He glowered at my press badge with a mixture of suspicion and disapproval.

It was 1996 and the religious right was ascendant in the United States. More than 3,500 evangelical Christians had gathered in Washington to mobilize for the coming election.

I explained that I was a Canadian reporter and this was my first exposure to the Christian Coalition. His frown softened somewhat. He considered my question for a moment, then said America needed less government and lower taxes so that faith and family could return to the centre of national life.

His reasoning eluded me.

I could understand why evangelical Christians opposed premarital sex and abortion, wanted public funding for religious schools and believed every child should grow up in a two-parent heterosexual family. I didn't share their values or like their vision, but I recognized the sincerity of their desire to save their country from moral decay.

Tax cuts on the other hand - particularly those aimed at well-off voters - ran counter to everything I knew about Christianity.

They put money into the hands of those who needed it least. They weakened the public services on which the disadvantaged depend. They accelerated the polarization of society into winners and losers. They encouraged people to put their own well-being ahead of that of their fellow citizens.

How was this consistent with the scriptural injunction to ``love thy neighbour as thyself''? How could believers reconcile their eagerness to keep more of their wealth with Christ's urging to ``sell whatsoever thou has and give to the poor''? How could they square tax cuts with the biblical message of sacrifice and selflessness?

Today, I'm struggling with those questions again.

Canadian Alliance Leader Stockwell Day, who proudly proclaims his Christian faith, intends to make tax cuts the centrepiece of his election campaign.

He is offering to bring in a flat tax system under which everyone would pay the 17 per cent rate now reserved for those earning less than $30,000.

Ottawa's two higher tax rates - 24 per cent for those earning between $30,000 and $60,000 and 29 per cent for those earning more than $60,000 - would be eliminated.

Day's scheme would reduce federal revenues by approximately $20 billion, forcing the government to cut spending by one-sixth. This would make life much tougher for those who need public support; the poor, the elderly, the chronically ill, the unemployed and those living in depressed regions.

Such a policy flatly contradicts Christ's invocation to feed the hungry, clothe the needy and tend to the sick. ``Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, you have done it unto me.''

A second feature of Day's flat tax plan is that the savings would flow disproportionately to upper-income Canadians.

According to finance department estimates, a two-income family of four earning $65,000 would get a tax break of $1,822 whereas a similar family with an income of $200,000 would save $16,270.

Yet Christ repeatedly urged his followers not to store up earthly treasure or seek gratification in material gain.

It is possible that devout Christians would use their tax savings to help those less fortunate than themselves. But that is a shaky presumption on which to build public policy.

It is possible - though debatable - that Day's flat tax would produce such a surge in economic growth that the poor would benefit along with everyone else. But one of the painful lessons of the '90s is that a rising tide does not lift all boats.

It is even possible that a reduction in the role of government would produce a stronger, more virtuous society. But it is hard to see how.

It crossed my mind four years ago, as I covered the Christian Coalition convention, that the potent mixture of religious fervour and right-wing economics seeping into American politics might soon find its way to Canada. Reform Leader Preston Manning was already laying the groundwork.

I wasn't greatly troubled by the social precepts espoused by evangelical Christians; their pro-life, anti-gay views seemed unlikely to win mainstream support in Canada. But I found the link between tax cuts and religious faith disturbing.

The rise of the Canadian Alliance and the accession of Stockwell Day has put this agenda front and centre.

It demands a response from Christians who are uncomfortable being conscripted to fight for personal tax breaks. They can no longer afford to sit quietly in their pews.

It invites a response from church leaders who still believe in the ``social gospel'' of alleviating suffering and speaking out for the marginalized. This is their chance to offer a moral alternative to Day's vision.

And it calls for a response from citizens of all faiths who value Canada's traditions of compassion and collective responsibility. The spirit of the nation is in their hands.

Carol Goar is the Editorial Page Editor of the Toronto Star.

Copyright* 1996-2000 Toronto Star Newspapers Limited

###