We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
Except for our technologies, I say that we live today much as did wealthy Romans. Same culture. I agree with this comment at Quora, responding to a query about whether modern-day Italians are descendents of the Romans (not much):
What is more important than the genetic aspect of the "Roman" question is the legacy which Rome left to posterity: its concepts of organized society, of the Law, of tolerance of assimilated cultures and religions (up to the moment when Christianity prevailed!), its keen interest in science and culture and, last but not least, its ability to shape a language that still survives in practically all European and American languages today in its alphabet and vocabulary. Even the language we are now using to communicate owes most of its vocabulary (48%) to the language of Rome.
In this sense we can say that we are all "Romans."
Yeah, but we ruined it all by making the standard of living of a wealthy Roman available to almost all. It's getting so you can't lord your wealth over people and have them seethe with envy, well except for Progressives, they seethe.
Once Rome broke out of the Italian peninsula, it began to lose its Italic ethnicity rather rapidly; the Roman Empire was multi-ethnic in nature; emperors could come from anywhere, not just Italy (and they did).
And though Christianity did become the official religion, it took on this Roman civic trait of multi-ethnicity, not difficult since, despite its Jewish origins, it was never an ethnically-based religion.
The idea of ethnically-based Christian churches (Scottish Presbyterians, German Lutherans, the "Church of England") is essentially a Protestant construct which arose out of the Reformation.
Ethnically based churches are a prominent characteristic in Orthodox Christianity too. I don't think the Protestants originated that tendency. It was already present in the New Testament as well. It's not surprising that a region would develop an Christian identity with idiosyncratic links to their locality. When it becomes a criteria for excluding the outsider, it fails to embody the transcendent multi-culti of the Gospel.
Ethnically based churches This is a feature in that Christian faith breaches ethnicity so you can be a believer as well as being Greek or Roman but is a bug in that it becomes a tradition or doctrine that makes the Word of no effect .