The Great Divide
Along the ridge of the Rocky Mountains, in both Canada and the USA, there is an invisible dividing line that separates the waters that run out into the Pacific Ocean from those that flow into either the Atlantic or the Arctic Oceans. It’s called the Great Divide. Two raindrops—depending on which side of the Divide they fall—can begin their journeys only a few feet apart and end up separated by thousands of miles.
So it is with the cultural divide along which Canadians live today. Call it what you will: a great divide, a vast gulf, a chasm, a wall . . . however you want to describe it, Canadians who once held views not so very different from those of their neighbours are now separated from them by a seemingly unbridgeable abyss. The forces causing public policies to morph out of recognition are so relentless, inexorable and unforgiving that those who seek to stem the tide are in danger of being swept away like an old bridge in flood-tide.
In fact, the Cultural Great Divide—like the Great Divide along the peaks of the Rockies—also extends from Canada, down into the US, and it even seems that certain political inclinations follow the waters of the rivers. Some have called BC the “Left Coast” of Canada, and in many ways, the political choices of British Columbians (who in 2017, elected the socialist NDP-Green Coalition) seem to follow the leftist trends of Washington, Oregon, and especially California. Of course, the deep divisions in our country are not found only along the Rockies but between urban and rural voters, between union and non-union workers, between religious and non-religious families, between university-trained and high school-only grads, between ethnic minorities, and between age groups. Most of the differences end up running left or right: toward a socialist, secular state devoid of the moral compass of faith, or toward a free enterprise model that honours individual effort, self-control, and respect for the values and traditions of our founders.
Where once concerned citizens of the right and left could conduct serious, but civil debates about the types of policies they thought best for the country, now it seems as though political differences are expressed in hostility, condemnation, innuendo, and intolerance. The recent impeachment circus in the US and the vitriolic and childish behaviour of the Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, have left a mark on public discourse and official decorum south of the border. Whether US politicians will be able to rescue the reputation of Congress as a place for reasoned consideration of facts and ideas remains to be seen. There is no sign of repentance or remorse, but only the digging in of heels and the repetition of partisan talking points.
Canada is painfully similar, with the Liberal government exercising brutal dictatorial powers while the Opposition parties voice their concerns in urgent tones and with little effort to find common ground. The shouting, the rhetoric, the attempts to discredit and silence those with whom one disagrees, or to deny them a platform from which to speak, present the unmistakeable impression that the ideas of those who think differently are not even worthy of respect.
In televised panel discussion, participants talk over each other instead of to each other, arguing and raising their voices to be heard. The rude interruption of another speaker was once considered poor taste. Today, sadly, it is taken for a sign of strength. Moderators, rather than restoring order and ensuring equal time for opposing views, often show their contempt for views they do not share. This attitude is not lost on small children. In our classrooms, children are taught (at least they used to be) not to interrupt, not to call names, not to shout, not to exclude . . . in general, to “do unto others as you would have them do unto you”. Our actions speak louder than words; the rudeness we tolerate shapes the character of the next generation.
Those of us who find ourselves on the moral, faith-filled, freedom-loving, life-affirming side of the Cultural Great Divide are grieved to see the increasing distance between our views and those of our friends and neighbours who have embraced—or been taken in by—the hollow and deceptive philosophies that deny God and reject His influence in our lives and in our laws. We are challenged by the arrogance of successive governments that have used our tax dollars to kill babies, to promote gender confusion and to censor our call to return to biblical values.
One of the most disturbing aspects of the growing division in our society is that it is also manifesting itself in churches, in families and in communities. While any conflict is painful, the wide differences of opinion that separate family members and church members are among the most difficult to accept. Two contrary opinions may both be wrong, but they cannot both be right. It hurts to see those you love clinging to ideas that you know are wrong.
This is the tragedy of the Conservative Party’s struggle to define itself in the wake of their 2019 election loss. While the Liberals, the NDP and the Greens are way over to the left—horribly confused and scrambling like lemmings to the brink of social suicide—at least they know what they stand for: death, dysfunction, and debt.
The Christian Heritage Party, on the other hand, is clearly standing on the side of life, family, and freedom. Our party may be small, but we know where we stand on the issues. The once-powerful Conservatives are struggling to find themselves; their leadership race may well spell the end of social conservatism as part of their platform, depending on whom they elect on June 27.
We respect and acknowledge the handful of pro-life, pro-family leadership contestants seeking the opportunity to lead the CPC back from the brink of compromise and despair. Their job is not easy and they face a slate of Red Tories who have already condemned their defence of life and marriage. It’s clear that some power-brokers in the CPC inner circle will do all they can to crown a pro-abortion, pro-LGBT Red Tory as the next leader, one whom they think has a better chance of winning a general election.
We are watching with interest. We encourage all those still belonging to that party to put their shoulder to the wheel for one of the solid, uncompromising pro-lifers who make it to the ballot (there are several potential pro-life contestants trying to raise funds and gather signatures). But if the CPC continues to choose moral compromise, we are here for you! We will never abandon the cause of the pre-born for political advantage.
But you don’t have to wait for June 27! If you want to be on the side of life, family, and freedom, join CHP today. We are not divided on these essential principles. We are united in our stand for truth and freedom. This invitation is to every Canadian, but especially to those brave CPC leadership contestants who are being savagely attacked for their pro-life views. If your party votes against life, there is a place for you in the CHP!
Share to Gab
Other Commentary by Rod Taylor:
- Censure et partisanerie - un terrible partenariat!
- Censorship and Partisanship—a Terrible Partnership!
- Fierté et honte le jour du Dominion
- Pride and Shame on Dominion Day
- O’Toole, Trudeau et Singh sont tous d’accord : « C’est OK de tuer des bébés filles ! »
- O’Toole, Trudeau and Singh All Agree: “It’s OK to Kill Baby Girls!”
- Se souvenir des enfants qui ne sont jamais rentrés à la maison
- Remembering the Children Who Never Came Home
- La folie de se battre contre Dieu
- The Folly of Fighting Against God
- La trahison de la taxe carbone d’O’Toole
- O’Toole’s Carbon Tax Betrayal