The Prime Minister and other members of the government have not said anything very controversial. It is a historical fact (perhaps unwelcome to some, but true) that our main systems of ethics, the way we do law and justice, the values of society, how we decide what is fair, the protection of the poor, and most of the way we look at society... All have been shaped by and founded on Christianity.
Religion is a topic which is a constant in the national discourse. Using vitriolic terminology to describe atheists is not conducive to respectable debate and will only serve to sow animosity between religious and non-religious people. Due to the passionate nature of the topic a rational, respectable debate is difficult to nurture, but if it is to be nurtured then such fatuous labeling needs to be rid of.
To think the question can be answered yes or no is surely to keep the analysis at Sunday school level. How to describe a country is always going to be complex. A 'Christian country' might be many things...
Cameron's sincerity isn't the issue here though - in this instance it isn't unfair to say he has none, it's political manoeuvring at its most palpable. The real question is whether it is in the church's best interests to succumb to his seductive eulogy.
Have you heard of Azerbaijan I asked the interfaith activist? No, was the response back and is that not a place in the East? Another activist blurted out reflexively saying, "isn't it some Russian state?"
By highlighting Christian 'virtues' of responsibility, hard work, charity, compassion, humility - is he suggesting that other groups don't have those virtues? If so most people will not believe him. If he is acknowledging (in among the rather confusing language) that most people share these virtues - again, why highlight the Christians? Many Christians are indeed hard-working, compassionate and modest but so are many non-Christians and even many people with no faith! Christians do not have the monopoly on being moral and doing good...
It is wrong for David Cameron to single out Christians for special praise, to offer them privileged access to Downing Street and to support an expanded role for Christian groups in providing essential public services.
Again and again in the past few years, more and more politicians have been joining church leaders in popping up to declare that Britain is a Christian country, that we ought to be proud of this fact, and that we ought to proclaim and promote it.
Religion tends to remain in the background of British politics, and until recently David Cameron was no exception. There was a time, back in 2008, when Cameron compared his religious faith to 'the reception for Magic FM in the Chilterns: it sort of comes and goes.'
Interesting, around this time, David Cameron sought to come out as being an "evangelical Christian", and criticising those who did not share his beliefs. While the last census in 2011 showed that just over 59% of the population in the UK self-identify as being of a Christian faith, it did lead me, as a lapsed Catholic, to ask: What exactly does he mean?
There's no monopoly on victimhood and no fixed pattern to religious discrimination and violence. Despite what David Cameron says, Christians aren't unique in being persecuted, and nor are they always unblemished when it comes to dishing out the persecution.
As we approach the Easter weekend and the most significant time in the Christian calendar, my thoughts have been divided between David Cameron proclaiming to all his Christian faith and the matter of Scots Independence.
The evangelical movement has exploded across London with charismatic preachers offering their flock material success in this world as well as redemption in the next.
Maybe the Conservatives have realised that the riches offered through Jesus' love and compassion are the only viable option left open to them in seeking to fill the gap left as a result of their benefit cuts. Maybe Britain under the Conservatives will become a Christian country again...maybe I was wrong !
In a world where money is power, any organisation that makes that much profit - whether it's a church or not - needs to be held accountable somehow. The absence of data, especially in comparison to the Church of England's detailed accounts, poses the question - what is the US Catholic Church hiding? And at what point are world governments going to start holding them to account as they do with every other massive institution?
You see Mr Pickles, the Scots understand a pluralistic, religiously diverse country better than you do. The Irony is we might just be about to lose them because you do not understand what did make Britain a nation.