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 
The Oath We Take… and the One We Keep
by Steve DanaThere was a time when an oath meant something. Not just the words. Not just the ceremony. The weight of it.
You stood, you raised your right hand, and you spoke words that bound you—not only to the people in front of you, but to something higher. Whether you were a man of deep faith or simply a person of conscience, you understood that you had crossed a line. You were no longer just a private citizen. You had made a commitment. And that commitment came with expectations.
I remember taking that oath. More than once.
Different terms. Different seasons of life. But the same words. The same promise: to faithfully execute the duties of the office, to support and defend the Constitution, and yes—for many of us—to do so “so help me God.”
That last phrase mattered to me. It wasn’t filler. It wasn’t tradition for tradition’s sake. It was a reminder that my word was not just given—it was witnessed.
And that changes a person. Or at least, it used to.
Today, I find myself asking a simple question: what exactly does an oath mean anymore? Because in our public life, we have become very good at requiring the oath… and not nearly as good at expecting anything from it.
In the biblical sense, an oath was never casual. It was a covenant. You did not invoke God’s name lightly, because to do so falsely was to place yourself under judgment. Your word was your bond, and your bond was tied to your standing before God. That kind of thinking produces a certain kind of person—careful, deliberate, aware that promises are not tools but commitments.
Our Bible Study Fellowship group is studying the book of Nehemiah chapter 10 this week. I was struck by the seriousness of the Jews as they swore an oath to God accompanied by a penalty for failing to honor the oath.
In Nehemiah 10 verse “29 all these now join their fellow Israelites the nobles, and bind themselves with a curse and an oath to follow the Law of God given through Moses the servant of God and to obey carefully all the commands, regulations and decrees of the Lord our Lord.”
It was that penalty part that got my attention. We do solemnly swear, under penalty of perjury as it says when you sit as a witness in a legal proceeding. Under penalty of criminal indictment.
What happened to that penalty part with our elected officials?
Over time, that part faded right off the paper.
In our constitutional system, the oath became less about a covenant with God and more about a commitment to a framework—the rule of law, the Constitution, the structure of government itself. That was not a step down. It was, in many ways, a step toward unity in a diverse nation. You didn’t have to share the same theology, but you did have to agree on the same foundation.
Fair enough. But something subtle happened along the way. We kept the words, but we lost the weight.
Today, an oath of office is required before an official can assume power. Refuse to take it, and you don’t get the job. The system is very clear about that. No oath, no authority. The line is sharp, and it is enforced.
But once the oath is taken? That’s where things get… flexible.
If you are testifying in a trial, lying will get you in jail. If you are a politician, lying will get you re-elected.
There is no law that says, “You have violated your oath, therefore you are guilty.” Instead, we rely on a patchwork of enforcement—criminal law if a statute is broken, impeachment if political will exists, elections if voters are paying attention. The oath itself becomes more of a reference point than a standard of judgment.
And so we arrive at a strange place.
An elected official can stand before the public, swear to uphold the Constitution, and then—through action or inaction—ignore, reinterpret, or selectively apply it in ways that would have once been unthinkable. As long as those actions fall within the gray areas of law or politics, the oath itself offers no direct consequence.
The promise is made. The accountability is optional.
Now, to be fair, we live in a complex society. Not every disagreement is a violation. Not every policy choice is a betrayal. Reasonable people can—and should—debate how best to uphold the Constitution and the laws of this country.
But that’s not what troubles me. What troubles me is something deeper.
It’s the growing sense that the oath has become a formality rather than a boundary. That it is something we say to gain office, not something we carry once we have it. That the words are recited, but not necessarily believed.
And that brings us back to the heart of the matter.
An oath is only as strong as the person taking it.
If a man believes he is accountable—to God, to the law, to his own conscience—then the oath has force. It shapes his decisions. It restrains him when it should. It guides him when the path is unclear.
But if he believes he is accountable only to circumstance, or power, or convenience… then the oath becomes little more than a step in the process. A box to check. A sentence to recite.
We have built a system that insists upon the taking of the oath. But have we built a culture that insists upon keeping it? That’s a harder question.
Because laws can only do so much. Courts can only reach so far. Elections, as important as they are, come long after the decisions have been made. In the end, the strength of an oath rests not in the enforcement mechanism, but in the character of the one who speaks it.
That may not be a satisfying answer in an age that looks for systems to solve every problem. But it is an honest one.
We cannot legislate integrity. We can only expect it. And that expectation begins with us.
If we, as citizens, treat the oath as ceremonial, we should not be surprised when those we elect do the same. If we reward results over principles, power over fidelity, outcomes over process, then the oath will continue to fade into the background.
But if we begin to ask different questions—if we begin to look not just at what our elected officials promise, but how they govern once in office—then perhaps the oath can recover some of its meaning.
Not because it is enforced more harshly. But because it is taken more seriously.
So here is the question we ought to be asking ourselves: “When an elected official raises their hand and swears to support and defend the Constitution… do we expect them to live that oath?”
Or have we become comfortable with simply hearing them say it?
Because the answer to that question may tell us less about our leaders… and more about us.
Posted in Ethics and Integrity, Faith, Partisan Politics, Political commentary, Social Commentary | Leave a Comment »