages would have to rise to a level where Americans would want the jobs currently taken by illegal aliens.” The fact is that a lot of immigrants come to developed nations willing to work for wages lower than the local populous, thereby undercutting the country’s own citizens and driving wages down.
The Welfare State
Furthermore, under the radical immigration policies and benefits from countries pushing multiculturalism, like Canada, many immigrants claiming refugee status are given a whole list of welfare benefits and grants at the expense of tax payers. For example, in Canada, refugees receive financial support for up to 12 months or until self-sufficient, including a one-time household start-up allowance, monthly income support for food, shelter, and incidentals, and orientation services. Refugees get temporary health coverage for basic medical services, prescription drugs, dental, and vision care until eligible for provincial plans with costs exceeding $411 million requested in 2025. They also can access interest-free loans (up to $15,000) for travel, medical exams, and settlement costs, repayable over 1-8 years. But get this, the defaults are absorbed by taxpayers if unrecoverable. Eligible refugee families receive the Canada Child Benefit (CCB), a tax-free monthly payment (up to $7,787 per year for children under 6, $6,570 for ages 6-17). Add to that the fact that refugees can receive quarterly tax-free payments of up to $520 for singles, $676 for couples, plus $179 per child, additional welfare of $733 per month in Ontario, and temporary housing up to 6 weeks with help finding permanent accomodation which costs taxpayers over $100 million annually.
The Fraser Institute, a Canadian think tank focused on free markets and limited government, has long highlighted multiculturalism’s economic pitfalls. Their comprehensive study, edited by economist Herbert Grubel (PhD, Yale; former MP), analyzes how rapid immigration under multicultural policies strains infrastructure and dilutes living standards. Data shows post-1980s immigrants impose net fiscal costs of $16-23 billion annually (adjusted for inflation), as welfare usage outpaces contributions. A 2025 update ties this to housing shortages and declining economic freedom rankings for Canada. A October 23, 2024, CBC News article revealed federal officials warned in 2022 that surging immigration would exacerbate housing shortages and service pressures, yet policies proceeded. By 2024, rents in major cities like Toronto spiked 10-15%, displacing locals and fueling homelessness with over 235,000 Canadians affected annually, per government data.
It’s no surprise that some refugees are earning more money and living better than a lot of Canadians without even having to work! All of this funded by taxing the productive local population of Canada.
This is simply unjust, and it’s no wonder many Canadians are fed up of it. Canada’s aggressive immigration targets—aiming for over 500,000 permanent residents annually by 2025—have strained resources and social bonds, turning public opinion sharply negative. A 2024 Leger poll found 65% of Canadians believe the government’s plan admits too many. An October 6, 2025, National Post op-ed details Canadians’ dramatic shift from support to demanding deportations, with 65% viewing levels negatively amid living costs and a Macdonald-Laurier Institute piece warns mass immigration causes “enormous shifts” in culture and identity.
It is not a bad thing for a country to look first to the good of its own citizens—in fact, it is a virtuous thing to prioritize care for your own. However, immigration policies influenced by multiculturalism sacrifice love of one’s actual neighbour—your fellow countryman—to “love” a stranger across the world. This would be akin to forsaking your own children in your home and seeing them starve to help a stranger in another country.
It is good and proper for a country to prioritize the needs and flourishing of its own citizens above those of other countries. However, such common sense has proven to be scarce these days. Instead, we have the madness of Western countries committing cultural and financial suicide to virtue signal their diversity while destroying the futures of their own posterity.
Evil Cultural Practices
One of the most glaring flaws in multiculturalism is its refusal to acknowledge that certain cultural practices are simply evil. As Christians, we evaluate cultures not by subjective preferences but by their alignment with God’s unchanging moral law.
When multiculturalism treats all traditions as equal, it opens the door to importing practices that devalue human life and promote false religions and rebellion against the Creator (Romans 1:18-32). These incompatibilities aren’t mere differences in custom; they shape entire societies, often leading to cycles of violence and subjugation.
Consider honour killings, a tragic practice prevalent in certain cultures from the Middle East and South Asia, where family members—typically males—murder relatives, often women, to restore perceived “honour” tarnished by behaviours deemed shameful, such as refusing arranged marriages or adopting Western ways. Even in Western contexts, these killings persist among immigrant communities, as seen in the 2009 Arizona case where a father murdered his daughter for becoming too “Westernized.” Human Rights Watch reports that roughly 1,000 women are murdered annually in so-called honor killings in Pakistan alone, with similar patterns imported to the West.
Similarly, female genital mutilation (FGM), a ritual cutting of girls’ genitalia for cultural “purity” or control, affects over 200 million women worldwide, primarily in parts of Africa, the Middle East, and Asia, according to UNICEF data. This is not just happening in remote desert tribes. In Canada, a groundbreaking 2025 report by Islamic Relief Canada reveals FGM occurring secretly in private homes and underground clinics, despite being illegal, with survivors facing stigma and inadequate support. Statistics Canada estimates at least 200 million girls and women globally have endured it, with immigrant communities perpetuating the cycle in North America.
Historically, practices like cannibalism in some Pacific or ancient tribes reflected worldviews that devalued human life as sacred, leading to endless conflict and societal stagnation. These evil practices are not unique only to religious cultures either. Modern secular cultures have enshrined the murder of the most innocent in the world—the unborn. In 2025 in the US, the abortion rate stands at approximately 11.4 per 1,000 women aged 15-49, with around 930,000 abortions performed annually. In Canada, the abortion rate is about 13.1 per 1,000 women, with roughly 83,000—100,000 abortions each year while the UK and France have over 200,000 procedures annually. But secular religion is not content with just killing in the womb—it’s euthanasia practices are equally horrid. In Canada in 2025, euthanasia (MAiD—Medical Assistance in Dying) cases reached over 15,000 annually, up 20% from 2024, representing 4.7% of all deaths; this expansion since 2016 legalization has included non-terminal cases. In the Netherlands, euthanasia accounts for about 5% of deaths in 2025 (around 9,000 cases), with rates steady but including children and psychiatric patients since 2002 legalization.
If all cultures are equal—then what are we to think of these cultural practices? Are we to embrace these in the name of multiculturalism? If not, by what standard should we determine that?
Objection: “These are extremes or misrepresentations, not inherent to the cultures.”
Yet, they arise from underlying norms that those cultures are based upon. It was the shared religious beliefs of those cultures that led to those practices. Multiculturalism shields them from critique, allowing persistence rather than reformation.
If you have an aversion to any of those practices and think they should not be allowed in society—then you must ask yourself, by what standard and by who’s authority? If not by God’s standards—then it will be by man’s fallen standards. If you say by God’s standard, then you’ve already conceded that multiculturalism’s fundamental principle is wrong and all cultures are NOT equal.
The Jihadi in the Room: Mass Immigration from Islamic Nations
Not to blow things up… but we have to also address mass immigration from Islamic-majority nations to the West.
In Canada and the United States, the rapid influx from Islamic nations driven by multicutural policies are causing a dramatic shift that will forever change the culture of these nations. Islam is a particularly pertinent example to highlight since it is a religion that is overtly political in its goals, as clearly seen in the Qu’ran and its religious commentaries. Rebuttals like “this is Islamophobic” miss the point: we’re not fearing individuals but discerning worldviews by their outcomes.
In Canada, mass immigration from Islamic nations (e.g., Pakistan, Syria, Somalia) has surged, with Muslims now comprising about 5% of the population (over 2 million), up from 3.2% in 2011. Data from Statistics Canada shows overrepresentation in certain offenses; for instance, hate crimes against Jews spiked 200% in 2024 amid pro-Palestinian protests often involving recent arrivals from Islamic nations.
A 2025 Manhattan Institute update reveals immigrants from Muslim-majority countries have a “far more negative fiscal impact” than others, with net costs in billions due to higher welfare (15% above average) and lower earnings. In the United States, the Muslim population exceeds 4 million (about 1.1% of the total), with significant portions being immigrants or descendants from Middle Eastern and African nations.
Various viral social media posts have highlighted concerns over Islamicists seeking to “globalize the intifada” through protests and chanting “Death to Canada.” In Montreal, a June 20, 2025, X post described the city as a “foreign-occupied zone,” where foreign flags drown out Canadian heritage during events like anti-Israel rallies. Another July 15, 2025, X thread highlighted veiled women as symbols of “civilizational infiltration,” not escape from sharia.
10% of Toronto is Muslim, with projections of further growth through immigration and multiplication. The fact is that most Muslims are outbreeding the rest of the population, and this is not by accident. It is an intentional tactic of Islam and how they infiltrate and take over a country. One imam in Sweden explicitly boldly says, “Even if we’re 10% of a country’s population, we outnumber non-Muslims in 25 yrs and takeover country. We produce 6-7 kids. That’s our Halal secret weapon against non-Muslims. By the time they realize, it’s already late.”
At the current rate of Muslim immigration and multiplication, it is not a far-stretched reality to think that Canada may become a Muslim majority country if Christians do not wake up and take action.
National Security Threats
In Canada, a June 26, 2025, ISGAP report highlighted the rising national security threat from Muslim Brotherhood infiltration, a global jihadist network seeking to establish sharia influence through cultural and political means. This group’s “grand jihad” aims to undermine Western institutions from within, as detailed in a July 27, 2025, New York Post op-ed warning of its growth north of the U.S. border. A September 8, 2025, National Post article urged Ottawa to take the danger seriously, citing the Brotherhood’s insidious role in fostering parallel ideologies that resist Canadian values. Meanwhile, anti-Semitic incidents spiked 200% in 2024-2025 amid pro-Palestinian protests often involving recent immigrants, turning public spaces into zones of tension. Protests have featured chants like “Death to Canada,” as captured in December 2024 social media posts gone viral, symbolizing a rejection of host culture.
However, of course, in the name of multiculturalism, no critiques or negative press whatsoever are allowed of these dangerous Islamic threats. Instead, what should happen is a whole lot of deportations and voluntary remigration for people whose culture is antithetical to the Christian culture upon which the US, Canada and many Western nations were founded.
The Danger of Etho-Nationalism
Now, a very real danger today that is growing in popularity as more people are made aware of the lie of multiculturalism is to embrace some form of radical Ethno-Nationalism. In some cases, it borders upon and becomes actual racism (not the woke fake racism), that is, sinful prejudice against someone based upon their ethnicity.
Ethno-nationalism is a form of nationalism that defines a nation primarily through shared ethnicity, ancestry, language, culture, or traditions, often prioritizing ethnic homogeneity as the basis for political identity and statehood. Thus, political legitimacy and national identity are based not on citizenship or civic values, but on belonging to a particular ethnic group. This ideology emphasizes blood ties and cultural exclusivity, sometimes leading to exclusionary policies based on race/ethnicity. It is a sort of “blood and soil” approach to national unity.
Some (not all) of the modern proponents of certain forms of Christian Nationalism are espousing these ideas. Now, some who take up the term Christian Nationalism do so with different qualifications that are more Biblically based—taking it to simply mean that they want to see the nations be Christian. Add to this that Leftist media has made the term “White Christian Nationalism” a scapegoat and slur that they slap upon anyone who dares to disagree with them, and you have quite diverse mix of meanings for the term. So, unfortunately, there is a lot of confusion and ambiguity with the term. Thus, one must properly discern what is meant when someone uses the label “Christian Nationalism”.
This was a good discussion on the topic by Founders Ministries:
However, biblically understood, true nationhood is covenantal and rooted in obedience to God’s law rather than mere ethnic bonds (Acts 17:26; Galatians 3:28). As we have seen, blood relations and shared biology is not enough to unify a culture. It is in Christ that we find the true basis for unity amdist diversity because the Gospel itself produces a certain culture. As people are renewed by the power of the Gospel, forgiven of their sins and given Spirit-enabled power to love and obey God’s commandments, it inevitably transforms their culture.
Reject Multiculturalism, Embrace Gospel Culture
For far too long Christians have uncritically accepted the narrative that multiculturalist ideology is an unquestionable good. Christians have naively believed the lies of secular philosophies masquerading as compassion and generosity. But those are Christian values—they belong to us and are defined by God.
Christians must see the lies of multiculturalism and reject them.
They must not shrink back just because they will be called names—”racist”, “Islamophobic”, “biggot”, etc.
“Blessed are you when others revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account. Rejoice and be glad, for your reward is great in heaven, for so they persecuted the prophets who were before you.” (Matthew 5:11—12)
Instead, we must embrace a Gospel culture—one shaped by a Biblical worldview as the basis for unity in our families, churches, and nations. Thus, Christians should seek to see God’s law reflected in public policies, elect godly politicians and representatives who will uphold true justice, and Evangelize non-Christians—inviting them into the Kingdom of God and its unifying culture.
If you’d like a good read on the topic of Gospel Culture, check out Dr. Joseph Boot’s book. Or check out one of his teachings on YouTube:
Thus, there are some foreign cultures that would assimilate more readily because they may have shared Christian background and values. However, the further from a Christian worldview a culture is, the more difficult it will be to assimilate and more likely to cause disruption and chaos in the society. This does not mean that it will be impossible for them to assimilate eventually, but it does mean that it will take intentional, sustained effort to do so.
The Necessity of Cultural Assimilation
In the Bible, in the story of Ruth and Naomi, Ruth is a Moabite—not an Israelite—who decides to become an Israelite, an immigrant to the nation. She attaches herself to Naomi. However, she also recognizes that cultural assimilation must happen. She says to Naomi,
“Your people shall be my people, and your God my God.” (Ruth 1:16b)
This is a statement of adoption of a people, and their religion—and thereby their culture. To become a Jew was to live under God’s law and adopt a whole host of customs, traditions and shared culture. When Ruth declares that Naomi’s God will be her God—she is saying in effect that she intentionally rejects the gods of her people to embrace the God of Israel.
This is what must happen in true Biblical immigration.
Assimilation involves the willing adoption of a new people (the citizens of the host nation) and a new culture, leaving behind one’s old culture.
This doesn’t mean that one foresakes their family, or even that they totally forsake their cultural identity—especially in areas of compatibility. But it does mean that the person has to intentionally endeavour to adapt and assimilate to the host nation’s culture and not impose their foreign culture upon it.
This is what I did in becoming a Canadian citizen. I was saying that “these people are now my people”, and “their God” (the God of the Bible, and the Christian faith upon which Canada was founded) is my God. That process takes time. I knew that I would not be able to force my Trinidadian culture upon Canada (though I think Canadians can learn some good things from it, and should be open to that), and that I would have to learn about what it means to be a Canadian.
Cultural assimilation is totally reasonable to expect of immigrants. After all, there is a reason why they are leaving their culture of their home nation to come to another that they perceive to be better. The culture in their home nation produced the conditions that they are fleeing from. Thus, they should not bring their problems with them by bringing the same culture that produced those problems to their new nation, thereby making it a worse place.
If this is too much to ask of them, then they should stay in their home country where they like the culture. Certain aspects of cultures produce bad results (such as laziness), while others (such as productivity and hard work) produce prosperity. It is only through a Biblical lens that we can discern which parts of a culture we should keep and which should be rejected.
For those who object that some people fleeing other countries are doing so because of tyrannical governments or other factors unrelated to their culture, it would seem like they don’t fully understand how culture works. Cultures produce fruits—socially, economically, morally, artistically, politically, etc. This is because the values, habits, traditions, etc. of a culture will inevitably work itself out in these spheres. Even when a corrupt politician or government is elected, usually there were cultural influences that led to their rise to power.
This is why in the Old Testament, when someone would come into Israel, it wasn’t until the third generation that their lineage would be fully integrated into all of Israel’s culture and worship assembly (cf. Deut. 23:7–8). This provision extended to resident aliens (gerim), who, though not citizens, were expected to respect Israel’s laws, values, and worship practices, including observing the Sabbath, participating in religious festivals, and adhering to ritual purity laws.
The principle recognizes that cultural assimilation takes time. The culture that a person is born into and raise in is hard to shake. Believe me, I know! As a born and raised Trinidadian—there are some aspects of my native culture that may never leave me and I will probably pass on to my children. However, after a few generations in Canada, my lineage will become thoroughly Canadian. This was what the Biblical principle of waiting until the third-generation was all about—giving sufficient time for cultural assimilation to happen thoroughly so that people coming into Israel would not dilute its culture and introduce foreign idolatry.
It is no mistake that Canada’s multiculturalism has also resulted in the construction of massive idols in the public square. Some god will rule the public square. These are not just trivial cultural expressions—they are a declaration of who owns the public square, which god the culture reflects. If it is not the true Christian God, then some other pagan alternative will be there.
True Cultural Unity
As Christians seek to fulfill the Great Commission and make the nations Christian (Matt. 28:18-20), it inevitably means that a Christian culture should emerge in the societies and nations where the Gospel flourishes. We should reject relativistic multicultural attitudes and mass immigration policies based upon that, and return to a system of controlled and strategic immigration that requires cultural assimiliation. Immigration must be done wisely to retain a nation’s Christian culture and ensure, to the best of its ability, that immigrants bring a positive skill or benefit to the nation that would otherwise not be available.
