# Religious right in Canada?! **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 5, 2006, 11:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religious-right-in-canada/382995 "2006-12-05T23:31:30Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2006, 11:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religious-right-in-canada/382995/1 "2006-12-05T23:31:30Z")
I always thought of Canuck conservatives as being like what we would call “Rockefeller Republicans” here – pro-business, but socially liberal and willing to negotiate on the welfare state – or else state-minimalists like our Libertarians (paging **Sam Stone** ), or else **moderately** socially conservative. At any rate, nothing like our religious right. But apparently [there’s a new trend since Harper became PM:](http://www.thenation.com/doc/20061127/hedges) > [@](#): > > Harper, who heads a minority government, is a member of the East Gate Alliance Church, part of the Christian and Missionary Alliance, a denomination with 400,000 members that believes in the literal word of the Bible, faith-healing and the imminent return of Jesus Christ. Women cannot be ordained in his church, homosexuality is a sin and abortion is murder. Canada, however, is unused to public displays of faith, and Harper has had to tread more lightly than George Bush. But many fear the prime minister is taking a cue from the Bush Administration and slowly mobilizing Canada’s 3.5 million evangelicals–along with the 44 percent of Canadians who say they have committed themselves to Christ–as a power base. Harper has spent the past three years methodically knitting a coalition of social conservatives and evangelicals that looks ominously similar to the American model. > > \ > > Harper’s combination of bellicosity, slash-and-burn attitude toward Canadian social programs and religious fervor makes many Canadians nervous. Unfortunately for Canada, Harper has a lot of American help. James Dobson has set up a Canadian branch of his Focus on the Family three blocks from the Parliament Buildings in Ottawa. The organization, called the Institute of Marriage and Family Canada, provides political expertise to and otherwise supports Harper’s allies in the bid to turn Canada into an Americanized Christian state. Dobson, who rails against Canada’s defense of gay rights and legalization of same-sex marriage, buys radio time in Canada to attack the nation’s tolerance of gays and calls for legislation to roll back these measures. The proliferation of new Christian groups is dizzying, with organizations such as the National House of Prayer, the Institute for Canadian Values and the Canada Family Action Coalition, whose mission is “to see Judeo-Christian moral principles restored in Canada,” publishing election guides, working with sympathetic legislators and mobilizing Canadian evangelicals in local and national campaigns. These groups turn frequently to American Christian leaders like Jerry Falwell, who came to Canada two years ago for an “Emergency Pastors Briefing” to rally 400 evangelical ministers against a bill before Parliament that included a provision making it a hate crime to denounce homosexuals. Other stalwarts, like former Christian Coalition leader Ralph Reed and televangelist John Hagee, have come north to spread their toxic message to the newly energized Canadian evangelical church. And in the Harper government they have found not only a willing convert but an important ally. Is this going to get anywhere? Should we be watching out for a new realignment/revival north of the border? ---
**Author:** ![Hypnagogic\_Jerk](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hypnagogic_jerk/32/4252_2.png) [@Hypnagogic\_Jerk](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hypnagogic_Jerk)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2006, 11:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religious-right-in-canada/382995/2 "2006-12-05T23:56:40Z")
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton] Is this going to get anywhere? Should we be watching out for a new realignment/revival north of the border? [/QUOTE] There are, of course, social conservatives in Canada. But it’s not as bad as this article makes it to be. Harper is a social conservative, but a quite moderate one, and if he tried to impose his beliefs on the country, he wouldn’t last long. Is it going to get anywhere? Well, it’s not going away, but I don’t think you’ll see the religious right gain the power that it has in the US, in Canada. ---
**Author:** ![Senor\_Pina](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ac8455/32.png) [@Senor\_Pina](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Senor_Pina)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2006, 12:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religious-right-in-canada/382995/3 "2006-12-06T00:01:18Z")
Calgary has a fairly sizeable population of social conservatives, but it’s one of the only large cities in Canada that does. Social conservatism mostly comes out of rural areas in the west. ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2006, 1:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religious-right-in-canada/382995/4 "2006-12-06T01:27:46Z")
> [@](#): > > Women cannot be ordained in his church, homosexuality is a sin and abortion is murder. This sounds like the Roman Catholic Church. > [@](#): > > Harper’s combination of bellicosity, slash-and-burn attitude toward Canadian social programs and religious fervor makes many Canadians nervous. The statement that Harper has a “slash and burn attitude toward Canadian social programs” is simply a lie; his government has demonstrated nothing of the sort. If anything, they seem overly happy to spend my money. Harper runs a minority government in a country with legal, structural and poltical blocks that would prevent any attempt to turn Canada into “an Americanized Christian state.” Even if he planned to do it, which he doesn’t, it can’t be done. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2006, 1:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religious-right-in-canada/382995/5 "2006-12-06T01:33:13Z")
[QUOTE=RickJay] Harper runs a minority government in a country with legal, structural and poltical blocks that would prevent any attempt to turn Canada into “an Americanized Christian state.” Even if he planned to do it, which he doesn’t, it can’t be done. [/QUOTE] I’m asking about whether vigorous religious-conservative **movement** is starting to emerge in Canuckistan, not whether it’s about to take over; clearly it’s not. But who took Jerry Falwell seriously back in the '70s? ---
**Author:** ![Grey](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/b782af/32.png) [@Grey](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grey)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2006, 1:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religious-right-in-canada/382995/6 "2006-12-06T01:35:29Z")
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton] I always thought of Canuck conservatives as being like what we would call “Rockefeller Republicans” here – pro-business, but socially liberal and willing to negotiate on the welfare state – or else state-minimalists like our Libertarians (paging **Sam Stone** ), or else **moderately** socially conservative. At any rate, nothing like our religious right. But apparently [there’s a new trend since Harper became PM:](http://www.thenation.com/doc/20061127/hedges) Is this going to get anywhere? Should we be watching out for a new realignment/revival north of the border? [/QUOTE] No. Stop obsessing ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2006, 1:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religious-right-in-canada/382995/7 "2006-12-06T01:39:48Z")
I don’t know about the rest of his policies, but the new Friday night witch burnings are a hoot. ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2006, 1:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religious-right-in-canada/382995/8 "2006-12-06T01:46:56Z")
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton] I’m asking about whether vigorous religious-conservative **movement** is starting to emerge in Canuckistan, not whether it’s about to take over; clearly it’s not. But who took Jerry Falwell seriously back in the '70s? [/QUOTE] As I recall, Falwell was quite seriously taken in the 1970s. To answer your question, likely not. Canada’s always had a strong religious base; this hasn’t been some paradise of atheism all this time. There’s always been plenty of Christian fundamentalism here, it’s not a new phenomenon. What you don’t see is that being carried into major political arenas. For all “The Nation”'s breathless blather, in fact Harper ISN’T some theocratic bad guy, and has almost completely kept his religious beliefs off the radar. The Conservative Party doesn’t even have an official position on abortion, and Harper is running a vote on reopening the same sex marriage debate that is designed to lose. It’s just not happening. What issues and directions a country will take is dependent not only on position, but importance. To use same sex marriage as an example, it does not have overwhelming majority support in Canada; a very substantial number of Canadians don’t like it. However, the issue is relatively low in importance; many, many Canadians who don’t like same sex marriage nonetheless voted for parties that openly support it, because the issue is vastly outweighed in public interest and attention by other issues. Many Canadians who support SSM voted Conservative (e.g. me, and probably Sam Stone, though I don’t speak for who he voted for) because, again, other issues outweighed its importance. This is as opposed to the USA, where it’s a fairly strong vote-determining issue; candidates who support SSM will irretrievably lose a lot of votes. Same with abortion; NO party of any significance in Canada has an anti-abortion platform, even though many Canadians oppose abortion. It’s simply not an issue that has moved the public to action. For all the Falwell and Ralph Reed bugaboo talk, fact is that the elites can’t move the public; the public selects the elites they want. The U.S. has a strong undercurrent of religious fundamentalism because the people want it. ---
**Author:** ![DWMarch](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dwmarch/32/1010_2.png) [@DWMarch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DWMarch)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2006, 1:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religious-right-in-canada/382995/9 "2006-12-06T01:51:42Z")
[QUOTE=RickJay] This sounds like the Roman Catholic Church. The statement that Harper has a “slash and burn attitude toward Canadian social programs” is simply a lie [/QUOTE] I don’t actually disagree with you but I think the slash and burn being referred to is here: [Prison tattoo parlours get the axe](http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2006/12/04/tattoo-program.html) and [Tories shutting Status of Women offices](http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2006/11/29/status-women.html) These “slash and burn cuts” are going to lead to an AIDS epidemic in jail :rolleyes: and to women becoming second class citizens again because, you know, their rights aren’t guaranteed in the [Charter](http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/charter/index.html) or anything… ---
**Author:** ![Uzi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/91b2a8/32.png) [@Uzi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Uzi)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2006, 3:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religious-right-in-canada/382995/10 "2006-12-06T03:29:57Z")
[QUOTE=DWMarch] … to women becoming second class citizens again because, you know, their rights aren’t guaranteed … [/QUOTE] Oh, goody! Does that mean I can start legally beating my wife and pinching the butts of women in the office? Does it? Gee, I can’t wait. Because, you know, it was those women offices that were keeping me from doing it up until now. Damn them. Wow, it is great that we can turn back the clock and put women in their rightful place - Barefoot, pregnant, and in the kitchen. :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2006, 4:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religious-right-in-canada/382995/11 "2006-12-06T04:21:24Z")
[QUOTE=RickJay] For all the Falwell and Ralph Reed bugaboo talk, fact is that the elites can’t move the public; the public selects the elites they want. The U.S. has a strong undercurrent of religious fundamentalism because the people want it. [/QUOTE] Well, yes and no. Had you asked most American conservatives about the rise of the Religious Right in the 1960s, they’d have suggested you cut back on the hallucinogens. After the first burst of apparent power in 1976 and 1980, the Religious Right in the U.S. discovered that they had simply been used to get votes and that no one in the Republican Party was all that interested in pushing their agendas. As a result, they changed tactics. Beginning in the very early 1980s, they formed a very specific strategy of getting elected to school boards, as precinct captains, to township boards and city and village councils. There were even jokes aimed at them over people running for dogcatcher on an anti-abortion platform. As a result, they eventually got a lot of people elected to the organizational positions within the Republican Party. Even without big name candidates, they were able to exercise a certain amount of control over the candidates who were running. They still do not really “own” the Republican Party; there are not really that many congresscritters who are fervent members of the Religious Right. However, they very definitely get to control a lot of the political discussion in the country. Now Dobson and his ilk are up in Canada, with 30+ years of U.S. political organizing experience, and I suspect that they will begin to attempt the same sort of long-term “grass roots” organizing efforts. They are not looking at the 2009-2011 elections or even the elections that follow that one, but perhaps elections as late as 2025. (Mind you, they will take any victory prior to that, of course, but their strategy is likely to focus on control in around 20 years.) I am not claiming that Canada is doomed to fall under their sway. I am not claiming that they will clearly be successful in their efforts. I am pointing out that they were dismissed as fringe in the mid-1970s, treated as dupes in 1980, and then set out to gain some measure of actual control–a goal for which they have been moderately successful. (Of course, success often sows its own destruction; there are the beginnings of rifts within the Religious Right as a number of people within that organization attempt to introduce more efforts toward social justice, environmental issues, etc. (_See the recent pre-inauguration resignation of Joel Hunter from the presidency of the Christian Coalition._)) If the American coalition does not self-destruct in the next few years, I suspect that they will be pumping experience (and funds) into Canada to try to shape more of the Candian political discourse, as well. There will be blunders and missteps as Yanks who fail to understand Canadian politics give some bad advice, but organizing is organizing and that is where they will target their efforts. ---
**Author:** ![Gorsnak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gorsnak/32/7587_2.png) [@Gorsnak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gorsnak)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2006, 7:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religious-right-in-canada/382995/12 "2006-12-07T07:21:33Z")
Thing is, the Canadian political system is fundamentally unlike the American system in some ways. One of those ways is the absence of the US’s rigid two-party system. In the US, neither of the two major parties has any chance of becoming irrelevant in the foreseeable future so gaining influence within the Republican party itself has a lasting and significant political impact. In Canada, a party can go from successive majority governments to completely wiped out overnight (see: Progressive Conservatives, 1993). If religious conservatives successfully took over the organizational positions in a party and then exercised their power to influence the party’s platform or candidates, that party would immediately become a minor niche party doomed to be competitive in no more than 10% or so of ridings nationally. It would become and remain an inconsequential fourth or fifth party in Parliament that would never have any real political impact except in the possible case of a minority government where the numbers play out just right so they’d have the balance of power, and even then their power would be limited to being able to trigger an election, as the major parties would just vote together against any significantly socially conservative legislation. I don’t mean to downplay the extent to which some parts of the country are socially conservative. There are quite a few of them. But the really populous parts are not. It’s not an accident that the Reform and Canadian Alliance parties struggled for years to achieve a political breakthrough east of the Great Lakes, and I guarantee you that if Ontarians and Quebeckers feel that western social conservatives have gained undue influence you’ll be looking at Prime Minister Stephane Dion in about 40 days. Hell, even in Alberta social conservatism is polarizing. The Alberta Tories just elected a new leader to replace King Ralph, and the major candidate who most emphasized that side of things lost, at least in part because he was emphasizing that. But **Sam** could tell you more about that - I don’t know that much about Alberta provincial politics. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2006, 2:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religious-right-in-canada/382995/13 "2006-12-07T14:50:43Z")
Yep. Alberta is no doubt the most conservative province in Canada, and we just picked a new leader of the Conservative party. The most socially conservative candidate lost to a guy who’s claim to fame is that he’s a nice guy who’s a ‘consensus builder’. To be fair, the most conservative guy lost in part because a lot of Alberta Liberals temporarily joined the Conservative party just so they could vote against him, and because he was also in favor of building a ‘firewall’ in Alberta that would allow us to more easily cut ourselves off from the rest of Canada should we so choose. That scared people. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2006, 2:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religious-right-in-canada/382995/14 "2006-12-07T14:53:45Z")
[QUOTE=Sam Stone] . . . and because he was also in favor of building a ‘firewall’ in Alberta that would allow us to more easily cut ourselves off from the rest of Canada should we so choose. [/QUOTE] 😕 An actual physical wall? Some kind of border controls? Or what? ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2006, 3:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religious-right-in-canada/382995/15 "2006-12-07T15:03:24Z")
No, a ‘firewall’ in this context means setting up our own institutions to replace federal ones, so that we have flexibility in decision-making. For example, outside the cities law enforcements is currently handled by the RCMP. Morton wanted to replace them with an Alberta police force. Our retirement system is based on the Canada Pension Plan, a federal program. Morton wanted to create an Alberta Pension Plan and have us opt out of CPP. Quebec has done both those things. ---
**Author:** ![Grey](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/b782af/32.png) [@Grey](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grey)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2006, 3:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religious-right-in-canada/382995/16 "2006-12-07T15:11:03Z")
They plan to funnel sour gas from the oil sands through a series of pipes lined along the border (especially those facing Ontario). In the event that the Federal government introduces a plan similar to the NEP those pipe will be lit preventing desperate Newfs and Timmins natives from reaching the Promised Land. It’s like genesis but with cowboy hats. 🙂 Alberta was badly scarred by the NEP. It was an almost ideal example of the worst kind of federal meddling in the name of the common good. Ever since then, the province has developed a distinct dislike for centralizing (read Liberal) federal governments. The _firewall_ would be the assertion of actual provincial powers allowed by the Canadian constitution but not currently used by the province. Powers such as withdrawing from the Canada Pension Plan, (like Quebec), establishing a provincial police force (like Ontario and Quebec) and collecting provincial income tax directly (like Quebec). ---
**Author:** ![The\_Flying\_Dutchman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/9fc348/32.png) [@The\_Flying\_Dutchman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Flying_Dutchman)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2006, 3:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religious-right-in-canada/382995/17 "2006-12-07T15:16:23Z")
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton] I always thought of Canuck conservatives as being like what we would call “Rockefeller Republicans” here – pro-business, but socially liberal and willing to negotiate on the welfare state – or else state-minimalists like our Libertarians (paging **Sam Stone** ), or else **moderately** socially conservative. At any rate, nothing like our religious right. [/QUOTE] The Conservative Party in Canada used to call themselves the Progressive Conservative Party. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2006, 3:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religious-right-in-canada/382995/18 "2006-12-07T15:30:37Z")
[QUOTE=The Flying Dutchman] The Conservative Party in Canada used to call themselves the Progressive Conservative Party. [/QUOTE] How did they mean the word “progressive”? (In the U.S. it’s usually used, nowadays, to mean “left-liberal,” but in the early 20th-Century it meant something different.) ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2006, 3:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religious-right-in-canada/382995/19 "2006-12-07T15:32:31Z")
[QUOTE=Grey] Alberta was badly scarred by the NEP. It was an almost ideal example of the worst kind of federal meddling in the name of the common good. [/QUOTE] 😕 NEP? ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [December 7, 2006, 3:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religious-right-in-canada/382995/20 "2006-12-07T15:56:22Z")
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton] 😕 NEP? [/QUOTE] [The National Energy Program](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Energy_Program) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religious-right-in-canada/382995.md?page=2)