"There was one true Christian, and he died on the cross."

Can America still be called a "Christian Nation"? Robert Meacham examines.

"Christian Nation", by the way, is one of those terms that makes me bristle, and I bristle especially hard because of the fact that the Philippines, my home country is often itself characterized as a Christian nation. In Catholic high school, my teachers (not just my religion teachers) would boast with pride of the fact that the Philippines is the only "Catholic country in Asia." Christian tradition in the Philippines, after all, is more than just an adherence to going to church on Sundays with your family. Christianity and its associated discourse deeply informs nearly all aspects of Philippine life. Sex among high schoolers is the cautiously whispered exception rather than the norm, prostitution is at the same time derided and supported, and homosexuality is the big gay elephant in the room that everyone pretends they can see through. Let's not even start the debate on contraception, because I can go on and on with that one.

For sure, the ethics of sexual conduct is the area in which there is much stir about adherence to Christian doctrine, but it's more than just that. Growing up in the Philippines, Christianity, particularly Catholicism, was what I was taught to assume was the default state of any ordinary, rational human being. Baptists and Protestants were tolerated to an extent (They don't believe in Mama Mary!) but any other creed was seen as a sort of aberration. Muslims and peoples of other religions remain heavily marginalized by most of Philippine society. Remember when the kind folks in Greenhills wouldn't even give the muslim pearl vendors a spot to pray? It's not like they were about to sully your skyline with spires and minarets, people.

The whole attitude that promoters of the "Christian Nation" idea have is precisely what makes me so annoyed with them. Part of it is my own libertarian tendency to support the free and harmless exercise of personal religious fulfillment. But most of it is my reaction to the arrogance that some Filipino Christians have to tell other people how to live their lives as if they were inferior or not wanted in the country. Granted, separation of church and state in the Philippines is a cautiously cobbled together line. Twice have (men who have been) Catholic priests (until their political inaugurations) won public office in the country. True, it's far from a theocracy, but the Church's influence on Philippine politics cannot be denied. And because of this fact, certain individuals seem to think it's okay to use religious teaching and chauvinism to justify bullying, intolerance, and ill will.

Of the applications of religion in the Philippines, the one that I really find disgust with is the way it's used to manipulate the poor. I don't believe I need to link to Marx here. Oops. Given how poor people can get sometimes, it's not hard to see how people can place their hopes in God for lack of any other alternative. And since the majority of the Philippines remains poor, that's a lot of people who hang on God's every word. The fact is that as long as the Philippines remains a democratic country, the ones who rule will be the ones who can manipulate the majority. The masa and dukha win elections, not the middle class. Priests have helped depose presidents. Thus, there is a great, great interest in claiming to speak for God. I wonder if there are any biblical references.

The term "Post-Christian" was bandied around a lot in Meacham's article, but I'm still hesitant to use the words to define my beliefs. There are some things, such as abortion, that I still don't feel completely at peace with. I've often been called arrogant for believing and claiming that I can define my morality without the concept of God. How much more so than those who purport to speak for God himself? What would Jesus do?

The end is nigh for godless heathens such as myself. But only whenever God feels like it, of course.