Politics in Canada 2: Rod Taylor on the Christian Heritage Party

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Publisher: In-Sight Publishing

Publisher Founding: March 1, 2014

Web Domain: http://www.in-sightpublishing.com

Location: Fort Langley, Township of Langley, British Columbia, Canada

Journal: In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal

Journal Founding: August 2, 2012

Frequency: Three (3) Times Per Year

Review Status: Non-Peer-Reviewed

Access: Electronic/Digital & Open Access

Fees: None (Free)

Volume Numbering: 12

Issue Numbering: 3

Section: E

Theme Type: Idea

Theme Premise: “Outliers and Outsiders”

Theme Part: 31

Formal Sub-Theme: Politics in Canada

Individual Publication Date: July 22, 2024

Issue Publication Date: September 1, 2024

Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Word Count: 6,694

Image Credits: Rod Taylor.

International Standard Serial Number (ISSN): 2369-6885

*Please see the footnotes, bibliography, and citations, after the publication.*

*Updated July 23, 2024.*

Abstract

Rod Taylor is the National Leader of the Christian Heritage Party of Canada (CHP Canada). Rod is happily married to Elaine, his wife of 50 years; they have two adult children and four grandchildren. Raised in a politically-active family, Rod has long understood the importance of men and women standing up for what they believe, standing up for the innocent and the helpless and using their freedom of speech to influence society for good. Having worked with his hands all his life, Rod understands the challenges faced by average working-class people and the responsibility we all share to build a society based on justice, freedom and personal initiative. Rod feels that—unless we are willing to speak up and make our voices heard—government may grow beyond its usefulness. The high cost of a bloated and unaccountable bureaucracy has already led to a soaring national debt and an unsustainable tax burden on the working class. Rod plans to change all that. Rod and the CHP intend to rein in wasteful government spending, remove unnecessary red tape and other obstacles to success and to defend innocent human life at all stages. The CHP would work to restore traditional marriage as the social norm and would protect schoolchildren from abusive and inappropriate indoctrination disguised as education. Rod is committed to the protection of religious freedom and freedom of speech. To watch a video introduction to Rod as he discusses his upbringing, his work experience and his vision for CHP Canada, click here. Taylor Discusses: the Christian Heritage Party; debt; sexual orientation; gender identity, or SOGI; philosophy around life; Presbyterian; stereotype; Bill 36; reaching; across the aisle; and censorship.

Keywords: BC debt issues, Bill 36 legislation, British Columbia education, carbon tax opposition, Christian Heritage Party philosophy, drug safety concerns, God’s purpose in life, libertarian socialism distinction, MAID controversy in BC, safe supply of drugs.

Politics in Canada 2: Rod Taylor on the Christian Heritage Party

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Today, we are here with the Christian Heritage Party’s national leader, Rob Taylor. Hello, welcome.

Rod Taylor: Hello. I’m the current leader of the Christian Heritage Party of British Columbia, the only province with national and provincial representation. So, we’re presuming we’re talking today about British Columbia, so I’ve come to you as the leader of CHPBC. We have several hot-button issues and some cold-button issues.

Jacobsen: Let’s call them that. We’ll start soft with some softballs. BC is in debt. Why should it not be in debt?

Taylor: Well, BC is a rich province, rich in resources, and not the least of which is human resources. We’ve got a lot of skilled and talented people, motivated people, people who want to work. Unfortunately, the last few years have been tough on the province, but the federal and provincial governments must live within their budgets and means. Any spending of money we don’t have is stealing from our children and grandchildren because we’re counting on them to pay for what we consume today, whether useful or wasteful. A lot of it is wasteful.

I need to find out what the number is provincial. Federally, we’re spending $125,000,000 daily on the interest on our national debt. I imagine BC is close to that mark, being a smaller part of the country. But anyway, governments have got to take the initiative to cut wasteful spending and get back to the basics, pay off the debt so we stop counting on our children to pay the interest on our luxuries today if you can call them luxuries, but things that we don’t need and shouldn’t be spending taxpayer money on.

Jacobsen: With regards to education, specifically sexual orientation, gender identity, or SOGI, what are the concerns there on two levels? One is the concern around emphasis, where previous eras only included a little. They focused more on reading, writing, arithmetic, and history. What are the consequences, from your point of view, might come from some of these educational programs if implemented in the way they are in the business?

Taylor: Well, of course, we believe, first of all, that those who are implementing them, essentially, the BC government, which is currently NDP, but even under the former BC Liberals, they took some steps with the adoption of transgenderism into the BC Human Rights Code. It boils down to a belief system. We believe there are two genders, male and female. It’s a biological reality. It’s a dictionary definition. So, the teaching of young people that there are more than two genders is teaching them a false ideology.

Secondly, it gets into what has happened in our province. Young people are being led down a garden path, thinking they will be happier if they transition to another gender. There are only two. If you think that you’re going to have either surgery or hormone treatments, puberty blockers, and those types of things, and somehow that’s going to make you happier, that is an illusion. It’s been proven to be an illusion in many people who have taken that serious step, especially when it comes to surgery. But even with hormone treatments, some of these things have permanent lifelong effects.

Many people who have transitioned can never be a father or a mother. They have lost the ability to procreate as God intended them. He created them male and female. It’s also a tremendous distraction. Our young people are not coming out of BC high schools with a high academic standard. They’re coming out confused. There is a movement within the education system under this left-wing–I’m going to call it a socialist–government. You could go as far as communist, but let’s say the left-wing, narrow-minded government that we have currently in BC that is pushing this agenda. Kids are missing out on the education they should be getting.

There are many aspects to that, but young people, if they’re making decisions and their parents aren’t involved as they should be, will have consequences later on. They’ll wake up and realize that many are waking up following surgery or hormone treatment, and they will realize that they can’t go back.

They can’t return to where they were and probably will never have children. They always talk about suicide. They throw that number out or that philosophy out that, “Oh, we have to do this to prevent suicide.” Well, two aspects of that. One is that many who undergo these life-changing surgeries can’t return.

They can’t turn the switch off and return to where they were. There is a high incidence of suicide among those people, the transitioners. Secondly, this province is committed to suicide when it comes to MAID, medical assistance in dying. That is, doctor-assisted suicide. This province has jumped into that, taken that hook, line, and sinker, and has made it a priority.

In BC, about 5% of deaths now are the result of medical assistance in dying or doctor-assisted suicide. That is a much higher percentage, even than left-wing loony California. The reason is that doctors in British Columbia are allowed to suggest the concept of MAID, to tell a patient, “Yes, I know you’re miserable. There’s an easy way out. We can help you end your life.”

So, we’re killing ten times as many people per capita in British Columbia as in California. People are being offered MAID instead of proper treatment. We have little palliative care in British Columbia. I know I’ve gone off-topic, but these things are all related. A worldview and a destructive philosophy of society tie them together.

There are few palliative care beds in British Columbia and across Canada for people in their final stages of life. We agree there is such a thing as an end of life, a natural progression to where a person comes to the end of their natural life. However, those people should have proper treatment, care, and loving treatment, and palliative care is in short supply in Canada and British Columbia. Instead of increasing the palliative care beds, this government stole the wonderful 10-bed facility operated by the Delta Hospice Society. It was a great palliative care facility. They did not perform medical-assisted suicide there.

This government, under David Eby, Adrian Dix, and Bonnie Henry, was so committed to this promotion of suicide, doctor-assisted suicide, that they stole that $8,500,000 facility, which was built not with government money but by donations from folks who wanted to create palliative care spaces. They did that when the Delta Hospital was already performing MAID a mile down the road. There was no reason to insist that people who do not want to kill their patients must do so. So, anyway, this government represents a culture of death. They are promoting death, both preborn and through abortions in British Columbia. Of course, that is one aspect of it.

They want to protect the ability to kill the preborn, to kill the elderly and the vulnerable. Instead, we think a government should care for its citizens and look for ways to help, not kill. So, as I said, these issues are all tied together. I’ve wandered off your narrow topic of education.

Jacobsen: But you’ve got into the topics we will build into. You made an important point: many things are not isolated as they’re grounded in a tacit worldview or philosophy around life. How are you conceiving of these political, policy, medical, and educational issues as undergirded by a particular philosophical view? How, in turn, do you view your party foundations as part of a counter to that? Are there any areas where there’s an overlap where you agree with the philosophy that somewhat undergirds some of these issues where you’re pointing out some issues that aren’t particularly healthy for society?

Taylor: Right. Well, our whole philosophy, our worldview as members of the Christian Heritage Party, we say Christian heritage, and we do qualify that to the extent that I know only some in British Columbia are Christians. But if you are a Canadian, you have a Christian heritage. The founders of the country and this province carried a Christian worldview. A Christian worldview is that every human being is made in the image of Almighty God. We have the potential to be sons and daughters of the Most High God, and He wants to use us as instruments of His in establishing a kind of society that we would want to live in.

He wants to make life good for us in British Columbia. Some people think that God is a spoilsport, that He wants to take away their fun and their freedom. The opposite is true. God wants us to be productive, happy and fulfilled citizens.

He wants our education system to work. By the way, some people have a narrow view of education. I am still in the education system. In my early seventies, I continued to learn every day. I study history. I learn things about grammar lan, language, and science. Science is a great thing. Some people think that Christians don’t follow science. We do, and many of the wonderful discoveries of scientists in the past have come from people with a Christian worldview. People who believe that God created this wonderful spinning globe we live on. Every plant, every animal, the interaction of wind and water and soil, and our human communication with each other, our appreciation, and the supply that He’s given us of the food that we need, the heat that we need, the water we need.

It all comes from Almighty God, maker of heaven and earth, and we want to honour and glorify Him. We want to be respectful of what He’s given us to steward. As members of the human race, He’s entrusted us with the care of this earth, and we want to look after it properly. We want to make sure everything runs smoothly. We don’t want to destroy His creation. We want to tend the garden, as it were. I do that in my backyard; I tend the garden. I love watching things grow. But God wants us to make British Columbia and Canada better places than when we found them and were born. He has plans for us and our interaction with our fellow human beings, creating a society, a civilization that is safe and secure, where love is a dominant feature.

He says, “Love your neighbour as you love yourself.” If you love yourself, you should love your neighbour just as well. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. He doesn’t want us to abuse others. He doesn’t want us to steal, hurt, kill, or take something away. He wants us to be people who make life better for our fellow citizens. So that’s the kind of British Columbia and the kind of Canada that we seek to be a part of.

Jacobsen: There are two key points there. For many Canadians, my background is at least on the Dutch side of my family. My mother’s Presbyterian. Her grandparents, or my grandparents, her parents, were Presbyterian. They came from Holland and were Dutch Orthodox or a little more stringent than Dutch Reformed. It’s a truism, the name of the party, which, if anyone’s denying that, at least for most Canadians, that’s not an intelligent point for them to make because it’s true. Most Canadians have a direct Christian heritage or, within Canadian society, just looking at the demographics.

It is a Christian heritage rooted in Canadian culture. Another important point you made is that Christians have done much science. If you listen to many theologians, they reference something that’s a foundational principle of looking at the rational intelligibility of the world. That rational intelligibility of the world is a foundation for understanding the world. “Why do you think there’s any order in the world?” They’re assuming a rational intelligibility to the world.

We can observe and make rational laws or discover rational laws about the world because we believe in it, as you’re saying. A fair argument can be made that has positive results in the scientific world, too. What about the legal, safe supply of drugs? What is the rub there for British Columbia in particular? 

Taylor: Of course, it’s not safe because people are dying from drugs every day. Trying to make it safer by providing it instead of trying to curtail it is a tragedy today. So many Canadians and young people do not have a real purpose in life. Drugs have become a distraction from all the exciting things that people could be doing in life, work being one of them, productive, creative work that is good for our communities and puts food on the table, etc. But people end up on drugs for a variety of reasons. Some are looking for some; they think that through drugs, they’re going to have a higher perception, which, of course, is the opposite. Some go into drugs to escape, some to be in rebellion, but what the education system and the police system, the legal system of British Columbia should be doing is giving people good reasons to live, encouraging them to pursue a real purpose in life.

God has a purpose for them. If they are lost in a drug stupor and can’t wait to get their next hit, it’s because they lack a genuine purpose in life or they have not recognized the purpose God has for them. God has much higher things for them. So, allowing that and just saying, okay, we’re just going to accept the fact that a large portion of our population is lost in drugs, and they’re going to stay lost in drugs. We don’t want to throw them in jail, so we supply them, which is the wrong way to go about it.

We stopped enforcing marijuana when it was still illegal. The police just stopped enforcing it because the courts were not carrying through. They’d bring somebody in. I saw this happen in our community. We knew of a particular drug house, and we would see them pick people up, take them to the police station, and the next day bring them back, and they just carried on.

It’s because the courts have been so lenient and unwilling to enforce the law for a long time. All I can say is that drugs are not the answer, and making drugs more accessible and giving them the credibility or legitimacy of government approval does not help. It keeps young people from finding that purpose in life that God has for them. Going back to education, I might mention that these things are all related.

In schools, if children are taught that they are not created beings by a loving, creative God who has their best plan and best purposes in mind, but instead taught that they’re just a piece of slime, a bit of dust tossed about on some algae-laden body of water, and they crawled out and grew arms and legs and all of a sudden they’re listening to an iPad—there’s a problem there. We should teach children that God has a purpose for them and help them discover that. Education is such a fascinating topic.

It contains so many fascinating topics. A person might live 100 or 200 years and never exhaust the possibilities of education and self-education. So, we need to give people a reason to live and vote, both federally and provincially. Elections BC and Elections Canada are going out of their way to make it easier for people to vote—more voting days, mail-in ballots, everything except online voting with the click of a mouse.

But what are people voting for? What choices do they have? If they don’t sense that their vote makes a difference, they think it won’t be counted properly, or even if they vote, it will stay the same. We need to give people a reason to live, vote, be devoted to their families, work hard, enjoy the fruits of their labour, and not see it taken away by excessive taxation and runaway inflation. Runaway inflation is partly a product of the carbon tax. BC has been at the forefront of pushing the carbon tax, and we oppose it. We would abolish the carbon tax in British Columbia. Federally, it should go away. It’s not fixing any environmental problems, but it is raising the cost of everything, and that’s the definition of inflation—the cost of everything going up. Inflation is a hidden tax because the dollar you have today won’t buy a dollar’s worth of goods tomorrow. So it’s the government taxing you, but they’re not brave enough to call it a tax. They let inflation do their work for them.

Again, many topics are running together, but there you have it. We live in a complex world. If you push one thing, it’s like those pickup sticks or some of these games where you’re supposed to pull one out without disturbing the rest of the pile. You can’t just fix a problem. It would be best to address some of these other issues to fix education.

Jacobsen: On that point of complexity, especially in politics and policy, at such a high level, we’re not just dealing with physics where the answers can be a little more precise because the variables are much fewer. So, maybe we can break the self-stereotyping or the stereotyping of others where we throw around these slogans or become slogans—”pro-life, “pro-choice,” “culture of life,” “culture of death.”

If you were to reframe so people get a new image of where you’re coming from when you’re saying a “culture of death“and counter that by implication with a “culture of life,“ what are the concepts, words, and terms that you’re trying to get at so people know where you’re coming from? Also, so, they’re not just blanketing you as, “Oh, he’s the head of a Christian Heritage Party, and I can assume he’s like any other Christian I’ve met,” and then they stereotype you and stop listening.

Taylor: Right. Well, we need to help people, of course. It’s easy to be against things, and it’s not as easy to show what we will do to fix problems. Take abortion, for instance. It is one of the key reasons why many of us are involved. We think the taking of innocent human life is a tragedy. We want to help young women, number one, save themselves for marriage and young men as well. They are made in the image of God. They have a precious individual personality. Their body is a sacred temple. Some people say it is ridiculous even to talk this way, but no, they can save themselves for marriage for the time when they’re committed and ready to raise children. Of course, there would be no need to even think about abortion if there weren’t sexual encounters leading to unplanned pregnancies.

So, how do we put that in a positive view? We have to teach people that they are made in the image of God, that they have a divine opportunity to live in a way that is pleasing to Him, and that they can gain the respect of their fellow students and fellow citizens, not by going along with the crowd, but by saying, “I’m saving myself for my divine appointment. God has a partner for me, and I will wait until that person comes along.” We will join ourselves in a bond of a committed relationship for life and then be ready to have children. We need to improve in this regard.

But okay, so now, you have a young woman who is in an unplanned pregnancy. We need to offer her some alternatives to abortion. Adoption, of course, is primarily what we think should be made easier for people. Allow the child to come to birth. People are waiting in line for the opportunity to adopt a baby.

If a young lady doesn’t feel in a position to raise the child, or maybe the man who impregnated her is not around and has bailed on her—these things do happen. We can’t pretend they don’t. We want to give them information. They need to be told the truth. This is not just a clump of cells. This is a living human being at an early stage of development. So, again, we have to be truthful and honest. If a young woman decides that she is going to carry the child to term and raise her child, then we need to be there to help her with the financial costs. We need to be there, ready to help her make good choices that she can live with and not regret later on.

We don’t often talk about how we can help them make better choices, but we certainly want to be there for that. The government has a responsibility to care for those who have ended up in this situation, especially through no fault of their own, like in cases of rape. We need to help them overcome that situation and not have regrets.

Jacobsen: We have two more points. Bill 36. How much time do you have left?

Taylor: Bill 36 is atrocious legislation. This government is committed to controlling British Columbians from one end of their lives to another. Bill 36—we’ve seen medical tyranny all through the COVID years. Bonnie Henry, Adrian Dix, and David Eby have destroyed BC’s healthcare system, and everybody knows that. So far, they have refused to hire back the many good doctors and nurses who were fired during COVID for refusing to take an experimental injection that they were concerned about.

And now they’re trying to make up for that by hiring foreign workers. But anyway, Bill 36 would put every medical professional in BC under the direct thumb of the government. It would condense the 24 or 26 colleges—College of Physicians, College of Acupuncturists, College of Chiropractors—into six governing bodies. Then, the government would have direct control over the appointment and directing of those bodies. They could demand that every medical professional take an injection or participate in euthanasia or whatever they think is consistent with their socialist approach to life, their top-down management of the people of British Columbia.

So we oppose it. Bill 36 should be repealed, and doctors should be free to maintain their College of Physicians and Surgeons and govern themselves. Of course, many things went wrong during COVID and the imposition of these vaccine mandates, and the government has not yet admitted any wrongdoing. They should be held accountable and, of course, voted out of office at the earliest opportunity.

Jacobsen: So, from your work in politics, both federal and provincial, what have you found effective in reaching across the aisle, in whatever direction it might be, to build bridges, find a common cause, and go against the stereotypes some Canadians might have about politicians where they think politicians are always at each other’s throats? Politics is about fighting where you need to fight for your values.

Taylor: Well, thanks. That’s a great question. I just heard about some of the stuff at the Republican convention. They mentioned that Robert Kennedy Jr. had just had a conference with Trump. So, that’s crossing many aisles to connect those dots.

When Justin Trudeau was elected and became the Prime Minister of Canada when his party won a majority, I wrote him a letter shortly after that election and sent him a hard copy, saying, “Congratulations. God has granted you a tremendous opportunity to do the right thing for the country. I’m also the leader of a political party, and I would love to meet with you and discuss policy issues.“ I am waiting for a reply, not even from his office, which is unfortunate. Someone figured it wasn’t worth replying to me. But that’s tragic. I would have loved to have had a one-on-one conversation with him.

The way they run, the way CBC participates and other national media and the big parties run the campaign, they want people to believe there are only two or three choices, maybe four, in the country, and they don’t include us and many of the other smaller parties in the discussion. This is also tragic because we have much to offer beyond rhetoric, blaming, accusations, and pigeonholing people and parties. In politics, it’s impossible to avoid some of that completely. But we need to distinguish between articulating our policy differences and explaining to the public, our members, and potential voters why our policies are better and what’s wrong with the policies of the existing government compared to personal attack ads, attacking individuals as leaders or other candidates.

We may think they have something worthy of being attacked, but we should be doing our best to raise awareness of the issues, influence people in our direction, and hopefully come to some workable solutions to the divisions between our parties now. Politics is about presenting ourselves as the only choice and that we have no other alternative. You’re making a big mistake if you go with the other guys. We have to do our best to articulate why our policies will be good, not only for us but also for the country and even for the people in the other parties.

As a nation, we could have done a better job with that. In recent years, political divisiveness has worsened in the United States and Canada. That’s part of the reason we’re doing this series. The assassination attempt on Trump the other day is a one-off, probably, but some people resort to violence to get their way. We don’t believe in that. My dad used to say, and he was a lobbyist on many issues over the years and involved on the other side of the political spectrum, “We can accomplish anything if we don’t care who gets the credit.”

Jacobsen: That’s a great line.

Taylor: It is. We should work towards that in the CHP. Of course, we’d like to get the credit. We want people to know how great our policies are. If we were the first ones to put something on the table, it’s nice for people to know that. But we would be happy if other parties adopted and passed our policies into law. We’d be happy to see babies protected and traditional marriage restored. We’d be happy to see our streets safer, our debts smaller, and our education system stronger. If others do that, we should rejoice. We should celebrate with them.

We should congratulate other politicians when they do the right thing for the right reason. Even if they do the right thing for the wrong reason, we should still let them know that we appreciate their good decisions. So, federally, I’ve been the leader since 2014. I took the opportunity to meet with like-minded MPs in Ottawa because I wanted them to know that we support what they’re doing. We have interviewed—I do a weekly podcast called CHP Talks that comes out every Thursday—we have interviewed Cathay Wagantall, a wonderful member of Parliament from Saskatchewan, Yorkton-Melville. She’s done much good work on the pro-life cause. We appreciate what she’s done. When I had the opportunity at the National March for Life, I verbally expressed my appreciation for the good members of Parliament who are trying to do the right thing, even amid a divided Parliament. Even the Conservative Party is not committed to the pro-life cause in the same way we are. But we want to recognize courage and integrity when good people do good things, whatever party they’re in.

I’ve met with Maxime Bernier to discuss how we can work together. We share many ideas, principles, and concerns. The People’s Party is not quite where we are on the pro-life cause, maybe not on traditional marriage, but we do share many concerns about immigration levels, national debt, and what’s happening in the schools. We do want to work together with politicians who are willing to work with us.

I’ve gone out of my way to meet with BC Conservative leader John Rustad long ago, a year before he had as much momentum as he has now. We must maintain our positions as a provincial party, Christian Heritage Party BC, and as a federal party, CHP Canada. Their positions are biblically mandated. Some people would call us purists, but we believe we cannot compromise on the protection of innocent human life, for instance. When people are moving in our direction, like Bernier, who appears to be paying more attention to the pro-life cause than he was 3 or 4 years ago, we want to thank you for taking that step.

I would love to see the Christian Heritage Party have 1, 2, 3, or 4 members in either Ottawa in the House of Commons or the BC legislature who could support a conservative government or People’s Party government, working together with the People’s Party. We could have some members there who could be an anchor and a rudder to help guide the Conservative Party. Mostly, people in the Conservative Party want to do the right thing. They fall short as a party and, certainly, the leader in prioritizing the protection of innocent human lives. That’s a non-negotiable. Wherever the winds are blowing today, the winds of public opinion, a leader’s job is to lead in areas of deep moral obligation, conscience, and integrity.

So, anyway, I’ll sum it up by saying we should work together with as many people as possible. Thank them when they do the right thing. Hold their feet to the fire when they do the wrong thing. I’d like to see even that kind of honesty and integrity in Ottawa, in the national cabinet, that whoever the prime minister is, they would appoint the best possible person to the position of national defence, even if that person is in another party. The best possible person for national health and other cabinet positions. Churchill did it during wartime. He pulled together leaders.

Jacobsen: He was in a particularly singular time, too. Those moments require a constitution from wherever, not only from the environment. The cream rises to the top in those circumstances. 

Taylor: But anyway, it would be much better to work together. It’s a shame that the question period is generally a period of heckling and antagonism. It should be a period of genuine expression of opinion and sombre personal reflection on whether we are doing the right thing. The opposition should hold the feet to the party’s fire at the top of the heap.

For instance, we were supporters of the freedom movement, the Freedom Convoy, the truckers, and so on. We still are. A lot of what happened was terrible and should never have happened. Unfortunately, some of the fallouts are still taking place in the courts. We still see some bad decisions being made, and there needs to be a chance to acknowledge mistakes. But I was sorry during the truckers’ movement and even today when I see these “F Trudeau“ flags. They are attacking a person. Justin Trudeau has outlived his time in office and should be voted out of office. But to attack him personally and to use abusive language towards him does not build bridges. It does not create a greater likelihood of him adopting our point of view. It creates a greater distance and a desire for revenge, hostility, and antagonism that we don’t need.

We can be clear about our position without being rude and abusive. We’ve all made mistakes, and hopefully, people take a point of reflection after they do that. I don’t blame anyone for being frustrated with where things were, being passionately frustrated. There were times when civil disobedience was required, polite civil disobedience. However, uncivil abuse of other people in a personal way is not the right answer. We should be as articulate and gracious as possible to be heard. I don’t mean to lay down as the doormat and pretend everything’s all right, but we should use polite society’s tools to communicate most effectively.

Jacobsen: To those members of the community in Canada who are themselves Christian, whether Protestant or Catholic, I believe you come from a Protestant background. Is that correct?

Taylor: Yes. I became a Christian at the age of 23. When people ask me what denomination I belong to, I say I’m a Bapti-Costal. Anyway, we have good interactions with people from several denominations. Within the Christian Heritage Party, we have both Catholics and Protestants. Both Catholics and Protestants were involved in the formation of the party and are still involved as candidates.

Jacobsen: I didn’t know that.

Taylor: Yes. We certainly believe that anyone who names the name of Christ and seeks to please the God of the Bible should be able to work with us. We also talk about a Judeo-Christian heritage, bringing the Old Testament in. We honour the living Christ, His death on the cross, and the power of His resurrection to change our lives and society. So, we’re not a denominational party. We are a Christian-based party, and we believe that the Bible is the source of much wisdom for us both as individuals and as a nation.

Jacobsen: The point I wanted to make, aside from that, was: Do many Christians in Canadian society now feel that they cannot authentically express their political views in the political arena? Is that a real phenomenon for some of them?

Taylor: Are you saying there’s censorship, basically, as well as peer pressure?

Jacobsen: Right. So, the point you’re making about peer pressure. I want to take a nuanced sliding scale. Outright censorship would be in the 100% range. But then, do they feel social shaming, guilt-tripping, ostracization, and so on? Do they feel that those things are happening to them when they express their political views in the public arena?

Taylor: I would say yes. I’ve had some epithets directed at me regarding Christianity. All I can say for those who have a negative view of Christianity and Bible believers—often referred to as Bible thumpers—is that there is a perception, and people have gained that perception from a variety of sources. The mainstream media has taken a fairly negative view of Christianity in recent years. Some of the things Christianity has been blamed for, like the bad things that happened to First Nations people, are unfair. I’m not saying the bad things didn’t happen. I’m saying that the perception that a Christian worldview caused it is mistaken.

People need to work on fulfilling their ideals. In some cases, there have been misunderstandings, some self-generated, about what it means to be a Christian and a follower of Christ. Some people are afraid that we want to impose religion on our nation. That’s far from reality. We believe God has given us certain principles to live by that are good for us and the nation.

If you go even to the Ten Commandments—don’t lie, don’t steal, don’t kill, don’t commit adultery—those are all things that, if everybody lived that way, we’d be a lot happier as a people and as a country. The fact that individuals have failed or have manifested negative behaviour while still proclaiming themselves as Christians is a reality. That’s why many people have struggled to find true faith, I guess.

When I met my wife, she was a Christian before I was, and she had a button on her guitar strap that said, “Not religion, a relationship with Jesus.“ Religion can be an anchor. The Bible says true religion and undefiled is this: to visit the fatherless and the widows in their affliction and to keep oneself unspotted from the world. We’re supposed to look after people with low incomes, care for people in need, and not get tangled up in evil things. If we do those things, we’ll be on the right track.

The other thing about religion, and I’ll say, is that Christianity is one. Of course, we live in a country that has diverse religions. But what many of those who attack Christianity don’t realize is that atheistic secularism—and I include in that a staunch belief in non-directed evolution that says we came from nothing, we’re going nowhere, we mean nothing to nobody, there is no supreme God—that kind of belief system is a religion. People are slow to grasp that, but when atheistic secular humanism is imposed on us through the media, government channels, and the education system, we are having a religion forced on us and our children.

People say, “Well, if you disagree with it, you’re hateful.“ No, it’s competing worldviews, and Christianity has the same right in this country to put forward its worldview belief system and principles as any other religion, including secular humanism, which is a religion and needs to be treated as such.

Jacobsen: Right. What else should we cover?

Taylor: Oh, boy. What do you hope to achieve with this? 

Jacobsen: Because this is independent media. I have other places where I have contracts, but this is independent media. It’s small, but whatever. What would you like to be asked of other political leaders or representatives we don’t see in mainstream media? I don’t mean leading questions or accusatory questions. Honest questions to get a genuine view on something that they either get cut off or give a brief response to. Something where they can respond to something you’re genuinely curious about. 

Taylor: When you ask a question, you’d want an honest answer, not the evasiveness we often see in question periods in the House. We should ask our questions so they can be answered, not as a hidden attack.

When you ask a question, whether it’s about immigration, the carbon tax, abortion, or euthanasia, there should be legitimate questions. We could now look back at the COVID years and ask those in charge, “Do you think you did everything right as a government? Have you learned anything from the facts? Are you willing to talk about the real science that shows that your policies, the mandated injections of experimental genetic material, were not truly safe and that people died from them?”

I would ask questions that get to the bottom of issues that need to be addressed today. For instance, I would like to know how the justice system can become independent again. Judges, including Supreme Court justices, are appointed by the government, and the mainstream media, like CBC and CTV, receive government funds. How can we expect non-biased answers? We want our courts to operate on a constitutional basis.

We don’t want them to be partisan or make decisions because the prime minister put them in place, and they owe him something. They may not think of it that way, but that will happen. Good people I know who express my views often fall off the deep end when they reach the Supreme Court. How do we regain a society where truth is important in administering justice?

How do we ensure that the powers that be, the prime minister, the province’s premier, and others who have made decisions are willing to accept a decision from a court that may not agree with them? That’s supposed to be the checks and balances of our system—the administrative, executive, and court branches. How do we get back to that? That’s a big question because we need total honesty and willingness for leaders to be held accountable.

We’re a voice in the wind, trying to bring that forward. We want to be honest with ourselves. We may have to be asked tough questions, too. How did you arrive at that conclusion? Are you sure you’re on the right track?

We will struggle until we return to truth, honesty, and freedom of speech, particularly in our country. We can only afford the things we need to do for our children and grandchildren if we get back to balanced budgets.

Jacobsen: Right. Thank you very much for your extended time.

Taylor: Thank you for taking the time to hear me out and allowing me to be longer in my answers. I look forward to hearing this and your other interviews with politicians and leaders.  I appreciate you bringing me in, and thanks a lot. Keep up your goodwork.

Jacobsen: Okay. Thanks a lot. Take care.

Bibliography

None

Footnotes

None

Citations

American Medical Association (AMA 11th Edition): Jacobsen S. Politics in Canada 2: Rod Taylor on the Christian Heritage Party. July 2024; 12(3). http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/canada-politics-2

American Psychological Association (APA 7th Edition): Jacobsen, S. (2024, July 22). Politics in Canada 2: Rod Taylor on the Christian Heritage Party. In-Sight Publishing. 12(3).

Brazilian National Standards (ABNT): JACOBSEN, S. Politics in Canada 2: Rod Taylor on the Christian Heritage Party. In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal, Fort Langley, v. 12, n. 3, 2024.

Chicago/Turabian, Author-Date (17th Edition): Jacobsen, Scott. 2024. “Politics in Canada 2: Rod Taylor on the Christian Heritage Party.” In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal 12, no. 3 (Summer). http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/canada-politics-2.

Chicago/Turabian, Notes & Bibliography (17th Edition): Jacobsen, S “Politics in Canada 2: Rod Taylor on the Christian Heritage Party.” In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal 12, no. 3 (July 2024).http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/canada-politics-2.

Harvard: Jacobsen, S. (2024) ‘Politics in Canada 2: Rod Taylor on the Christian Heritage Party’, In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal, 12(3). <http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/canada-politics-2>.

Harvard (Australian): Jacobsen, S 2024, ‘Politics in Canada 2: Rod Taylor on the Christian Heritage Party’, In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal, vol. 12, no. 3, <http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/canada-politics-2>.

Modern Language Association (MLA, 9th Edition): Jacobsen, Scott. “Politics in Canada 2: Rod Taylor on the Christian Heritage Party.” In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal, vo.12, no. 3, 2024, http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/canada-politics-2.

Vancouver/ICMJE: Scott J. Politics in Canada 2: Rod Taylor on the Christian Heritage Party [Internet]. 2024 Jul; 12(3). Available from: http://www.in-sightpublishing.com/canada-politics-2.

License & Copyright

In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. ©Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use or duplication of material without express permission from Scott Douglas Jacobsen strictly prohibited, excerpts and links must use full credit to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with direction to the original content.