II.) “The end (goal) of civil law is the common good of the civil community. The common good is common in that it refers to the good conditions of the whole.”
The Case for Christian Nationalism — p. 257
Here we see Bentham and Mill Utilitarianism and pragmatism. The end that is pursued is the common good that provide the best conditions for the whole. But how could that ever be measured successfully? In a nation of several millions who could possibly ever determine the “common good as conditions of the whole” with any accuracy? I, for one, do not trust any group of men to be able to determine the common good. Frankly, invoking the “common good” is just a cover justifying whatever mischievous behavior that any given magistrate might pursue. I’m sure Abraham Lincoln believed that the War of Northern Aggression was the common good for the whole nation.
Is the standard for civil law really man’s common good subjectively arrived at? Should we not insist instead that the end goal of civil law is God’s glory, knowing that if God’s glory is the end goal the consequence will be the common good that provides the best conditions for the whole?
III.) “It remains the case that cultural diversity harms civil unity, for it undermines the ability for a community to act with unity for its good. The community will have trouble ordering themselves through law and especially through culture. The consequence of multiculturalism is secularization (i.e. — ‘neutrality’), open conflict, or civil action that suppresses the activity and status of the newcomers. One key factor is the limitation of social power among a diverse population: an individual from one culture cannot easily correct one from another, nor can one people-group offer clear reasons for its behavior to the others. Most likely the injection of diversity, if on a mass scale, will result in a community of strife, distrust, discord, apprehension, and misunderstanding. A disordered body politic is not conducive to a well-ordered soul. As I’ve argued, the most suitable condition for a group of people to successfully pursue the complete good is one of cultural similarity. This is a natural principle of civil communities. Thus, receiving masses of people who are similar with regard to faith and dissimilar in other ways is generally bad policy. This is evident in the fact that the chief practical argument against Christian Nationalism in the Western countries, especially in the US, is that cultural diversity renders it practically impossible.”
1.) Wolfe talks about “secularization” and I’m not sure exactly what that is. I would prefer to say that the consequence of multiculturalism is not secularization (neutrality) but that multiculturalism is the consequence of a change in the national theological foundation that is being called “secularization” in order to make the change more palatable.
2.) Note especially this statement by Dr. Wolfe;
I’ve argued, the most suitable condition for a group of people to successfully pursue the complete good is one of cultural similarity. This is a natural principle of civil communities.
This is spot on accurate and it also provide the reason why Kinists insist that inter-racial/inter-cultural/inter-class marriages are on the whole a very bad idea and are to be, generally speaking, adamantly opposed. Marriage is the most foundational of all “civil-communities,” and the expectation should be that not only does cultural similarity obtain but so must racial and even class similarity. Naturally enough, exceptions will exist but exceptions are exceptions and those who insist on being exceptions should expect adversity that is not healthy for a well functioning civil community.
