Secession, Sovereignty, and the Moral Foundation of a Nation: A Christian Perspective on Western Canada’s Future
In theory, Western Canada—particularly Alberta—harbors a strong secular or atheist demographic. Yet, some individuals who argue that “natural law” supersedes Christianity overlook a fundamental contradiction: without a belief in God, moral frameworks become subjective, fluid, and often opportunistic. One can essentially construct their own values and ethics without accountability to a higher authority.
The concept of property rights, as we know them today, is deeply rooted in Judeo-Christian values. If we are to have a serious conversation about wealth creation and protection of opportunity for the average citizen, then a shared moral foundation is essential. Without it, governance becomes unstable and prone to internal contradictions.
The Illusion of Secession Without Shared Values
When examining the secessionist ambitions of both Quebec and Alberta, a key observation emerges: neither movement seems fundamentally driven by principle. Instead, both appear focused on economics—on money, rather than on values or nation-building ethics.
Quebec, with its roots in French republicanism, is inherently more politically agile than Alberta. Old-stock Quebecers, descendants of the French Republic, understand that in a republic, laws can be reshaped to reflect evolving ideology. Quebec doesn’t waste time complaining—they organize and legislate.
In contrast, Canada remains tethered to monarchical tradition, with citizens still considered subjects of the Crown. This fosters a kind of political passivity or insecurity, particularly among English-speaking Canadians. Unlike the United States, which achieved independence through revolution, Canadians never had such a break, leading to a national identity often defined by contrast to America—“We’re not like them,” many say.
So, when America elects a Trump, Canadians instinctively counterbalance by voting Liberal—embracing figures like Mark Carney, who represents the institutional elite and globalist consensus.
The Role of God and Government
Here lies a deeper issue: Canada’s monarchy subtly discourages open dialogue about God. In the U.S., there’s no king—no monarch to mediate authority. The absence of an absolute ruler opens the door to both freedom and risk. A republic requires vigilance, or the people risk becoming subjects of bureaucratic overreach.
Whether it’s property rights or socialism, both are man-made constructs meant to give structure to society. But if God is removed from the equation, then people begin to treat government as their god—believing it alone can deliver prosperity and justice.
Take Indigenous land rights, for example. Canada did not need to “give” anything to First Nations. No one technically owns the land—God owns everything. But remove God, and land becomes a commodity, fought over by human institutions under the illusion of permanent ownership.
Switzerland: A Model Rooted in Christian Foundations
Switzerland often serves as an example of a successful secular state. Yet its success is only possible because the Swiss Republic was originally built on Christian values. Though 35% of Swiss citizens today identify as atheists, the constitutional framework they operate under would not exist without a Christian foundation.
The Swiss have minimized their federal government and designed a presidency that is intentionally weak—a rotating role that reinforces decentralized governance. This would be unthinkable without the social cohesion and trust historically embedded in a Christian-informed culture.
Atheism, Sacrifice, and the Canada Pension Debate
The issue of secession becomes particularly fragile when linked to pensions. Non-believers, especially secular individuals, tend to avoid sacrifice, preferring comfort over conviction. This is critical when discussing Alberta’s relationship with the Canada Pension Plan (CPP).
Arguments suggesting that inter-provincial migration for work justifies CPP contributions across provinces are weak. If Ontario workers must move to Alberta for better pay, it highlights a failing in Ontario’s economy—not a fault in Alberta’s.
The real metric that matters is not where a person lives, but who contributes: public sector workers or private sector earners. The CPP is effectively a Ponzi scheme, and if Alberta were to exit, it would need to withstand 10 years of economic pain to establish its own pension plan. That’s the price of sovereignty.
Unfortunately, the deeper concern is the unwillingness of Alberta’s population to endure such sacrifice. Without a Christian willingness to suffer for future generations, secession collapses under the weight of self-interest. Many Albertans, particularly those without faith, may not want to give up their pensions—even for independence.
Political Leverage and Global Realities
Should Alberta leave, the United States would negotiate strategically—with Democrats likely hostile and Republicans more business-minded. Canada, facing the fallout, would suddenly realize that Quebec might be next, especially if Alberta’s departure weakens the federal benefits Quebec currently enjoys.
If both Alberta and Quebec left, Canada would face an existential crisis. English-speaking Canada would be forced to reevaluate its identity and governance structure, particularly without the centralizing influence of the Canadian Heritage Department, which disproportionately serves Quebec and First Nations initiatives.
Conclusion: No Freedom Without Faith
At the core of national prosperity is not money—but values. Greed destroys civilizations. If your belief system starts and ends with money or pensions, you’re not prepared for the sacrifice required to build or preserve a free nation.
Christianity teaches sacrifice, community, and long-term stewardship. People once died for Judeo-Christian values. If modern citizens aren’t even willing to give up a pension for their children’s future, then talk of secession is hollow.
To all Albertan secessionists: if you can’t create your own pension plan, you’re not ready to leave. And if your own people aren’t willing to suffer for liberty, your movement will fail—not because of the federal government, but because of your own lack of conviction.