Christopher Jahn wrote: >You are making the exact same point I am! > >Bamm said that his country is a "Christian Democracy"; >I said "You can't mandate a religon AND be a democracy." > >[Incidentally, Bamm was wrong: he's not living in a "Christian >Democracy"] >
We differ in our definition of a "Christian" country. Christianity is not a state religion and so it is not a Christian country in that context. (Although it was an official religion for well over 300 years.) What makes it a Christian country is the common observation that Christian principles heavily influence its laws. For example: 1) Divorce is not allowed. 2) Abortion is illegal. 3) The government endorses a natural family planning method. 4) Prostitution is illegal. 5) Same-sex marriage is not allowed. etc. I am not saying that I agree with them, but the point is if you take a look at all its its laws as a whole and even the Constitution you will see an overall underlying theme that is consistent with Christian principles. You can see that the people who crafted these laws are clearly influenced by their Christian beliefs. You will not find this consistency in other countries who also happen to have Christian majorities, such as the US. For the record, former President Ramos is a Protestant who is very active in his church while President Macapagal and former President Cory Aquino are devout Catholics. > [Incidentally, Bamm was wrong: he's not living in a > "Christian Democracy"] [Incidentally, "Christian Democracy" is also a political term. It refers to democracy implemented in a Christian context. The ruling party, which President Macapagal and former President Ramos belong to, is the Lakas-National Union of Christian Democrats, which in turn is affiliated with the Christian Democratic parties of Europe. Under this context we can also say that the Philippines is a Christian Democracy in the political sense.]
