Gerry Nicholls is a communications consultant and formerly vice president of the National Citizens Coalition, Canada’s largest organization for the defence of economic and political freedoms.

Does Prime Minister Stephen Harper, like some ancient Roman emperor, make political decisions only after he inspects the entrails of a sacrificial chicken?

I am actually waiting for some political columnist to ask this question.

After all, it’s suddenly the rage for such observers to put forward the oddball notion that perhaps Harper is a devoted disciple of irrational religious practices.

What’s the proof for this extraordinary claim?

Well it all has to do with Harper’s approach to climate change or more specifically with his unwillingness to tackle this issue in a way that would please “green” activists like David Suzuki.

For instance, Globe and Mail columnist Lawrence Martin says Harper’s anti-Suzuki stance on climate change might be the result of his belonging to the Christian and Missionary Alliance church which, says Martin, “views science and environmentalism with what might be called scorn.”

And Paul Adams suggested in iPolitics that the media has a duty to pry into the prime minister’s personal religious views so Canadians can see if that’s the reason why Harper won’t take a “rational” approach to climate change.

As Adams put it, “If Harper and his government had a more credible account of their decision to ignore the frightening implications of the scientific consensus on climate change, the question (of Harper’s religion) would not arise in the same way.”

The implication here, of course, is that Harper might secretly be imposing the dangerous agenda of some ill-defined mystical Christian cult, a cult that perhaps believes global warming is a gift from God or that wind turbines are the play things of the devil.

And if Harper believes that crazy stuff, by extension he probably also believes in other zany Christian ideas, such as Creationism, the Bible’s literal truth and that the best quarterback in the NFL is Tim Tebow.

Scary!

Ironically, however, in making these arguments both Adams and Martin are breaking one of the Ten Commandments, which I believe goes something like this: “Thou shalt not peddle political nonsense.”

And make no mistake, to suggest Harper might make decisions based on Biblical scriptures or to imply that he’s guided by some sort of superstitious Christian extremism is pure baloney.

First off, I worked closely with Harper for more than five years and I can tell you he was one of the most rational and logical thinkers I have ever met.

Plus, in all that time I knew him we only discussed religion once and that’s when he told me social conservatism was a dead end politically in Canada.

Hardly the view of a radical Christian, bible-thumping evangelist!

Also please recall that during his Reform Party days Harper was known as a social “moderate”. This is why, by the way, he received virtually no support from social conservatives when he ran for the leadership of the Canadian Alliance.

In fact, since becoming prime minister, Harper has done precious little to advance anything remotely resembling a social conservative or Christian agenda.

So what then explains his environmental policies?

Well, let me explain it in a way Adams, Martin and others of the “Harper is a religious zealot” school of thinking, can understand.

Harper does indeed make his decisions based on what might be called a religion. But it’s not Christianity, or Judaism, or paganism.

Rather, it’s the one true faith for politicians world-wide; I call it The Holy Church of Winning Political Power.

The high priests for this church are spin doctors; its sacred texts are polling data; its main holy day is Election Night.

And as something akin to the “Pope” of this Church, Harper would consult his Delphic Oracles, otherwise known as focus groups, who would likely prophesize that a true green agenda, of the kind David Suzuki would advocate, would be bad political medicine.

It would mean imposing stifling regulations on industry, creating job-killing carbon taxes and wasting tax dollars by the millions on “pie in the sky” green technology.

And oh yeah, Harper would have to shut down the Alberta oilsands.

Such policies, needless to say, would alienate Harper’s political base, undermine Canada’s fragile economy, and probably lead to a Conservative Party defeat in the next federal election.

For the Harper Tories that would be sacrilege!

My point is Harper’s motivations are no mystery. They have little to do with Divine Inspiration and a lot to do with tough-minded, partisan, pragmatic, purely terrestrial calculation designed to ensure political self-preservation.

In short, from a politician’s perspective, Harper’s impulses on climate change are completely secular and completely rational.

What isn’t rational, on the other hand, is to insinuate, without a shred of proof, that the prime minister is something he clearly isn’t.

Lawrence Martin’s (August 8) response: “In my column, I wrote clearly that anything about religion effecting Harper’s policies is in the realm of ‘speculation’. I wrote furthermore that the PM’s religious beliefs are his own business and that being a member of a church does not necessarily mean one accepts all of that church’s teachings.”



To view other articles by Gerry Nicholls, click here. To go to his website, click here.

The views, opinions and positions expressed by all iPolitics columnists and contributors are the author’s alone. They do not inherently or expressly reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of iPolitics.