Speaker 1: And we're back with another edition of the Federalist Radio Hour.
I'm Matt Kittle, Senior Elections correspondent at the Federalist, and
your experienced Shirpa on today's quest for Knowledge. As always,
you can email the show at radio at the Federalist
dot com, follow us on x at FDRLST. Make sure
to subscribe wherever you download your podcast, and of course
to the premium version of our website as well. Our
guest today is Federalist Senior Editor John Daniel Davidson, author
of the alarming and profound new book Pagan America, The
Decline of Christianity and the Dark Age to Come. Welcome,
my friend. An excellent job on the book. I know
it's going well for you. It's an important book, and
it is not something that you were going to you
readily admit, it's not something you're going to read and say,
forget your troubles, come on, get happy.
Speaker 2: No, it's not that kind of a book. Part of
my motivation for writing the book was to help people
wrap their minds around what's happening and accept it. And
I actually find that, you know, when you can look
at something clear eyed and honestly and admit it. There's
a kind of kind of a sigh of relief that
you can let out and say, Okay, we are entering
into a post Christian age in the West. That's happening.
It was happening before any of us were born. It's
a world that we inherited and we're living through this
epochal change. And what does it mean for the West
to become post Christian. The argument of the book is
that it means the West is going to revert to
a form of paganism and what that means for America.
The book is called Pagan America, and I'm mostly concerned
with America is an end to our constitutional republic because
you cannot have a constitutional republic of self governing citizens
in a post Christian society, in a non Christian society,
and that's the kind of society that we're fast becoming.
So on the one hand, it seems doom and gloom.
The cover of the book has a burning church on it,
after all that I designed the cover. But on the
one hand, it is meant to be alarming because the
idea is to sort of wake people up. On the
other hand, I find there's a tremendous relief in being
able to be honest about our situation, because only then
can you kind of be clear eyed and clear thinking
about what we should do now and how maybe we
should change our priorities and change our way of life
in light of the reality and prepared.
Speaker 1: Yeah, you know, you mentioned that it sounds a lot
like and I think it's meant to be that way.
You know. The first step to healing, or at least
the first step to preparation, as we talked about, is
to know that you have the problem. To acknowledge that
you have the problem. The problem is all around you.
The country is literally burning down around you in the
name of a war on faith and particularly Judeo Christian
values that founded this country. And it's all very spell
down in your book. I mean, you take it from,
you know, the lens of what is happening today. But
this didn't happen in the last since Donald Trump was
elected in two This is the years and years and
years in the making.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean, it's it's decades in the making. At least,
it's really centuries in the making. But yeah, there's a
sense in which for a long time, conservatives in the
United States and Christians in the United States have been
in a kind of fog, kind of delusional fog about
what our situation is and what the remedy is to
our situation. And I am very clear in the book
as well that Donald Trump is not going to save us. Right,
a Republican majority in the House is not going to
save us. A five or six person majority on the
Supreme Court even is not going to save us. That
the political world is not going to be the solution
to the problem, because the problem is not a political problem.
It's a religious problem. It's a problem of a loss
of faith. Right, all nations, including ours, are built on
theological claims. And part of the premise of my argument
that I lay out in the second chapter is that
America isn't just a agnostic proposition of merely propositional country.
The proposition at the heart of the American experiment that
all men are created equal is Christianity. It is Christianity
and all that comes with it. So to the extent
that we are a propositional nation, what we are proposing
is the Christian faith as the organizing principle for our
civic and national life together. So if you discard Christianity,
you are going to discard the substance and the source
of our claims about how we should order society on
what basis right. The basis of our society is the
doctrine of Imago Day that all men are created equal
in the eyes of God. Therefore they are equal with
respect to the law, and their consent is required for
a just government. Adjust government rules by the consent of
the government. These are Christian ideas, their Christian claims, their
theological claims, and we lose sight of that, and we
think that the solution is somehow political because the problem
is just is just merely political, when the problem is
that we have lost our faith and without a people
who are predominantly Christian in their religious practices, in their
daily and family lives. Without that kind of a people,
you can't have the kind of republic that our founders
laid out for us and gave to us. And that
is really the starting point for the book. Say, this
is what our country was set up as, this is
the kind of people our founders said we had to
be to keep it. We are no longer that kind
of a people. Therefore, we are no longer going to
be what we have been for most of our history history.
Speaker 1: The book reminds us how important that is, the notion
that for those who don't remember history are doomed to
repeat it America, and we talk about this often, and
we've talked about this to an extensive degree of late
about you know, the famous empires of the world collapsing,
But the famous empires of the world collapsed from within,
and people failed to get that point. We became an empire,
We became that city, that shining city on the hill.
We became that citadel for values based on how we
were founded, that Christian faith, all of those ideas that
you expressed. And is this more of history repeating itself
once again that once you the myriad examples of once
you turn your back on faith, once you turn your
back on family and the foundational values, there is a
reckoning for that.
Speaker 2: Yeah, there certainly is. And this was to a large extent,
this was the theme and the purpose of Saint Augustine's
City of God. He was writing at a time when
the Roman Empire really was beginning it's collapse and a
lot of the pagan Romans were blaming the Christians for
Rome's troubles, and Saint Augustine wrote what he wrote in
that book, and he put forth an argument essentially, we
won't go deep into a city of God right now.
But he was sort of clapping back at that idea
and saying, look, it's not the Christians who are the
cause of Rome's problems. Rome's problems began before the Christians
came on long and they are reaping the fruits of
the seeds that they have sown. And the decrepitude and
the corruption and the decline of the Roman Empire are
something that has its roots in the paganism of the
Roman Empire, not in the Christianity, which at that time
was still relatively new in the life of Rome. So
but to you answer your question, yes, I think it's
long been understood. It was understood by our founding fathers.
It was understood by Abraham Lincoln, who famously said all
the armies of Europe could not set a track upon
the Blue Ridge. As a nation of free men, we
will live forever or die by suicide. So Americans have
always understood that we were kind of born free in
a sense, and that our freedom was something that was
for us to preserve or to squander. And I think
that it is becoming clear now here in the second
decade of the twenty first century that we've squandered it,
and the broad contours of what American civilization is going
to be moving forward into the post Christian future. The
contours of that are starting to come into view. And
part of my motivation for the book was to kind
of trace those contours for people, help them to see it,
and help them to accept it.
Speaker 1: Right, there are two paths that I see, and I
think that you point out well in your book. I
don't mean to just you know, generalize or you know,
move this into two different paths. You have a lot
of different things going on in this book, but there
are people in this country who have and are in
the process of willingly giving up that notion that you
talk about. The Americans were gifted this idea that men
are born free. I mean, and again to Abraham Lincoln.
You know, his his founding principles were always based on
the Declaration of Independence. You know that that notion that
we all have those you know, those those basic rights.
But there are others who are being compelled to do so,
and you spell this out in the book. I think
very well just about how there is coercion, and then
there is no need for coercion because people are willingly
giving up that great God given gift.
Speaker 2: Yeah yeah, And Tokville talks about this as well, that
this is one of the dangers of democracy that when
people figure out that they can, you know, exchange their
freedom for goods that they can sort of get from
the government, that they'll they'll give up their freedom, you know,
in exchange for that because because liberty can be hard.
I think that we see that, we're seeing that more
and more. But part of the reason that that is
a problem is because we have lost that sense of
what America is supposed to be about, about what self
government and citizenship and being a member of a of
a of a republic is supposed to be about. There
was always an understanding in America from the beginning that
the responsibilities of being part of a republic meant that
you had to you had to be virtuous in your
own person, in your own family, in your community, in
your town, in your and on and on out from
from the set from the hearthstone of your own family.
Right and the founders understood that when they even when
they said that all men are created with the unalienable
right of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. To them,
the pursuit of happiness wasn't this libertarian live and let
live notion that everyone kind of like pursues their own truth.
They would have understood that phrase to mean the acquisition
of virtue. The pursuit of happiness means becoming virtuous.
Speaker 1: And Enlightenment is tied into that because that whole movement
came out of the Enlightenment age of Founders who were
very tapped into that notion. But that Enlightenment is often
confused by, you know, particularly those pushing an agenda from
the left as completely without faith, or that it.
Speaker 2: Was sort of like it had sort of the Enlightenment
had sort of obviated the need for Christianity exactly, which
I think is not only is that just wrong, but
that was an intentional agenda of certain figures in the
Enlightenment who had a really animosity toward Christianity, figures like Voltaire,
who were really open about their hostility toward the Christian
faith and their contempt for it, and they tried to
put forth what essentially are Christian moral principles under the
umbrella of Enlightenment moral principles and saying we can now
have sort of christless Christianity. We can have these moral
principles divorced from the theological claims of Christianity. Right, And
Voltaire wasn't the only one. I think that a lot
of that is wrongly attributed to the Founding Fathers if
you look at what the Founding Fathers said about faith,
about the role of religion in public life and even
in private life, their notions of virtue we were just
talking about. It's not that there was a uniformity of
thought among the Founders visa the religion, right. There was,
you know, obviously John Adams and Thomas Jefferson, although they
were great friends, had very different views of God and religion.
But there was at least an acknowledgment that Christianity and
Christian moral teachings were indispensable to the survival of the republic,
that the people themselves had to be virtuous, they had
to be shaped by Christian moral precepts, and without that
the republic wouldn't last. Now, you know, I would further argue,
and I do argue in the book, that figures like
Voltaire were wrong, Right, they were wrong that you can
have christless Christianity, that you can have the culture without
the cult, right. And I think the French Revolution is
a big point in favor of my argument. Right. It's
a very profound difference between the French Revolution and the
American Revolution, so much so that you can properly call
the French Revolution a revolution who was a revolution against Christianity.
The American Revolution wasn't so much a revolution, I think,
you know, calling it that is a bit of a misnomer.
It was it was, in a way a restoration of
what those early Americans understood to be there their due
rights as really as Englishmen, right, and why they came
here in the first place. Yes, yes, And so they
were asserting something that they felt had been taken unjustly
from them by the British Parliament and the Crown. So
not so much a revolutions as a restoration that required
a political break right, which of course they laid out
in the Declaration. But the key point, and the key
takeaway is that you cannot retain these notions of individual dignity,
human rights, equality before the law, freedom of speech, freedom
of religion. You cannot jettison Christianity and hope to hold
on to these fundamentally Christian principles and precepts, you will
also discard those things. And it's not going to take generations.
It's not going to take centuries. And how do I
know that because we are watching it happen in real time.
Speaker 3: This is Molly Hemingway encouraging you to listen to my
favorite podcast, Issues, et cetera. Every day you get in
depth interviews with host Todd Wilkin, asking expert guests substantive,
thought provoking questions on all of the important news and
issues of our day. The expert guests are in culture, law, ethics, philosophy, theology,
and apologetics. Expert guests expansive topics, always extolling christ issues,
et cetera.
Speaker 1: Yes, and that's by the same token you cannoteshew those things.
You cannot cast those things off that made this country
what it was, is the success that it was. You
can't do that. You can't have those things and have
the cult. You can't do those things and have government control.
You can't do those things. Have Christian ideas at the foundation,
have republican style democracy at the foundation, constitutional democracy. You
can't have those things if you have faith if you
have the quest for virtue or even so, as you
note in your book, the idea of virtue at all,
that that can there is no set right, there is
no set wrong, there is no set virtue.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 1: Right, So this gets to this, it's to to.
Speaker 2: How I try to define paganism, because pagan and paganism
is kind of an amorphous term. It's been used different
ways throughout throughout history. It was, uh, you know, originally
just use to refer to people who are outside the
boundaries of the Roman Empire, the Rustic or the Ristisi,
the people who lived in in in the countryside. It
has been used as a pejorative obviously, uh, over the
over the centuries. I mean it to refer to those
who reject transcendent a transcendent God, who reject objective morality,
who reject really even the sense of objective reality, and
in favor of the pagan ethos, which is a kind
of embracing of the contingency of the here and now
and the ever change shifting world that we live in,
which which manifests itself on a societal level by an
embrace of relativism, an embrace of moral subjectivity. Uh. And
and an embrace of the kind of uh self creation
that we see now narcissism. Uh, well, narcissism is part
of it, right, Uh even you know, we get into
get into this in the book. You know, the transgender
and transhuman ideology that we see bubbling up is a
kind of expression of neo paganism. That is, the pagan
ethos that is that is almost an inversion of the
Christian ethos. It rejects a transcendent God, it rejects objective
moral truth, it rejects objective reality, uh and embraces a
radical kind of subjectivity. And you know, in a radically
subjective world, the basis for uh political power or isn't
consent of the governed. It's force, it's coercion. It might
makes right. And this has always been the basis of
pagan societies, which is why the most advanced pagan societies,
and this is true across vast expanses of time and
geography and cultures. The more advanced the pagan society, the
more it was organized as a slave empire that had
a caste system where most of the people were slaves
and a fewer number of people were in the ruling class.
And might really did make right, and that is that
is going to become I argue that is going to
become a feature of American life in a post Christian age.
And toward the end of the book, I try to
tease out some of the ways that we see a
kind of what I call a pagan state emerging, and
that is an administrative bureaucracy, a deep state that has
absolutely no use for the Constitution and the Christian moral
precepts that undergird the Constitution.
Speaker 1: Well, I hope that doesn't happen. Boy, I hate to
see that.
Speaker 2: I mean, just look at the look at the way
our societal elites and our governing class treat something like
the First Amendment. They think, I mean, we have right
now in Governor Tim Waltz, a Major Party vice presidential candidate,
on the record saying that the First Amendment affords no
protection against misinformation or hate speech. Well, of course, the
First Amendment says nothing about misinformation or hate speech. There
is no such thing, constitutionally speaking as hate speech. Clearly,
what Tim Waltz means is that he would like to
use the power of the government to prevent you from
saying things that he and his friends don't like or
disagree with. Now, that is might makes right. That is
the pagan ethos at work. That is rule by force.
And they're not even really trying to disguise it that
much anymore. They're just coming out and saying and saying,
the First Amendment should not protect your right to say
things that we in the government think is wrong.
Speaker 1: Oh, you're absolutely right. And not only that, I mean
you could expect that, I guess from a politician. You
could expect that from someone who wants to hold power.
But we're seeing this from the supposed defenders of the
First Amendment, the people who make their living off the
First Amendent. The Washington Post, most recently telling the brain
trust of the Biden administration, can't you stop Elon Musk
and Donald Trump from talking to each other? Next?
Speaker 4: Right?
Speaker 2: Yeah? Isn't there anything the White House can do to
intervene in a conversation between Elon Musk and Donald Trump
on a platform that Elon Musk owns.
Speaker 1: So it's it's crazy.
Speaker 2: You know, this was a Washington Post reporter that just
just recently said this in a White House briefing with
no shame, no shame, no apparent recognition that what he
was calling for, he was asking the government to suppress
the First Amendment rights of his own countrymen, and doing
it kind of without blinking an eye, you know. So
we've we're we're kind of a lot further along, I
think in this process than people realize, and it's important
to understand what these people will do as they gain power,
and as we move further into really a post Christian
age in America, it's going to become harder and harder
really to even make the argument that the First Amendment
is legitimate right. More and more you see this, and
this isn't you know. This has been going on for
a while a decade ago. In twenty fourteen, a lot
of people maybe have forgotten this. But during Obama's second term,
every single Democratic senator voted to amend the First Amendment
under the guise of campaign finance reform, and essentially what
they were proposing was to gut the First Amendment and
saying in the lead up to an election, you don't
have a First Amendment right to say whatever you want.
And if more than one person pools their resources together
to I don't know, make a documentary or make an
ad or make a video for the Internet to express
their political views. You could run a foul federal campaign
finance law and find yourself in a lot of trouble.
They sold it to one another anyway, and argued for
it on the floor of the Senate as an amendment
to the First Amendment. The First Amendment needs some tweaking.
What they were doing there was admitting that they have
no use for the First Amendment and they would like
to get rid of it completely, and they will keep
trying to do that, and I think that they will succeed.
And part of the reason going back to sort of
these larger, kind of fifty thousand foot view of things,
if you reject the claims of Christianity, you have to
reject the First Amendment too. The truths that are self evident,
right that all men are created equal, are only self
evident to a moral imagination that's been formed by the
Christian faith and that accepts the claims of the Christian religion.
It's not self evident at all. If you reject those.
Speaker 4: Claims, you have more wealth than your neighbor, and they
don't have a clue. The Watched Out on Wall Street
podcast with Chris Markowski every day. Chris helps unpack the
connection between politics and the economy and how it affects
your wallet. Don't get into this vicious cycle of trying
to compete with people on social media or people you
live near with material items. If you're putting money away,
you can take advantage of those opportunities throughout your life.
Whether it's happening in or down on Wall Street, it's
affecting you financially.
Speaker 2: Be informed.
Speaker 4: Check out the Watchdot on Wall Street podcast with christ
Markowski on Apple, Spotify or wherever you get your podcasts.
Speaker 1: Exactly. Yes, and I'm reminded too. It was about that
same time that you mentioned the amendment to the Amendment,
which you know is if you don't laugh, you cry.
That's why I you know, I find it hilarious. Thankfully
it didn't go anywhere, but here we are, and we're
going to get into that in just a moment. The
media's role, the particularly the corporate media, the accomplice medias
I like to call them, but you know, I was
thinking at that same time, you had Dick Durbin, Senator
from Illinois, pushing a litmus test for who could use
the First Amendment and who couldn't in the world of reporting,
and all right.
Speaker 2: Who was a citizen journalist and who is a credential
journalist as though the Constitution and the Bill of Rights
makes a distinction, which it doesn't.
Speaker 1: And that was gaining currency, you know, And that's the
argument that you're talking about. I want to delve into
that in just a bit here, but we are talking
with Federalist Senior Editor John Daniel Davidson, author of clearly
an alarming and profound new book, Pagan America, The Decline
of Christianity and the Dark Age to Come. The Dark
Age to Come and the decline of our republic as
we know it as it was founded, is really being
accelerated by a complicit media that is owned by a
conglomerate less and less people controlling messages and making sure
that the message they want out there is out there,
and suppressing the message they don't want out there. How
much has and will the media at large play in
this battle? Well, clearly, we.
Speaker 2: Were just talking about this Washington Post reporter who was
calling for censorship of Trump and Musk. The media, the
corporate media or establishment media. We don't like to use
the phrase mainstream media. At the federalists because they are
far outside the mainstream of American life. But but the
the corporate media is, you know, has ironically sort of
turned against the First Amendment. And you can see this
more and more in the way that they they throw
around terms like misinformation or disinformation. These are Soviet terms, malinformation,
these are these are these are Soviet terms that originally
were meant to refer to Soviet propaganda to combat, you know,
the Western propaganda basically during the Cold.
Speaker 1: War, the Cold War.
Speaker 4: Terms.
Speaker 2: Now our media just used them as as though they're legitimate.
They're legitimate terms to talk about things that shouldn't be
allowed in the public square or on the digital square,
and and more specifically, things that the government should suppress
by force. So you have in the corporate media, the
establishment media, a meeting of the minds with not only
the people that own these properties, right, which, as you note,
is a small number of very wealthy individuals, you know,
who control these media outlets. A lot of the major
media figures themselves have also bought into this this and
there's a there's a kind of collusion or symbiotic relationship
with elements in the administrative state, in the administrative bureaucracy
of the federal government and the media and big tech
all kind of and plus the NGO world all kind
of working together on this on the basis of a
shared assumption about free speech, namely that free speech is
far too free and the First Amendment is outdated and
needs to be very severely curtailed, and specific outlets like
the Federalists need to be silenced. And if you say
things that contradict the regime approved neo pagan ideology, like
for example, men or men and women are women. You know,
the transgender individuals are mentally ill and they need help.
They don't need to be affirmed in their delusion that
they that a man can become a woman or a
woman can become a man. If you say anything like that,
If you say that abortion should be illegal because it's
the taking of an innicent human life. If you question
same sex marriage, if you even question things that are
maybe you know, foreign policy related, like our support for Ukraine,
all of these, If you question the integrity of our
elections or outcomes of elections, a whole laundry list of
things that you can't that these people, very powerful people
and institutions don't think that Americans should be allowed to
say publicly they and they use these old Soviet terms
to give a veneer of legitimacy. They rely on these
NGOs housed at academic institutions to give a veneer of
academic legitimacy to what is really just plain old coercion,
plain old speech suppression. Really, when it comes down to
is suppression of speech at the barrel of gun, you know,
because they're asking the government to intervene and enforced speech.
And if you want to know what it looks like
in practice, all we have to do is look over
the pond to Great Britain, where videos are beginning to
surface of armed police coming to people's houses and arresting
them for making posts on Facebook, for saying things that
the government disapproves of on Facebook. One man just got
twenty months in prison for a Facebook post. So it's
not like a theoretical thing.
Speaker 1: It's not a distract say, it definitely is not. You
don't have to look across the bout. You're right, those
are very clear and compelling examples of the abuses of
governments happened here too. Well. I mean, just take a
look at the vast majority of people who assembled to
redress the government on January sixth of twenty twenty one.
I mean, it is happening, It is going on now,
and I guess that ultimately is what you're really driving
home in this book is that there are a lot
of accomplices to destroying what we have known in this country,
and there seems to be absolutely no relenting on that
front from the people who want to do that, who
have the power to do that, the resources to do that.
But I'd like to close on a little bit more positives.
What do we do about it? What do we do
about it? And I ask you this in context of
when I was covering the parade of contenders and pretenders
in the Republican Party for the presidential nomination chase back
in twenty three, the long Process, the long slog in Iowa.
Heard a lot from a guy who gained a great
deal of attention by the name of the Vake Ramaswami,
and one of his dominant messages during the campaign was
Americans are at this point where they are filling this
vacancy of faith in what we're talking about Christian basic
Judeo Christian values. They're filling it with all kinds of
garbage and crap and nonsense, and that is leading to
exactly what you're writing about. He believes that there is
a hunger to return to those foundational values. Did you
Are you seeing that in your reporting on this issue.
Speaker 2: There certainly is a growing recognition that a life without God,
without faith, without religion is empty and unsatisfying. And I
think that you are seeing that in different enclaves around
the country. There's a kind of awakening that's going on.
And it's Catholic, it's Protestant, it's growing numbers of people
joining the Orthodox Church as well. I think it's clear,
but that movement, that shift is also part of the
shift that's driving people into new forms of paganism as well.
The future of America is not this secular, atheist scientific materialists,
you know, liberal utopia. That that is not what our
future holds. Our future is a future of religious faith.
And the question is what kind of religious faith is it?
Because because what kind of religious faith we embrace as
a country will determine our form of government and our
society in the generations to come. And so I am
encouraged and I have great hope.
Speaker 1: In seeing the renewed.
Speaker 2: Interest in Christianity, and even in more traditional forms of Christianity,
which I believe are more durable over time. And I
think that the future of our republic, such as it is,
and any hope for a restoration of the American Republic,
is going to come from these faith communities, these Christians,
specifically Christian communities. They will be sort of the places
where the flame is preserved through the dark night of
America's soul. And that will be, you know, those faith
communities will the faith that is practiced there is going
to be not a nominal faith, not a faith of
mass religion or mass culture, not the kind of lukewarm
faith that came to typify American Christianity in the last century,
where you sort of went to church on Christmas in
Easter and there was a certain kind of social respectability
that came along with being.
Speaker 1: A church goer.
Speaker 2: There's no there's not going to be any social respectability
that comes with being a Christian anymore. There already isn't.
In fact, it's a stigma for Vice President Kamala Harris.
She already came out against Catholics who remembers the Knights
of Columbus when she was a US Senator saying that
being a Knight of Columbus, of which I am one,
disqualifies a person for public office. Bernie Sanders has said
the same thing. The American left thinks being a faithful,
believing Christian disqualifies you for offices of public trust. So
the point is the Christianity of the future in America
is going to be a more faithful Christianity is that
doesn't confer any worldly benefits, and so it may be
a smaller flock, but it will be a more potent faith.
And it is from those communities, and from that faith
will emerge an American Christianity that will break the Pagan
stranglehold over this country. Because the only thing, and I
talk about this in the book, the only thing that
ever broke the stranglehold of Pagan Empire over pagan peoples
was its encounter with Christianity. And it will be a
future encounter with a renewed Christianity that will break the
hold of Pagan America. That's my hope in prayer.
Speaker 1: Yeah, interesting, because really it's it is foundational, isn't it.
I mean, not just foundational to this republic, foundational to
the Christian faith. Yes, that's what you had. You had
small communities that grew and grew and grew. If you know,
if and they paid the price they paid, that's terrible.
Speaker 2: And that's the other thing that people need to wrap
their heads around and just and relax into it and
take heart. Persecution will come to you. Our Lord promised it,
so persecution will come. Accept it, and then and then
accept that acution is necessary. The Church has always been persecuted.
The Church in America has not been persecuted like it's
going to be. But you know, we're not Americans first.
We're Christians first. And America is something that we may
have again, but will it will be in America that's
based upon the Christian faith. And so again I have
great hope in that it's not a council of despair.
It's a council of hope and of fortitude and courage
for the fight to come.
Speaker 1: One thing we do know as students of history, for
those who have turned their back on God, it has
not worked out well. And history will restore what we
have to come based on what we have experienced, will
come again. So fascinating exploration, very necessary exploration of where
we're at in America and where it suggests we're going.
Thanks to my guest today, Federals Senior editor John Daniel Davidson,
author of the new book Pagan America, The Decline of
Christianity and the Dark Age to Come. You've been listening
to another edition of The Federalist Radio Hour. I'm Matt Kittle,
senior correspondent at the Federalist. We'll be back soon with more.
Until then, stay lovers of freedom and anxious for the Fray.