David Warren and the "culture wars."

David Warren has proposed in a column that the current election in the United States is about the culture wars, the struggle between Christian and "post-Christian" society. This is not a unique characterization, and it is certainly one that both the US political parties have sought to exploit. Howard Dean ranted about "fundamentalists" at one point (a word that is brought out to scare secularists) and certainly Karl Rove has done everything he can to cultivate among evangelical Christians that President Bush is one of their number. However, it is incumbent on Christian voters (not just in the US, but everywhere democracy exists) to realize that in fact the vast majority of politicians are on their own side. And to be fair, for these politicians to win at the cut-throat game of politics they probably have to. They do not so much actually take a side in the culture wars as make sure they are seen taking a side (or both sides if they can get away with it.)

Take John Kerry, for example. He's tried to be on every side of the moral issues. While opposed to marriage clarity amendments to the US constitution, he has also suggested he is opposed to any change in the definition of marriage. He has taken a strong stance in favour of abortion rights, but has conversely stated that he believes that life begins at conception. Why has he taken so many varying positions? Look to Machiavelli, and not principle, for the answer. The constituencies he has as his political base are secularist, and just as with religious voters, secular voters have certain sacred cows. However, this base is not large enough on its own to secure electoral victory. Thus it is necessary for Mr. Kerry in some measure to be all over the field.

Mr. Bush, on the other hand, has not had to be as ambiguous with where he stands. He can present a strong "stay the course" image on Iraq, oppose therapeutic cloning, propose marriage definition amendments, and advocate tax cuts without any ambiguity, because his base among religious conservatives agrees with him, and there are enough special interests who strongly support individual items on the list to beef his base up to winnable levels. However, he owes the good fortune of being aligned with his base to the steady dilution of the Christian message in many pulpits today. Many Christians overlook Jesus' message concerning the poor, but it is hard to reconcile policies that favour faceless corporation with Jesus – he who exalts the poor woman's temple gift, who tells of those who visit him in prison, clothe him naked, feed him, by doing this for "the least of those who are members of my family, you did it to me." And certainly Mr. Bush's rush to war in Iraq seems to be at odds with the Beatitude that insists that "blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called children of God."

Christians can look at any political party's platform and see things they like. And they should be able to see things that they know to be wrong, too. No politician is going to be perfectly aligned with what you believe. So like you would when examining fruit in a store, examine the fruit of the candidate who wants your vote. Can you take the measure of a man or woman running for office without meeting them? I don't know. That is one reason why I always try and meet the candidates themselves here in Ottawa centre. I make my vote as locally focused as possible. Ultimately, it is about people, and not political party brand names.

It is incumbent on any Christian not to be a pawn in a culture war, a chess piece wielded by the powerful, but instead, to take a stand for the values and ethics that Jesus taught! Our influence may be limited. But like the slaves in the parable of the ten coins, we must invest the lot we are given wisely.