CHRISTIAN, NOT A QUAKER
American Culture Was Overwhelmingly Christian
The colonies were populated primarily by people shaped by various Christian traditions:
- Congregationalists (New England)
- Anglicans (Virginia, the South)
- Quakers (Pennsylvania)
- Baptists, Presbyterians, Catholics, etc.
The founders largely assumed the population would remain culturally Christian. They did not envision: A religious vacuum or a fully secular society as we understand it today. They assumed a religiously informed moral culture, even if they disagreed on doctrine.
The Real Conflict Was Among Christian Denominations. The issue wasn’t: “Should we be Christian or something else?” It was: “Which version of Christianity gets to be in charge?”
Different colonies had already experienced:
- State-supported churches
- Religious favoritism
- Discrimination against dissenters
So the founders had seen firsthand what happens when: government hooked up with a specific denomination created conflict.
It Wasn’t “Judeo vs Christian”. The founders were not choosing between Judaism and Christianity. Instead, they were operating in a world influenced by: Biblical tradition (Old + New Testament), Natural law philosophy, Enlightenment thought.
When we say “Judeo-Christian values” today, we’re using a modern label. They wouldn’t have framed it that way.
In spite of their largely Christian representation, they did not assume only Christianity would exist. Some founders—especially James Madison and Thomas Jefferson explicitly supported religious pluralism and protection for minority faiths.
Even at the time, America included Jews, Deists, Catholics(often distrusted) and Non-religious thinkers. So the idea wasn’t “Everyone will be Christian forever”. It was closer to “Government should not control religion and Religion should not control government.”
What “No State Religion” Really Meant.
The First Amendment does two things:
1. No establishment → The government cannot create or favor a national church
2. Free exercise → Individuals can practice their faith freely
This was a structural decision, not just a theological one.
The founders believed: Faith is stronger when it is chosen—not enforced.
Even though they rejected a state religion, the founders still believed religion (especially Christianity) would continue to shape character, behavior and public virtue. In other words, they separated church and state… but not morality and society.
That’s a powerful distinction.
The founders built a system that depends on a moral culture… while refusing to enforce that culture through government.
That creates a built-in tension:
- If the culture remains strong → freedom works
- If the culture weakens → the system strains
The problem is, the culture doesn’t always remain strong; didn’t remain strong.
A Sharper Way to Say It
Instead of saying: “They assumed everyone would be Christian”
I might say: “They rejected a government-enforced religion not because faith didn’t matter—but because they believed faith was too important to be controlled by government. They assumed the moral framework shaped by Christianity would continue to live in the people, not in the state.”
That’s historically stronger—and rhetorically more effective.
Assuming the founders’ expectations about culture can simply be restored by argument alone. They lived in a time where religion was embedded in daily life, communities reinforced shared norms and Institutions aligned with moral teaching.
Today’s environment is very different, so the challenge isn’t just “Return to what they believed”, it’s “How do you sustain a moral culture without state enforcement in a pluralistic society?”
That’s the modern problem.
The founders were dealing primarily with conflicts among Christian denominations. They rejected a state religion to avoid coercion and conflict. They still assumed a shared moral culture shaped by religion. They did not intend government to enforce belief. The system depends on internal virtue, not external force.
PART 2.0
A LARGELY CHRISTIAN COUNTRY DEALS WITH CONFLICTING CULTURE – ISLAM
Now comes the introduction of large numbers of Muslim immigrants. Not one at a time. Not in a way that naturally blends into an existing culture. But in numbers large enough to stand apart. And that matters. Because this is not happening in the America the founders knew. It is happening in an America that is already struggling to remember who it is.
For generations, this country was shaped—quietly, imperfectly, but unmistakably—by a Christian moral framework. It lived in our homes, our schools, our communities. It wasn’t enforced by government, but it was reinforced by culture.
That framework is fading. And as it fades, something else is happening at the same time. We are importing people from cultures that do not share the same assumptions about freedom, law, and the role of religion in public life—while, at the same time, loosening any expectation that they should adopt ours. That is not diversity. That is drift. And drift, left unchecked, becomes division.
Now layer on a harder truth. This did not happen by accident.
Policy decisions—made by leaders entrusted with protecting the integrity of the nation—have allowed hundreds of thousands of people to enter this country with minimal vetting. Not just criminal vetting. Cultural vetting. Civic vetting. The kind of vetting that asks a simple question: Are you coming here to become part of this system… or to live apart from it?
That question has not been asked often enough. And when it isn’t asked, it gets answered anyway—just not on our terms. Let’s be clear about something. Many immigrants come here for the right reasons. They want freedom. Opportunity. Stability. They work hard. They contribute. They assimilate. They strengthen the country. But immigration at scale is not defined by its best examples. It is defined by its overall impact.
Islam, in many parts of the world, is not just a religion—it is a governing structure. In some interpretations, it does not separate faith from law. In some expressions, it does not recognize the authority of a secular state over religious obligation.
And in its most extreme form, it has declared open hostility toward the very freedoms that define this country. That doesn’t describe everyone. But it doesn’t have to. When large groups settle together, they don’t have to change. They can sustain themselves. Reinforce themselves. Teach the next generation not how to become American—but how to remain something else.
That is where the tension begins. Because the American system does not run on laws alone. It runs on agreement.
- Agreement about what freedom means.
- Agreement about what the law requires.
- Agreement that no one stands above it.
If that agreement weakens, the system strains. If it breaks, the system fails.
So what do we do? We can demand assimilation—not the abandonment of faith, but the acceptance of a civic framework where the Constitution is the final authority. We can continue pretending that all cultures will naturally align over time. Or we can talk about more drastic measures—like deportation.
But deportation is not a slogan. It is a reality with consequences. Who decides? Based on what standard? And how do we enforce it without tearing at the very liberties we claim to defend?
There are no easy answers. But there is a hard truth. A nation that no longer teaches its own values cannot expect newcomers to adopt them. And a country that loses confidence in its identity will not be saved by policy alone. Because in the end, the greatest threat may not be what is coming across the border. It may be what is quietly disappearing within it. And that… is a problem no law can fix.
No Loss for Words
AMERICA AT A CROSSROADS
by Steve DanaCHRISTIAN, NOT A QUAKER
American Culture Was Overwhelmingly Christian
The colonies were populated primarily by people shaped by various Christian traditions:
The founders largely assumed the population would remain culturally Christian. They did not envision: A religious vacuum or a fully secular society as we understand it today. They assumed a religiously informed moral culture, even if they disagreed on doctrine.
The Real Conflict Was Among Christian Denominations. The issue wasn’t: “Should we be Christian or something else?” It was: “Which version of Christianity gets to be in charge?”
Different colonies had already experienced:
So the founders had seen firsthand what happens when: government hooked up with a specific denomination created conflict.
It Wasn’t “Judeo vs Christian”. The founders were not choosing between Judaism and Christianity. Instead, they were operating in a world influenced by: Biblical tradition (Old + New Testament), Natural law philosophy, Enlightenment thought.
When we say “Judeo-Christian values” today, we’re using a modern label. They wouldn’t have framed it that way.
In spite of their largely Christian representation, they did not assume only Christianity would exist. Some founders—especially James Madison and Thomas Jefferson explicitly supported religious pluralism and protection for minority faiths.
Even at the time, America included Jews, Deists, Catholics(often distrusted) and Non-religious thinkers. So the idea wasn’t “Everyone will be Christian forever”. It was closer to “Government should not control religion and Religion should not control government.”
What “No State Religion” Really Meant.
The First Amendment does two things:
1. No establishment → The government cannot create or favor a national church
2. Free exercise → Individuals can practice their faith freely
This was a structural decision, not just a theological one.
The founders believed: Faith is stronger when it is chosen—not enforced.
Even though they rejected a state religion, the founders still believed religion (especially Christianity) would continue to shape character, behavior and public virtue. In other words, they separated church and state… but not morality and society.
That’s a powerful distinction.
The founders built a system that depends on a moral culture… while refusing to enforce that culture through government.
That creates a built-in tension:
The problem is, the culture doesn’t always remain strong; didn’t remain strong.
A Sharper Way to Say It
Instead of saying: “They assumed everyone would be Christian”
I might say: “They rejected a government-enforced religion not because faith didn’t matter—but because they believed faith was too important to be controlled by government. They assumed the moral framework shaped by Christianity would continue to live in the people, not in the state.”
That’s historically stronger—and rhetorically more effective.
Assuming the founders’ expectations about culture can simply be restored by argument alone. They lived in a time where religion was embedded in daily life, communities reinforced shared norms and Institutions aligned with moral teaching.
Today’s environment is very different, so the challenge isn’t just “Return to what they believed”, it’s “How do you sustain a moral culture without state enforcement in a pluralistic society?”
That’s the modern problem.
The founders were dealing primarily with conflicts among Christian denominations. They rejected a state religion to avoid coercion and conflict. They still assumed a shared moral culture shaped by religion. They did not intend government to enforce belief. The system depends on internal virtue, not external force.
PART 2.0
A LARGELY CHRISTIAN COUNTRY DEALS WITH CONFLICTING CULTURE – ISLAM
Now comes the introduction of large numbers of Muslim immigrants. Not one at a time. Not in a way that naturally blends into an existing culture. But in numbers large enough to stand apart. And that matters. Because this is not happening in the America the founders knew. It is happening in an America that is already struggling to remember who it is.
For generations, this country was shaped—quietly, imperfectly, but unmistakably—by a Christian moral framework. It lived in our homes, our schools, our communities. It wasn’t enforced by government, but it was reinforced by culture.
That framework is fading. And as it fades, something else is happening at the same time. We are importing people from cultures that do not share the same assumptions about freedom, law, and the role of religion in public life—while, at the same time, loosening any expectation that they should adopt ours. That is not diversity. That is drift. And drift, left unchecked, becomes division.
Now layer on a harder truth. This did not happen by accident.
Policy decisions—made by leaders entrusted with protecting the integrity of the nation—have allowed hundreds of thousands of people to enter this country with minimal vetting. Not just criminal vetting. Cultural vetting. Civic vetting. The kind of vetting that asks a simple question: Are you coming here to become part of this system… or to live apart from it?
That question has not been asked often enough. And when it isn’t asked, it gets answered anyway—just not on our terms. Let’s be clear about something. Many immigrants come here for the right reasons. They want freedom. Opportunity. Stability. They work hard. They contribute. They assimilate. They strengthen the country. But immigration at scale is not defined by its best examples. It is defined by its overall impact.
Islam, in many parts of the world, is not just a religion—it is a governing structure. In some interpretations, it does not separate faith from law. In some expressions, it does not recognize the authority of a secular state over religious obligation.
And in its most extreme form, it has declared open hostility toward the very freedoms that define this country. That doesn’t describe everyone. But it doesn’t have to. When large groups settle together, they don’t have to change. They can sustain themselves. Reinforce themselves. Teach the next generation not how to become American—but how to remain something else.
That is where the tension begins. Because the American system does not run on laws alone. It runs on agreement.
If that agreement weakens, the system strains. If it breaks, the system fails.
So what do we do? We can demand assimilation—not the abandonment of faith, but the acceptance of a civic framework where the Constitution is the final authority. We can continue pretending that all cultures will naturally align over time. Or we can talk about more drastic measures—like deportation.
But deportation is not a slogan. It is a reality with consequences. Who decides? Based on what standard? And how do we enforce it without tearing at the very liberties we claim to defend?
There are no easy answers. But there is a hard truth. A nation that no longer teaches its own values cannot expect newcomers to adopt them. And a country that loses confidence in its identity will not be saved by policy alone. Because in the end, the greatest threat may not be what is coming across the border. It may be what is quietly disappearing within it. And that… is a problem no law can fix.
Posted in Political commentary | Leave a Comment »